State of Louisiana v. Martin G. Lemoine
222 So. 3d 688
La.2017Background
- Defendant Lemoine, president of Morel G. Lemoine Distributors, ran a multi-year scheme overbilling Union Pacific for diesel fuel; Union Pacific paid by check into Morel’s business account.
- The indictment charged money laundering under La. R.S. 14:230(B)(2) for a 46-day period (Jan. 20–Mar. 6, 1998) based on deposits and use of those checks.
- At trial a jury convicted Lemoine of laundering $20,001; Lemoine moved for post-verdict acquittal arguing insufficient evidence.
- The trial court granted the acquittal; the First Circuit affirmed, concluding the State failed to prove Lemoine acted for the purpose of committing or furthering criminal activity.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review to decide whether, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational juror could find the elements of § 14:230(B)(2) proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Court reversed the First Circuit, holding the evidence supported a finding that Lemoine knowingly made things of value (checks) available for the purpose of committing or furthering the overbilling scheme and remanded for consideration of other grounds for acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lemoine) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence established defendant acted "for the purpose of committing or furthering" criminal activity under R.S. 14:230(B)(2) | Testimony showed checks from inflated invoices were deposited and used to pay wages/expenses that perpetuated the scheme; jurors could infer purpose to further crime | No direct proof the deposited checks (commingled funds) were used during the charged period to further criminal activity; insufficient specific use/trace of "dirty" funds | Reversed First Circuit: jurors rationally could find defendant knowingly made things of value available with the purpose of furthering the scheme (general intent suffices) |
| Whether commingling required dollar-for-dollar tracing of tainted funds | Commingling of illegal proceeds into the business account and using that account to operate the enterprise sufficed; tracing not required | Because funds were commingled (checks + legitimate receipts), State must trace that the tainted portion financed the illicit conduct | Rejected tracing requirement; Louisiana law does not require the State to isolate specific tainted dollars once commingled — showing tainted funds were a portion of account and used to further crime is sufficient |
| Whether checks qualify as "things of value" under § 14:230(B)(2) for charged statute | Checks were "things of value" and statute (as applied) proscribes transactions involving proceeds; prosecution pursued § (B)(2) because definition of "funds" then excluded checks in other subsections | At the time, some Louisiana precedent held checks were not "funds," undermining money-laundering theory | Court treated checks as "things of value" actionable under § (B)(2) and upheld prosecution on that basis |
| Whether Louisiana § 14:230 should be interpreted by analogy to federal money‑laundering law (requiring specific intent or concealment) | State argued state statute is general-intent, broader in some respects; federal analogies (specific intent/concealment) are inapposite | Lemoine argued First Circuit erred by importing federal standards and by requiring proof of specific concealment/promotion intent | Court held Louisiana law is a general-intent statute; federal-specific-intent requirements need not be imported; concealment is one of many prohibited acts and not a required element here |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (discussing money‑laundering statutory interpretation issues)
- State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La. 1988) (standard on appellate review of factfinder credibility findings)
- United States v. Loe, 248 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2001) (federal precedent on commingling / tracing contrasted in opinion)
- United States v. Ward, 197 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2000) (commingling need not defeat money‑laundering prosecution)
- State v. Odom, 993 So.2d 663 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (prior Louisiana decision about whether checks constitute "funds")