United States v. Esterman’s Empirical Analysis
324 F.3d 565 · 2003
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)
Relies on United States v. Olano · United States v. Jackson · United States v. Beddow · United States v. Ross · United States v. Koller
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“concrete evidence of intent to disguise or conceal transactions, whether that evidence comes directly from statements by the defendant that indicate an intent to conceal, or from circumstantial evidence like unusual secrecy surrounding transactions, careful structuring of transactions to avoid attention, folding or otherwise depositing illegal profits into the bank account or receipts of a legitimate business, use of third parties to conceal the real owner, or engaging in unusual financial moves culminating in a transaction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Cases concluding that the line has been crossed into the “money laundering” territory include United States v. Thayer, 204 F.3d 1352 , 1354-55 (11th Cir.2000) (funneling illegal funds through various fictitious business accounts); United States v. Majors, 196 F.3d 1206 , 1212-13 (11th Cir.1999) (“elaborate shell game” involving multiple inter-company transfers with a variety of signatory names); United States v. Willey, 57 F.3d 1374 , 1387 (5th Cir.1995) (“highly unusual” transactions involving cashier’s checks, third party deposits, and trust accounts used to disguise source of funds); United States v. Garcia-Emanuel, 14 F.3d 1469 , 1476-79 (10th Cir.1994) (land purchased in name of restaurant to make it appear that business was source of wealth and truck purchased in wife’s name for stated purpose of deceiving IRS); United States v. Campbell, 977 F.2d 854 , 858 n. 4 (4th Cir.1992) (reduction in price for sale of house combined with under-the-table payment); United States v. Beddow, 957 F.2d 1330 , 1334-35 (6th Cir.1992) (use of “front man” and “convoluted financial dealings” to invest in emeralds and a charter boat, designed to disguise ownership and evade transaction reporting requirements); United States v. Lovett, 964 F.2d 1029 , 1033-37 (10th Cir.1992) (convoluted financial transactions leading up to purchase of house, combined with misleading statements regarding nature and source of purchase money).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.