Information on White Collar Crimes

White-collar crimes once referred to illegal acts committed by business people in the course of their employment. However, now any non-violent and sophisticated economic crime would qualify as a white-collar crime. As a rule, white-collar crimes verlap with corporate crime because the opportunity for fraud, bribery, insider trading, embezzlement, computer crime, and forgery is more available to white-collar employees.

White-collar crimes are usually associated with business and do not involve violence or bodily injury to another person. Those crimes generally associated with lending institutions which involve bank fraud, such as making false statements to obtain a loan, filing false reports or returns with government agencies, embezzlement, using the mail or wire communications to defraud, and paying or accepting bribes are considered to be white-collar crimes.

Depending upon whether state or federal laws have been violated, white collar crime may be prosecuted in state or federal courts. The penalties for such crimes usually vary, but in some cases they may be as severe as those prescribed for violent crimes. In any case it is wise to talk with an attorney before answering any questions, if you are questioned by a law enforcement officer or another governmental agent about possible criminal conduct.

Visit New York Attorneys at http://www.nylawprofessionals.com for any law assistance.

Updates to Massachusetts Employer Background Check Laws

Although the information used will weigh on the decision of whether or not to hire the potential employee, it may not be used for any other reason. The information is to remain private, so that no further harm to the applicant’s reputation can happen.

Another part of the updated provisions regulate employers’ and third parties’ access to what is contained in the state’s criminal records database. An online system known as iCori will allow employers direct access to CORI records from the state government. Accessible to all Massachusetts employers, it will contain limited criminal record information. Felonies occurring more than ten years ago and misdemeanors over five years ago will not appear in the system. There are exceptions for murder, manslaughter, and some sexual offense convictions, which do not have time limitations on them. Employers accessing criminal records through iCori must first get written permission from applicants, and keep the forms for a period of at least one year from the date the CORI check is requested. Information discovered in the process of conducting a background check using the CORI system must be contained within the hiring organization on a “need to know” basis. Employers are not allowed to keep CORI records for over seven years after an employee leaves the job, and immediately following the decision not to hire a potential employee. Failure to comply with the recordkeeping requirements can result in criminal and civil penalties up to $50,000 for each violation.

Getting back to the options you have as an employer when it comes to hiring someone with a criminal background, you should take a look at the criminal history. Look at when the crime occurred and what the crime consisted of. For example, a charge of public intoxication ten years ago when a potential employee was on spring break in college probably will not affect the work performance of the employee today. However, a charge of embezzlement from last year may be something that you would not be comfortable with, especially if this person would be working with company finances.

Massachusetts employers may use third party background screening firms, but are still held to the requirements of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Part of this law requires those who use third parties to conduct background checks to obtain permission from applicants and provide them with a copy of records if they so choose. An earlier aspect of the CORI Amendments that went into effect in 2010 includes the “ban the box” provision. This law prohibits employment applications from asking applicants about any previous criminal history. Their hope is that these new restrictions will ensure that applicants are not needlessly dismissed for unrelated crimes and that only serious offenders are prevented from being put in tempting situations. Since Massachusetts employment law contains several new requirements with stiff fines for non-compliance, it is recommended that employers throughout the state employ legal counsel to assure they are keeping up with the latest revisions.

Cybercriminals – Cowardly Thugs Hiding Behind Computer Screens

Some criminals attempt to “justify” their thieving propensities by suggesting they don’t take large valued merchandise, or they do it to “test” another’s cyber system. The inference of course is that they are somehow harmless. Criminals typically seek to ruse their law enforcement detractors, or any other person who questions what they do. They rationalize their thefts are non-violent and confined to smaller amounts of dollar losses, for which the items are easily replaced. Their matter-of-fact justifications don’t justify the unlawful taking of someone else’s personal or business property. They’re still criminals none the less and a breach of security means a contravention of the criminal laws.

