United States v. Thiam
934 F.3d 89
2d Cir.2019Background
- Mahmoud Thiam, former Minister of Mines and Geology for Guinea, received about $8.5 million from China International Fund affiliates in 2009–2010 while negotiating a joint-venture/shareholder agreement.
- Transfers: $3 million deposited to Thiam’s HSBC Hong Kong account two weeks before the Shareholder’s Agreement, and $5.5 million more funneled through CIF principals thereafter.
- Thiam moved funds to U.S. accounts and spent on luxury goods; he misrepresented employment, nationality, and income when opening bank accounts.
- Charged and convicted at jury trial of money laundering (18 U.S.C. §§ 1956) and conducting transactions in criminally derived property (18 U.S.C. § 1957), with Guinea Penal Code Articles 192 and 194 (bribery) as the predicate “specified unlawful activity.”
- Thiam’s defenses: payments were undocumented personal loans; objections to jury instructions (failure to apply McDonnell definition of “official act”), insufficiency of evidence (no quid pro quo; no McDonnell-style official act), and several evidentiary rulings.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding McDonnell’s “official act” definition does not apply to Guinea’s Articles 192/194, evidence sufficed for quid pro quo, and the district court did not abuse discretion on evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McDonnell’s narrow definition of “official act” must be applied to Guinea’s Articles 192 and 194 (jury instructions) | United States: McDonnell governs only federal statutes; but government argued Articles 192/194 as charged and instruction based on Guinean law was proper | Thiam: McDonnell’s definition of “official act” must be incorporated into the jury instruction for the Guinean bribery offenses | Court: McDonnell does not apply to Articles 192/194; international comity and precedent preclude importing McDonnell’s federal limitation; instruction was not erroneous |
| Sufficiency: Was there a quid pro quo? | United States: timing, concealment, and defendant’s implausible loan story support a quid pro quo | Thiam: No advance agreement; at most after-the-fact payment; insufficient to prove quid pro quo | Court: Evidence (timing, concealment, implausible explanation) was sufficient for a rational jury to find quid pro quo |
| Sufficiency: Did defendant commit an “official act” (per McDonnell)? | United States: McDonnell inapplicable; under Guinean law jury could find bribery predicate satisfied | Thiam: Even if predicate, actions did not meet McDonnell’s “official act” standard | Court: Because McDonnell does not apply to Articles 192/194, this argument fails; evidence was sufficient under the applicable foreign-law instruction |
| Evidentiary rulings (redactions of post-arrest interview, admission of summary chart and texts, cross-examination on foreign reporting/knowledge) | United States: Evidence and cross-examination were probative of motive, consciousness of guilt, and state of mind; exclusions were proper and any error harmless | Thiam: Excluded interview excerpts violated rule of completeness; other exhibits and cross-examination were unfairly prejudicial | Court: District court did not abuse discretion; exclusions did not distort meaning and were harmless; exhibits and cross‑examination were more probative than prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016) (narrowed the definition of “official act” under federal bribery law)
- United States v. Silver, 864 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2017) (applied McDonnell limitations to honest-services/Hobbs Act prosecutions)
- United States v. Boyland, 862 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2017) (applied McDonnell to honest-services/Hobbs Act, contrasted with broader § 666)
- Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Int'l B.V., 809 F.3d 737 (2d Cir. 2016) (discussing international comity and deference to foreign legal determinations)
- Jota v. Texaco, Inc., 157 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 1998) (international comity principles)
- United States v. Botti, 711 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for jury instructions)
- United States v. Coppola, 671 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2012) (probative vs. prejudicial analysis on evidence admission)