United States v. Gabel’s Empirical Analysis
85 F.3d 1217 · 1996
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably United States v. Ewing (1997), United States v. Martin (1997)
20 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 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) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (§ 1354 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)
Relies on Ratzlaf et Ux United States · North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas · Midland Central Appraisal District v. Midland Industrial Service Corp. · Hodge v. United States Department of Justice · Davenport v. United States
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(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; 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 (n) 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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to prove structuring, the government ha[s] to show that (1) [the defendant] knew of the relevant reporting requirements, (2) he structured his transaction for the purpose of evading those reporting requirements, and (3) he acted with knowledge that [such] conduct was unlawful.” United States v. Gabel, 85 F.3d 1217 , 1223 (7th Cir.1996). In order to prove money laundering under § 1956(a)(l)(B)(ii), the government must prove that”
1 later decision 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.