For the net hoodlum operating in cyber space, their thinking plays an interesting con game, which they later rationalize and excuse as some “noble cause”. Bottom-line though, they’re criminals like their non-virtual counterparts. When caught, they invent all kinds of excuses and whine about their “victimization”. One wonders, when they sit there all day in front of their computers, what part of their anatomy are they really playing with most of the time? Some of these thieves try to scheme us with creative criminality, like “ransomware”, email schemes, credit card scams and other intrusive losses. The list of types of attacks is endless, as is the maliciousness behind the various illicit efforts for unmerited personal gain. Criminals no matter where they operate do so in a self-indulgent passion to misuse and abuse others for private purposes.

As always, one of our critical concerns is the injury, the loss and damages, caused to others as a result of internet criminality. Make no mistake, criminals choose to commit crimes of their own free will for the sake of getting something they didn’t earn or deserve. Make no mistake criminals dislike the responsible nature in others. Electronic breaches of the law are not unlike similar malevolent premeditated street-level crimes, in terms the psycho-dynamics. Some cyber criminals pose a danger to our banks accounts, while others risk the collapse of our economic system. And still others endanger our national security. In the amative stimulation for power and control, criminals will use any means. Like bank robbers or assailants on the street, cyber villains should receive the same levels of punishment. And, their conviction and subsequent sentencing should be sure, swift and certain and for long periods of time.

Criminals freely choose their particular criminogenic instigations. Of which, Cyber-crime involves billions of dollar losses every year to a global community. According to one source, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), under the auspices of the FBI, in 2007, the agency received nearly a quarter million complaints regarding internet crimes. This likely has increased to more significant levels of late, and represents the tip of the proverbial cyber-criminal iceberg. No doubt a wealth of information flowing through the internet signifies targets of opportunities for criminals.

Naturally, what we often forget is that there is a difference between reported criminality and actual criminality, or otherwise known as the “dark figure of crime”. There’s a sizeable portion of criminal activity that goes unreported and therefore not investigated. Investigatively, law enforcement endeavors to respond efficiently as possible, given the resources available. And yet, the nature of virtual crime is complex, with such diverse challenges, as email and texting scams, business and banking intrusions, to commercial fraud, money laundering and market manipulations.

Electronic thievery, organized crime and terrorism, as well as other associated criminalities, present unique demands for law enforcement. However, valiant efforts continue, and the law enforcement, intelligence communities and private security forces remain undaunted in dedicated persistence. That’s part of the key to an effective investigation, methodical tenacious due diligence in application of effective resources. To rigorously search for every possible clue, cluster and clamor of activity, the investigative process must implement creative and proactive tactics.

Investigators gather the facts and analyze the evidence, apply rationality and reason, as well as ensure the critical implementations of forensic applications. Competent expertise is essential in the utilization of logical deductions. If in doubt as to how to proceed, where to go or what to look for, then efforts utilize those who have the know-how in this particular realm. The hunt for the thugs and terrorists who hide behind a computer screen is never ending. Sinister, wicked and malevolent, with malice aforethought, the “evil” cybercriminals fester adversely affects us all. Countermeasures have to be consistently applied, updated and reinforced. Vigilance has to be tirelessly maintained. You never know when they might strike. An individual, a group or other criminal enterprises, stay relentless in illegitimate pursuits at the expense of others.

To this end, from an investigative standpoint, such activities are still basically crimes against people, places, and properties. So, in a sense, we’re still dealing with the fundamentals of a criminal investigation. None the less, the criminal has taken his, her or their activities into an electronic neighborhood. Within this virtual world, the criminal can inflict horrendous damages to the selected objective.

To deal with such criminals, it is incumbent upon professional law enforcement agencies at all levels, as well as private commercial entities, to invest all available resources where possible, in a “cyber unit”. Special expertise is required within the virtual world of electronic anonymity. Upon development of a “cyber squad”, the next step involves the assignment of qualified staffing. The basics in organizational structure and design remain similar to other managerial frameworks.

