United States v. Nguyen
23-2207
9th Cir.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Du Truong Nguyen was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments and substantive money laundering under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(3)(B), (h).
- Nguyen did not move for acquittal at the close of evidence, so appellate review is limited to preventing manifest miscarriage of justice or plain error.
- The government was required to prove (1) an agreement to launder money, (2) knowledge of the objective, and (3) the defendant's intent to further the unlawful purpose (for conspiracy); and (4) that Nguyen intended to conceal aspects of the proceeds (for substantive offense).
- Evidence at trial showed that Diana Nguyen facilitated meetings, participated in relevant discussions, and transported individuals to a bank in furtherance of the laundering scheme.
- Evidence against Nguyen included his participation in the transaction, opening business accounts, and warnings not to disclose the illicit source of funds.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence, assuming the jury viewed it in the light most favorable to the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to launder money | Not specified | Evidence insufficient to show agreement/intent; challenges Diana's role | Sufficient evidence; no plain error |
| Sufficiency of evidence for substantive money laundering | Not specified | No intent to conceal due to transaction's traceability | Sufficient evidence; intent to conceal |
| Required intent under § 1956(a)(3)(B) | Not specified | Must show intent to conceal defendant's own identity | Government only needed money's aspects |
| Review standard for unpreserved sufficiency challenge | Not specified | Plain error/documents not preserved under Rule 29 | No plain error found; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alvarez-Valenzuela, 231 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2000) (plain error review for sufficiency challenges not preserved by Rule 29 motion)
- United States v. Jaimez, 45 F.4th 1118 (9th Cir. 2022) (elements of conspiracy to launder money)
- United States v. Lapier, 796 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2015) (circumstantial evidence can support conspiracy conviction)
- United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) (agreement can be inferred from conduct)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (evaluating sufficiency of evidence arguments)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (plain error criteria for unpreserved error)