United States v. George
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33877
D. Mass.2012Background
- George, a Massachusetts attorney, is charged in a seven-count indictment with money laundering conspiracy, money laundering, and structuring, tied to alleged schemes involving a confidential informant (CW) and co-conspirator Hansen from 2009–2011.
- CW reported to a DEA agent that George sought to launder proceeds from cocaine trafficking and referred him to Hansen’s mortgage business for laundering.
- Undercover operations and recorded conversations allegedly show CW, Hansen, and George coordinating large cash transactions and a fee-splitting arrangement with George receiving a 10% commission.
- Hansen becomes a cooperating witness after being confronted by law enforcement in 2010, leading to additional meetings and payments to George.
- In February 2011, George allegedly solicited client-referral fees; an undercover DEA agent paid George $25,000, which included deposits to George’s Bank of America account and a later payment to the CW.
- George moves to dismiss Count I, seeking production of grand jury instructions, and seeks dismissal of the indictment on various grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count I (conspiracy to launder) should be dismissed. | George contends mismatch with sting funds; conspiracy to launder requires different object. | Government cannot use § 1956(a)(1)(B) or § 1957 as conspiracy objects in a sting. | Count I upheld; conspiracy can target § 1956(a)(1)(B)® and § 1957. |
| Whether the government must produce grand jury instructions or the indictment should be dismissed. | Requests disclosure due to alleged defects in conspiracy instructions. | Grand jury instructions may be incomplete for conspiracy elements. | No basis to require production or dismiss; instructions sufficient. |
| Whether the indictment should be dismissed for outrageous government misconduct. | George alleges government manufactured case and targeted him. | Government engaged in outrageous conduct through inducement and selective recording. | Denied; government conduct not outrageous enough to warrant dismissal. |
| Whether vindictive prosecution invalidates the indictment. | Affidavits show possible vindictiveness related to prior cases. | No direct evidence of animus; no discovery warranted. | Denied; no likelihood of vindictiveness shown. |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing is required. | Denied; no disputed material facts requiring a hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guerrier, 669 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2011) (indictment sufficiency; elements of crime and nature of charge)
- Handing v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (U.S.1974) (indictment basic requirements; double jeopardy protection)
- Whitehouse v. U.S. Dist. Ct. For Dist. Of RI, 53 F.3d 1349 (1st Cir.1995) (grand jury secrecy and exceptions to disclose)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (U.S.1946) (conspiracy as independent offense)
- United States v. Llinas, 373 F.3d 26 (1st Cir.2004) (intent required for conspiracy to commit underlying offense)
- United States v. Adair, 436 F.3d 520 (5th Cir.2006) (conspiracy to commit money laundering need not prove funds derived from unlawful activity)
- United States v. Chaudhry, 850 F.2d 851 (5th Cir.1988) (recordings in sting operations; not per se defective)
- United States v. Andreas, 216 F.3d 645 (7th Cir.2000) (informant credibility and fairness of undercover operation)
- United States v. Towne, 705 F.Supp.2d 125 (D.Mass.2010) (outrageous conduct defense; issues for trial/summary)