That is, you need to plan, organize, budget, development and staff accordingly to fit the needs of the organizational environment. Expert support services should be lined up to assist the investigative team where ever necessary. For which, investigative personnel must either have the technical and tactical expertise, or strive to learn and acquire the essential fundamentals through appropriate educational training resources. Investigators must be determined to ferret out the criminal by enhancing their skills.

Within the scope of “white collar” criminality, organized crime, and particularly those criminals within an electronic landscape, investigating Cybercrime may not seem as glamorous as other investigative processes. Frequently, we forget the impact of commercial crimes (e.g. embezzlement, fraud, identity theft, internet schemes, etc) is ten to twenty times greater than the usual street crimes. For instance, murder, rape, and robbery investigations (i.e. Part I Index Crime of the U.C.R.), while vitally urgent to resolve, tend to be more sensationalized by the various media. More so, than say hacking into the local bank, or stealing someone’s credit card information.

Typically, the new investigator will be searching for action, adventure and excitement. Television and the movies have done much to fuel illusions, misconceptions and less than obvious deceptions about certain types of criminal investigations. Comically, we know that a major crime has to be solved within the telecast of an hour’s worth of viewing. In the real world however, we recognize it doesn’t happen like that. If you think otherwise, good luck and try to forget television portrayals projecting creative crime fiction.

That’s why the right personnel must be selected to fit within the scope of the unique challenges confronted by an ever expanding cyber world. Some investigations may take extraordinary amounts of time and resources to culminate solvability. Effective investigators must assert a high degree of patience and persistence. It might not be too untypical that such cases might require a couple of year’s commitment.

From an investigative perspective, you’ll want quality over quantity, facts instead of fiction and dedication to critical thinking skills. Dealing with a criminological problem necessitates the insistence upon avoiding fallacies of inference for the sake of subjective validation. Without a doubt, people do this every day. They allow emotions, feelings and reactivity to cloud the deduction reasoning aspects of problem-solving. Even though, we’re affected by our emotional influences, an astute investigator learns to balance between the two. Nothing is foolproof except the fool who proves you wrong.

All too often, based on a superficial assessment of a crime problem, we falter to the slant of hasty generalizations about people, places and property. In short, we must bear in mind people commit crimes because that’s what they want to do. To the extent possible, we try to steer clear of logical fallacies. While this is not likely in an absolute sense, we strive to test and evaluate our inclinations toward cognitive bias. This of course suggests applying rigorous mental aptitude outside the proverbial box of toxic thinking.

No one is immune from biased pursuits to support investigative actions. But, in the overall process, it’s important to ensure a strong devotion to professional training and ongoing development of experience. During the course of an investigation, we want to look into every nook and cranny and leave no stone unturned. In support of relentless acts of discovery, one considers his or her perception of the facts versus the absence of facts. Three points are relevant. One is how do you know a certain crime has occurred? Another is how do you prove it based on what is known?

And, for a third possibility, is your theory of the crime valid? So, in short, how do you know and what do you mean serve to substantiate the necessity for evidentiary criteria. For the investigator, researcher or other practitioner, certain attributes are worth emphasizing. These include: self-discipline in thinking processes, lawful means to reveal the facts, bias control, efficient documentation, proficient capabilities and thorough utilization of forensic applications. Networking with others remains essential.

By use of various techniques and tactics, the more skillful investigator is creative, adaptive and inventive. That’s because productive investigations do not fit a simplistic template of trouble-free functionality, or “profiling” like on TV. One must focus and direct the scope and extent to which the investigative process develops. You consider how to determine the nature of the criminality under inquiry, like statutory authority of the investigation, appropriate jurisdiction, and lawful provisions.

As such, you also consider the issues as applied to the specific incidence, such as identity theft, email threat, electronic commerce, fraudulent activity, offenses against electronic properties, and sexual harassment or cyber stalking. Critical concepts to preliminarily assembling an investigative process necessitate an assessment of expertise needed to address digital evidence criticality and “crime scene” procedures.

