Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: Justice O’Connor has an opinion to announce.
Argument of Justice O'Connor
Mr. O'Connor: We have two consolidated cases, Whitfield versus United States and Hall versus United States that come to us on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
In March 1999, a federal grand jury indicted the petitioners for conspiracy to launder money in violation of the 18 U.S. Code Section 1956(h).
At trial, the government presented evidence that the petitioners helped to run an entity known as Greater Ministries International Church, GMIC.
GMIC ran a gifting program that took in over $400 million between 1996 and 1999.
Under the program, the petitioners induced unweary investors to give money to GMIC promising that participants would receive double their money back within a year-and-a-half.
In the end, many investors received little or no return on their so-called investments to GMIC while the petitioners received over 1.2 million in commissions on the money they solicited.
At the close of evidence, petitioners asked the District Court to instruct the jury that the government had to prove that one of the conspirators had committed an overt act in furtherance of the money laundering conspiracy.
The District Court denied the request.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the petitioners' convictions holding that the jury instruction approved by the District Court was proper because proof of an overt act is not required under Section 1956(h).
In an opinion filed with the Clerk today, we affirm that decision.
We hold that conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering under Section 1956(h) does not require of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The outcome is dictated by our decision over 10 years ago in United States versus Shabani where we held that the nearly identical language in the drug conspiracy statute does not require proof of an overt act.
As we explained in that case, the longstanding rule for conspiracy statutes is that unless Congress clearly says otherwise, we presume that it intends to adopt the common law definition of conspiracy.
At common law, conviction for conspiracy did not require proof of an overt act.
Proof of the unlawful agreement alone was enough.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
The opinion is unanimous.
