United States v. Ho, 984 F.3d 191

Background

Ho was an officer/director of CEFC NGO (Hong Kong) and of a U.S. nonprofit arm (U.S. NGO); he ran day‑to‑day operations and used U.S. contacts and a Trump World Tower suite.
Two schemes: (1) Chad—CEFC delegation presented wrapped boxes that contained $2 million in cash to Chad’s president after meetings arranged by Ho and intermediary Gadio; (2) Uganda—Ho caused a $500,000 wire from CEFC NGO (Hong Kong) routed through U.S. correspondent banks to a Ugandan charity designated by Ugandan Foreign Minister Kutesa.
Indictment charged Ho with FCPA violations under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd‑2 and 78dd‑3, conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), conspiracy and substantive money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956), and related counts.
At trial the jury convicted Ho on multiple counts (acquitted on one money‑laundering count); he was sentenced to 36 months and a $400,000 fine.
On appeal Ho challenged (i) sufficiency under § 78dd‑2, (ii) instruction that § 78dd‑3 is specified unlawful activity for § 1956, (iii) whether wires that merely passed through U.S. correspondent banks went “to” or “from” the U.S. for § 1956, (iv) several evidentiary rulings, and (v) alleged defects and internal contradictions in the indictment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for § 78dd‑2 convictions	Gov't: Ho acted on behalf of the U.S. NGO (a domestic concern) and used that status to obtain access and steer business to CEFC Energy.	Ho: Evidence only shows service to foreign CEFC entities; no proof he acted to assist a domestic concern.	Affirmed—evidence sufficed to show Ho acted on behalf of the U.S. NGO to assist in obtaining business for CEFC.
Whether § 78dd‑3 qualifies as specified unlawful activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(D)	Gov't: §1956(c)(7)(D) covers "any felony violation of the FCPA," which plainly includes §78dd‑3.	Ho: The cross‑reference should be read as frozen to the FCPA as of 1992 (when §1956(c)(7) was amended), excluding §78dd‑3 added in 1998.	Affirmed—statutory text "any felony violation of the FCPA" is plain and includes §78dd‑3; reference canon not invoked.
Whether a wire transfer that routes through U.S. correspondent banks goes "to" or "from" the U.S. under § 1956(a)(2)	Gov't: EFTs using U.S. correspondent banks may be treated as transfers to/from the U.S.; intermediate steps can be severable and sufficient.	Ho: The transfer was a single Hong Kong→Uganda transaction that only went "through" the U.S., not "to" or "from" it; §1956(i)(3) treats transfers as single continuing transactions.	Affirmed—transfers using U.S. correspondent accounts can constitute transactions to/from the U.S.; precedent supports severing constituent EFT steps.
Evidentiary rulings (admission of Déby statements, Boubker text, summary charts)	Gov't: Admissions, adopted/prior consistent statements, and Rule 1006 summaries were properly admitted for context and to rebut fabrication, with proper limiting instructions.	Ho: Hearsay and improper summaries; prior consistent statement rule and completeness misapplied.	Affirmed—district court did not abuse discretion: adoptive admission and prior‑consistent rationale fit; summary charts admissible and jury instructed.
Indictment defects: repugnancy and charging under §§ 78dd‑2 and 78dd‑3	Gov't: Conjunctive pleading is proper to cover alternate theories; counts are not mutually exclusive and any indictment imprecision was harmless.	Ho: Indictment alleged he was a "domestic concern" in some counts, so counts under §78dd‑3 (which excludes domestic concerns) were repugnant and mutually exclusive.	Affirmed—conjunctive pleading lawful; no prejudicial inconsistency; §§78dd‑2 and 78dd‑3 can apply to overlapping conduct.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Daccarett, 6 F.3d 37 (2d Cir.) (addressing severability of EFTs through U.S. correspondent banks)
United States v. Ng Lap Seng, 934 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019) (FCPA prohibits bribery to obtain/direct business for any person)
Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 139 S. Ct. 759 (2019) (discussion of reference canon and ordinary meaning)
N.Y. State Office of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 556 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2009) (treatment of statutory cross‑references)
United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (1986) (petit jury verdict cures certain grand jury errors)
United States v. McDonough, 56 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 1995) (conjunctive pleading and proof of alternate means)
United States v. Hoskins, 902 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2018) (scope of FCPA categories for liability)
United States v. Dinero Express, Inc., 313 F.3d 803 (2d Cir. 2002) (multi‑step transfers may form a single laundering count)
United States v. Moloney, 287 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 2002) (single money‑laundering count can encompass multiple acts)