When dealing with digital evidence, proper levels of Cybercrime capabilities must be used, along with unique needs regarding seizure, analysis, storage, retrieval and transfer of evidentiary artifacts. Additionally, the investigator has to appreciate there must be thorough documentation, preservation and otherwise protect investigative processes for lawful review by competent authorities. Overall, we must satisfy the fundamentals, as suggested by the basics of who, what, where, when, why and how.

Within the framework of the inquiry, efforts are directed to ensure proper legality in proven methodology, forensic processes and specialized expertise for all digital evidence collection, analysis and security. Investigative processes strive for the ongoing safeguards of logical deduction. This applies equally to the efforts directed toward locating and identifying, if possible, all suspected criminal participants. But, it doesn’t stop there; as such persistence also includes unmasking any and all collaborators.

Three key points in the overall perspective can be offered as reveal the perpetrators, restore and recover properties and services, and resolve the criminality of the incident. Expedient proactive well-planned efforts in apprehension, collection of evidence and prosecution of offenders helps reduce opportunities for misadventure. In addition, promotion of professional interaction among key investigative resources, such as people, places and properties, further enhance preventive countermeasures.

As to the latter issue, an investigator, whether corporate or public agency, ought to realize that criminality is selfishly motivated, highly personal, ego-centric and willfully premeditated. Criminals know exactly what they are doing. Criminal nature comes in all sizes, shapes and socio-economic backgrounds and pay grades. Criminal behavior, even in cyberspace, is a rational choice and for the sake of self-gratification for personal gain. Aside from many sociological theories of a deterministic nature, you are dealing with people who want to commit criminal activity for their particular proclivities.

With a self-centered focus and disdain of others, if given the opportunity in the work place, computer users can easily decide to become computer abusers. By doing so, they become a problem for the business, the organization or the government. From their lifestyle patterns, in the choices they have made, people who choose to commit crimes against their employers, the government, other people’s employers or any entity in particular. They are acting out their brand of salaciously devious behavior.

Their individual perspective is one of risk taking in order to achieve immediate satiation for the anticipated gain. This action comes at the expense of others. Unlike those who choose not to commit e-crimes, the computer criminal does so without wanting to perform the legitimate commitment to do the work necessary to acquire the same objective by lawful means. For the e-criminal, “business” activity means getting away with something, faking a “cause”, or conjuring all kinds of excuses. In contrast to those around him or her, working lawfully for commensurate compensation is not as exciting as taking it without having to wait for it. No matter the pretext, they’re still criminals.

As mentioned earlier, criminals will use anyone to ensure their illegitimate successes. They can be anyone, from colleagues to vendors and so on. Criminality knows no boundaries or respects any institution. How often have your heard, “that person didn’t seem the type”. There is no perfect so called “profile” of the typical criminal. In fact, from a security standpoint, you should be concerned with monitoring everyone’s activity. We can’t overlook the essential protection necessary within any setting. Security of computer systems and networks is crucial if not critical and vital. A criminal today can operate secretly in cyberspace, a cowardly thug behind a computer screen.

Money Laundering Law – 20 Basic Facets

MONEY LAUNDERING

Federal Criminal Law Statutes (Title 18, United States Code)

“Money laundering” as it is commonly called, involves the transfer of monies that are a product of criminal activity – whether that activity is drug trafficking related or white collar crime related. Although there is a fairly broad definition of money laundering, the federal money laundering laws were enacted to attempt to take the profit out of criminal activity.

Congress has passed several laws over the years to prevent profits of criminal activity from being utilized, such as Currency Transaction Reports. The Anti-Money Laundering Statutes criminalizes the movement and use of profits/wealth created by criminal activity. See Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956 and 1957.

Many people have concerns about these statutes, included the apparently broad application of these statutes, especially concerns about reaching into legitimate business activities. A common example of this concern is a scenario where an individual or business handles money with no knowledge of any criminal origin, which could result in prosecution for money laundering in federal court.

