Whitfield v. United States & Hall v. United States (consolidated)
Hall and a group of others were charged with various crimes surrounding their involvement in a fraudulent investment scheme. Hall was convicted of various charges, including conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Hall appealed this conviction, claiming that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that proof of an “overt act” was necessary for a conspiracy conviction under § 1956(h). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling, largely on the basis of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a similarly worded statute in United States v. Shabani. In Shabani, the Court did not require proof of an overt act for a drug conspiracy conviction because the language of the relevant statute did not expressly require such proof. Despite the parallel wording in the two statutes, Hall argues that § 1956(h) is distinguished by relevant legislative history that requires proof of an overt act. There is a split in the circuit courts as to whether proof of an overt act should be necessary under § 1956(h). Hall’s case was consolidated with that of his co-defendant David Whitfield due to the identical questions of law in their appeals.
Question Presented:
Is commission of an overt act an element of the crime of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)?
