United States v. Richardson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19478
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Coles was a Philadelphia drug-trafficking leader; Richardson was Coles' fiancée and co-owner of the Mullica Hill home.
- In 2005 they purchased a home using a mix of cash deposits and loans, with Richardson applying for a mortgage.
- Coles deposited cash into Take Down Records and other accounts, later transferring funds to personal accounts used for the down payment.
- Settlement involved three checks totaling $74,000; the house ultimately titled in Richardson's name only.
- Richardson was charged at trial with money laundering, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and related offenses; she was convicted on money-laundering counts but the court later denied judgment of acquittal.
- The Third Circuit vacated Richardson’s money-laundering and conspiracy convictions, remanding for entry of a judgment of acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proceeds means gross receipts or profits. | Richardson argues proceeds means profits, not gross receipts. | Government argues proceeds means gross receipts in drug cases, with Santos supporting receipts. | Proceeds means gross receipts in this case. |
| Whether Richardson had knowledge of a design to conceal the money’s source. | Richardson did not participate in or know about concealment patterns; no evidence ties her to the money funneling. | Government argues circumstantial evidence, including settlement-day deposits and misstatement of income, shows concealment design. | Insufficient evidence that Richardson knew of a design to conceal; conviction vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Omoruyi, 260 F.3d 291 (3d Cir.2001) (fourth element requires knowledge of concealment)
- Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (proceeds ambiguity; plurality held profits, but not controlling here)
- Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (2008) (defines design to conceal in money laundering context)
- Carr, 25 F.3d 1194 (3d Cir.1994) (knowledge may be proven by what defendant knew others intended)
- Conley, 37 F.3d 970 (3d Cir.1994) (gives framework for concealment knowledge in money laundering)
- Jackson, 935 F.2d 832 (7th Cir.1991) (funnel through legitimate business as money-laundering example)
- Rivera-Rodriguez, 318 F.3d 268 (1st Cir.2003) (illustrates concealment knowledge in deposits)
- Tekle, 329 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.2003) (patterned deposits to evade reporting requirements evidence concealment)
- Quinones, 635 F.3d 590 (2d Cir.2011) (receipts definition in drug context; circuits align on approach)