In summary, the government has to prove that a person knowingly made some transfer or transaction with monies that were proceeds of a specified unlawful activity. The two commonly used statutes in federal courts, 18, U.S.C., Sections 1956 and 1957, list the specified unlawful activities that are the basis for federal money laundering. Money laundering that is often used in federal prosecutions and that is considered the consummate money laundering statute, is 18, U.S.C., Section 1956, shown here:

ยง 1956. Laundering of Monetary Instruments
(a)

(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity–

(A)

(i) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or

(ii) with intent to engage in conduct constituting a violation of section 7201 or 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

(B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part–

(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or

(ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,

shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.

(2) Whoever transports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit, or transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States or to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States–

(A) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or

(B) knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that such transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or in part–

(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or

(ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,

shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. For the purpose of the offense described in subparagraph (B), the defendant’s knowledge may be established by proof that a law enforcement officer represented the matter specified in subparagraph (B) as true, and the defendant’s subsequent statements or actions indicate that the defendant believed such representations to be true.

(3) Whoever, with the intent–

(A) to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity;

(B) to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property believed to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or

(C) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,

conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction involving property represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, or property used to conduct or facilitate specified unlawful activity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. For purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (2), the term “represented” means any representation made by a law enforcement officer or by another person at the direction of, or with the approval of, a Federal official authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of this section.

(b) Penalties.–

(1) In general.– Whoever conducts or attempts to conduct a transaction described in subsection (a)(1) or (a)(3), or section 1957, or a transportation, transmission, or transfer described in subsection (a)(2), is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than the greater of–

(A) the value of the property, funds, or monetary instruments involved in the transaction; or

(B) $10,000.

(2) Jurisdiction over foreign persons.– For purposes of adjudicating an action filed or enforcing a penalty ordered under this section, the district courts shall have jurisdiction over any foreign person, including any financial institution authorized under the laws of a foreign country, against whom the action is brought, if service of process upon the foreign person is made under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the laws of the country in which the foreign person is found, and–

(A) the foreign person commits an offense under subsection (a) involving a financial transaction that occurs in whole or in part in the United States;

(B) the foreign person converts, to his or her own use, property in which the United States has an ownership interest by virtue of the entry of an order of forfeiture by a court of the United States; or

(C) the foreign person is a financial institution that maintains a bank account at a financial institution in the United States.

(3) Court authority over assets.– A court described in paragraph (2) may issue a pretrial restraining order or take any other action necessary to ensure that any bank account or other property held by the defendant in the United States is available to satisfy a judgment under this section.

(4) Federal receiver.–

(A) In general.– A court described in paragraph (2) may appoint a Federal Receiver, in accordance with subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, to collect, marshal, and take custody, control, and possession of all assets of the defendant, wherever located, to satisfy a civil judgment under this subsection, a forfeiture judgment under section 981 or 982, or a criminal sentence under section 1957 or subsection (a) of this section, including an order of restitution to any victim of a specified unlawful activity.

(B) Appointment and authority.– A Federal Receiver described in subparagraph (A)–

(i) may be appointed upon application of a Federal prosecutor or a Federal or State regulator, by the court having jurisdiction over the defendant in the case;

(ii) shall be an officer of the court, and the powers of the Federal Receiver shall include the powers set out in section 754 of title 28, United States Code; and

(iii) shall have standing equivalent to that of a Federal prosecutor for the purpose of submitting requests to obtain information regarding the assets of the defendant–

(I) from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury; or

(II) from a foreign country pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty, multilateral agreement, or other arrangement for international law enforcement assistance, provided that such requests are in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Attorney General.

