People v. Bolding
G055187M
Cal. Ct. App.May 24, 2019Background
- Defendant Jedadiah Bolding was convicted of one count of grand theft and eight counts of money laundering (Pen. Code § 186.10(a)) based on transactions from his personal credit union account tied to alleged embezzlement from his employer law firm.
- Forensic accounting identified 524 unauthorized checks to Bolding totaling $1,115,396; the prosecution tied specific transfers/payments (counts 20–27) from Bolding’s account as money laundering transactions exceeding $5,000 (or totaling over $5,000 within a seven-day period).
- Bolding testified he did not steal and claimed legitimate income, reimbursements, and transfers from a family trust; the jury acquitted him of multiple falsifying-records charges (fraud-based) but convicted him of grand theft and the money laundering counts.
- The trial court imposed concurrent three-year terms on money laundering counts and enhancements including an aggravated white-collar crime enhancement (Pen. Code § 186.11(a)) and ordered restitution of $1,115,396.
- On appeal the court addressed (1) whether dollar-for-dollar tracing of illicit funds to each transaction is required under § 186.10(a); (2) sufficiency of evidence for count 25 (the $5,000 transaction); (3) correctness of jury instructions; (4) validity of the white-collar enhancement; and (5) presentence custody credits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 186.10(a) requires dollar-for-dollar tracing of illicit funds to each monetary transaction | Prosecution: need only show the amount of illegally obtained funds equals or exceeds the transaction amount; money is fungible so full tracing is unnecessary | Bolding: Mays requires dollar-for-dollar tracing when funds are commingled; transactions here could be covered by legitimate deposits | Court: Rejected Mays’ dollar-for-dollar rule; prosecution need not trace each dollar. It must show illegally obtained funds in total equal or exceed the transaction amount (fungibility acknowledged). Convictions affirmed on this ground. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for count 25 (alleged $5,000 transaction) | Prosecution: additional withdrawals within 7-day window pushed total over $5,000; bank records support a >$5,000 series | Bolding: single $5,000 transfer alone insufficient because statute requires "more than $5,000" | Court: Sufficient evidence—multiple withdrawals within seven days raised total above $5,000; jury properly relied on underlying bank detail. |
| Jury instruction correctness on money laundering elements (CALCRIM No. 2997) | Prosecution: instruction mirrors statutory elements; no modification required | Bolding: instruction should require finding that at least $5,000 of the transaction was criminal proceeds (per Mays) | Court: Defendant forfeited the claim by not requesting clarification; instruction correctly tracked the statute; issue forfeited. |
| Validity of white-collar crime enhancement (Pen. Code § 186.11(a)) | Prosecution: theft/embezzlement theory supports enhancement because underlying scheme involved embezzlement/fraud | Bolding: enhancement improper because money laundering (§186.10) lacks fraud or embezzlement as a material element; related fraud counts were acquitted | Court: Enhancement reversed—§186.11(a) requires related felonies with fraud or embezzlement as material elements; money laundering does not include those elements and the fraud-based counts were acquitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mays, 148 Cal.App.4th 13 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (applied dollar-for-dollar tracing in commingled-account context)
- U.S. v. Rutgard, 116 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir. 1997) (adopted stricter tracing rules for § 1957; treated as minority view)
- U.S. v. Moore, 27 F.3d 969 (4th Cir. 1994) (majority view: money is fungible; government may treat transacted funds as criminal up to the amount of illicit proceeds)
- U.S. v. Johnson, 971 F.2d 562 (10th Cir. 1992) (explained fungibility and rejection of a tracing rule that would enable evasion by commingling)
- U.S. v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2008) (interpreted “proceeds” ambiguity under federal statute; led Congress to amend § 1956 to define proceeds as including gross receipts)