United States v. Baston
818 F.3d 651
11th Cir.2016Background
- Damion Bastón (aka “Drac”) ran an international sex‑trafficking operation, coercing women to prostitute in multiple countries (Australia, UAE, U.S. states) and wiring proceeds to U.S. bank accounts.
- Indicted on 21 counts including sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (charges referencing conduct in the Southern District of Florida, Australia, UAE, and elsewhere) and money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 based on wires from Australia to Miami.
- At trial several victims testified about force, threats, travel, use of phones/Internet/ads, interstate travel, and money transfers; Bastón asserted the women prostituted voluntarily (and that some prostitution was legal abroad).
- Jury convicted Bastón on all counts; district court sentenced him to 27 years and ordered restitution totaling $99,270 to three victims but excluded ~$400,000 K.L. earned in Australia, concluding restitution for wholly extraterritorial conduct exceeded Congress’s power and raised due‑process concerns.
- The government cross‑appealed the restitution reduction, invoking 18 U.S.C. § 1596(a)(2) (extraterritorial jurisdiction for non‑citizen present in U.S.) and § 1593 (restitution for victims).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bastón) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplemental jury instruction (money‑laundering/choice‑of‑law) | Instruction misanswered jury, misstated law, misled jurors | Instruction properly answered jury question about money transfers and choice of law | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; instruction responsive and not misleading |
| Sufficiency of evidence on commerce element for conviction of trafficking J.R. | Jury lacked evidence that trafficking was "in or affecting" interstate commerce | Use of phones, Internet, interstate travel, hotels, ads, and buses sufficed to show in/affecting commerce | Affirmed — rational juror could find interstate/affecting commerce beyond reasonable doubt |
| Reliability of evidence used for restitution calculations | Victim earnings at trial were unreliable; defendant lacked opportunity to re‑cross at restitution hearing | Trial testimony is admissible and sufficiently reliable for restitution; court has broad discretion on procedures | Affirmed — district court did not clearly err or abuse discretion using trial testimony for restitution |
| Whether §1596(a)(2) permits restitution for extraterritorial trafficking and passes constitutional limits (Commerce Clause and Due Process) | Congress lacks authority under Foreign Commerce Clause to reach wholly extraterritorial conduct; due process bars applying U.S. restitution to foreign conduct by noncitizen | §1596(a)(2) valid under Foreign Commerce Clause; extraterritorial exercise is not arbitrary and is supported by protective principle and U.S. interests; restitution payable for overseas proceeds | Reversed district court on this point — §1596(a)(2) constitutional under Article I and satisfies Due Process; remand to increase restitution for K.L.'s Australian earnings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2007) (knowledge‑of‑commerce element not required for §1591 forcible trafficking)
- United States v. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005) (use of channels/instrumentalities of commerce establishes "in commerce")
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (local economic activity may be regulated if part of class of activities substantially affecting interstate commerce)
- United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783 (11th Cir. 2010) (upholding extraterritorial criminal laws under Article I authorities)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- United States v. De La Mata, 266 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2001) (predicate offense elements need not be proven to sustain money‑laundering conviction)
- United States v. Franklin, 694 F.3d 1 (11th Cir. 2012) (plain‑error doctrine and review of jury‑instruction challenges)