(c) As used in this section–

(1) the term “knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity” means that the person knew the property involved in the transaction represented proceeds from some form, though not necessarily which form, of activity that constitutes a felony under State, Federal, or foreign law, regardless of whether or not such activity is specified in paragraph (7);

(2) the term “conducts” includes initiating, concluding, or participating in initiating, or concluding a transaction;

(3) the term “transaction” includes a purchase, sale, loan, pledge, gift, transfer, delivery, or other disposition, and with respect to a financial institution includes a deposit, withdrawal, transfer between accounts, exchange of currency, loan, extension of credit, purchase or sale of any stock, bond, certificate of deposit, or other monetary instrument, use of a safe deposit box, or any other payment, transfer, or delivery by, through, or to a financial institution, by whatever means effected;

(4) the term “financial transaction” means

(A) a transaction which in any way or degree affects interstate or foreign commerce

(i) involving the movement of funds by wire or other means or

(ii) involving one or more monetary instruments, or

(iii) involving the transfer of title to any real property, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, or

(B) a transaction involving the use of a financial institution which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce in any way or degree;

(5) the term “monetary instruments” means

(i) coin or currency of the United States or of any other country, travelers’ checks, personal checks, bank checks, and money orders, or

(ii) investment securities or negotiable instruments, in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery;

(6) the term “financial institution” includes–

(A) any financial institution, as defined in section 5312 (a)(2) of title 31, United States Code, or the regulations promulgated thereunder; and

(B) any foreign bank, as defined in section 1 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101);

(7) the term “specified unlawful activity” means–

(A) any act or activity constituting an offense listed in section 1961 (1) of this title except an act which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31;

(B) with respect to a financial transaction occurring in whole or in part in the United States, an offense against a foreign nation involving–

(i) the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance (as such term is defined for the purposes of the Controlled Substances Act);

(ii) murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, destruction of property by means of explosive or fire, or a crime of violence (as defined in section 16);

(iii) fraud, or any scheme or attempt to defraud, by or against a foreign bank (as defined in paragraph 7 of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978)); [1]

(iv) bribery of a public official, or the misappropriation, theft, or embezzlement of public funds by or for the benefit of a public official;

(v) smuggling or export control violations involving–

(I) an item controlled on the United States Munitions List established under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778); or

(II) an item controlled under regulations under the Export Administration Regulations (15 C.F.R. Parts 730-774); or

(vi) an offense with respect to which the United States would be obligated by a multilateral treaty, either to extradite the alleged offender or to submit the case for prosecution, if the offender were found within the territory of the United States;

(C) any act or acts constituting a continuing criminal enterprise, as that term is defined in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848);

