United States v. Bansal, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24746

Background

Bansal and Mullinix were convicted on a 42-count indictment alleging a multinational, internet-based drug distribution scheme operating 2003–2005.
Bansal supervised domestic operations, including receiving bulk shipments from India, storing, repackaging, shipping, and managing finances and offshore accounts.
Mullinix operated online pharmacies (notably mymeds.com) where customers paid by credit card or PayPal for prescription drugs to be mailed domestically.
Approximately $1.3 million in proceeds flowed between the defendants and coconspirators from 2003–2005; searches recovered hundreds of gallons of contraband medications and related records.
Post-arrest, both defendants were represented by various attorneys; Mullinix sought and obtained pro se status at trial, and both challenged numerous district court rulings during appeal.
The district court admitted extensive evidence and the jury convicted on all charged counts, including conspiracy, money laundering, and CCE-related offenses.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do Santos and plain-error review require reversal of money laundering convictions?	Bansal/Mullinix contend proceeds must be profits, merging with underlying crimes.	The government may prove laundering from gross receipts where appropriate; Santos permits this in internet drug cases.	Convictions affirmed; proceeds may be gross receipts; plain-error review applied; evidence supported elements.
Is the CCE indictment sufficient after Richardson to support three predicate felonies?	Indictment lacks explicit three predicate felonies tied to the CCE charge.	Indictment may incorporate predicate acts by reference and still satisfy Richardson.	Indictment passes muster; incorporation by reference allowed; three predicate felonies appear within the indictment.
Was the suppression of wiretap materials proper given sealing delays?	Delays in sealing violated § 2518(8)(a) and require suppression.	Delay was excusable due to reasonable mistakes of fact; delays were excusable under Carson.	Delays justified by reasonable mistake of fact; no suppression required.
Did Apprendi violations occur during sentencing for Count One?	Court incorrectly applied Schedule IV provisions without specific drug findings.	Any findings would be limited to Schedule IV; harmless error since range remained within permissible bounds.	Apprendi violation, if any, was harmless; sentences affirmed.
Was the evidence sufficient to convict on Counts One and Two (conspiracy to distribute/import)?	Internet-based distribution may not have been illegal when charged.	Distributions without prescriptions were illegal under § 841(a) regardless of later Ryan Haight Act changes.	Evidence was sufficient; conspiracy convictions affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (Supreme Court 2008) (defines 'proceeds' as profits in some contexts; informs merger analysis)
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (Supreme Court 1999) (requires specificity of predicate offenses for CCE indictments)
United States v. Flaharty, 295 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2002) (permits incorporation by reference of predicate felonies for CCE indictment)
United States v. Echeverri, 854 F.2d 638 (3d Cir. 1988) (indictment may reference broader conduct rather than listing every predicate act)
United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1986) (harmless-error considerations for indictments)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1999) (harmless-error doctrine in reviewing judgments)
Barbosa v. United States, 271 F.3d 438 (3d Cir. 2001) (Apprendi framework and sentencing considerations)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (Supreme Court 2002) (harmless-error analysis for indictment defects)
Montanez v. Thompson, 603 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2010) (reasonableness standards in government conduct and immunity contexts)
United States v. Coney, 407 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2005) (reasonable mistakes of fact supporting satisfactory explanations)