(D) an offense under section 32 (relating to the destruction of aircraft), section 37 (relating to violence at international airports), section 115 (relating to influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member), section 152 (relating to concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery), section 175c (relating to the variola virus), section 215 (relating to commissions or gifts for procuring loans), section 351 (relating to congressional or Cabinet officer assassination), any of sections 500 through 503 (relating to certain counterfeiting offenses), section 513 (relating to securities of States and private entities), section 541 (relating to goods falsely classified), section 542 (relating to entry of goods by means of false statements), section 545 (relating to smuggling goods into the United States), section 549 (relating to removing goods from Customs custody), section 641 (relating to public money, property, or records), section 656 (relating to theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee), section 657 (relating to lending, credit, and insurance institutions), section 658 (relating to property mortgaged or pledged to farm credit agencies), section 666 (relating to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds), section 793, 794, or 798 (relating to espionage), section 831 (relating to prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials), section 844 (f) or (i) (relating to destruction by explosives or fire of Government property or property affecting interstate or foreign commerce), section 875 (relating to interstate communications), section 922 (l) (relating to the unlawful importation of firearms), section 924 (n) (relating to firearms trafficking), section 956 (relating to conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure certain property in a foreign country), section 1005 (relating to fraudulent bank entries), 1006 [2] (relating to fraudulent Federal credit institution entries), 1007 [2] (relating to Federal Deposit Insurance transactions), 1014 [2] (relating to fraudulent loan or credit applications), section 1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse), 1032 [2] (relating to concealment of assets from conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent of financial institution), section 1111 (relating to murder), section 1114 (relating to murder of United States law enforcement officials), section 1116 (relating to murder of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), section 1201 (relating to kidnaping), section 1203 (relating to hostage taking), section 1361 (relating to willful injury of Government property), section 1363 (relating to destruction of property within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), section 1708 (theft from the mail), section 1751 (relating to Presidential assassination), section 2113 or 2114 (relating to bank and postal robbery and theft), section 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), section 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), section 2319 (relating to copyright infringement), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit goods and services), section 2332 (relating to terrorist acts abroad against United States nationals), section 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), section 2332b (relating to international terrorist acts transcending national boundaries), section 2332g (relating to missile systems designed to destroy aircraft), section 2332h (relating to radiological dispersal devices), or section 2339A or 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorists) of this title, section 46502 of title 49, United States Code, a felony violation of the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988 (relating to precursor and essential chemicals), section 590 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1590) (relating to aviation smuggling), section 422 of the Controlled Substances Act (relating to transportation of drug paraphernalia), section 38 (c) (relating to criminal violations) of the Arms Export Control Act, section 11 (relating to violations) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, section 206 (relating to penalties) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, section 16 (relating to offenses and punishment) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, any felony violation of section 15 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (relating to food stamp fraud) involving a quantity of coupons having a value of not less than $5,000, any violation of section 543(a)(1) of the Housing Act of 1949 (relating to equity skimming), any felony violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, any felony violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or section 92 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2122) (relating to prohibitions governing atomic weapons) [3] environmental crimes

(E) a felony violation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Ocean Dumping Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), or the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.); or

(F) any act or activity constituting an offense involving a Federal health care offense;

(8) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

(d) Nothing in this section shall supersede any provision of Federal, State, or other law imposing criminal penalties or affording civil remedies in addition to those provided for in this section.

(e) Violations of this section may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and by such components of the Department of the Treasury as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct, as appropriate and, with respect to offenses over which the United States Postal Service has jurisdiction, by the Postal Service. Such authority of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postal Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Postal Service, and the Attorney General. Violations of this section involving offenses described in paragraph (c)(7)(E) may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and the National Enforcement Investigations Center of the Environmental Protection Agency.

(f) There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section if–

(1) the conduct is by a United States citizen or, in the case of a non-United States citizen, the conduct occurs in part in the United States; and

(2) the transaction or series of related transactions involves funds or monetary instruments of a value exceeding $10,000.

(g) Notice of Conviction of Financial Institutions.– If any financial institution or any officer, director, or employee of any financial institution has been found guilty of an offense under this section, section 1957 or 1960 of this title, or section 5322 or 5324 of title 31, the Attorney General shall provide written notice of such fact to the appropriate regulatory agency for the financial institution.

(h) Any person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this section or section 1957 shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

(i) Venue.–

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a prosecution for an offense under this section or section 1957 may be brought in–

(A) any district in which the financial or monetary transaction is conducted; or

(B) any district where a prosecution for the underlying specified unlawful activity could be brought, if the defendant participated in the transfer of the proceeds of the specified unlawful activity from that district to the district where the financial or monetary transaction is conducted.

(2) A prosecution for an attempt or conspiracy offense under this section or section 1957 may be brought in the district where venue would lie for the completed offense under paragraph (1), or in any other district where an act in furtherance of the attempt or conspiracy took place.

(3) For purposes of this section, a transfer of funds from 1 place to another, by wire or any other means, shall constitute a single, continuing transaction. Any person who conducts (as that term is defined in subsection (c)(2)) any portion of the transaction may be charged in any district in which the transaction takes place.

[1] So in original. The second closing parenthesis probably should not appear. [2] So in original. Probably should be preceded by “section”. [3] So in original. Probably should be followed by a semicolon.

Search Results