United States v. Chilingirian

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 13, 2002
Docket99-2376
StatusPublished

This text of United States v. Chilingirian (United States v. Chilingirian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Chilingirian, (6th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//7(;7 38%/,&$7,21 3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUFXLW 5XOH 

(/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )(' $SS 3 WK &LU )LOH 1DPH DS

81,7('67$7(6&28572)$33($/6 )257+(6,;7+&,5&8,7 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

81,7(' 67$7(6 2) $0(5,&$ ; 3ODLQWLII$SSHOOHH  &URVV$SSHOODQW   1RV  Y !   -$&. &+,/,1*,5,$1  'HIHQGDQW$SSHOODQW  &URVV$SSHOOHH   1 $SSHDOIURPWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW IRUWKH(DVWHUQ'LVWULFWRI0LFKLJDQDW'HWURLW 1R²-RKQ&RUEHWW2¶0HDUD'LVWULFW-XGJH $UJXHG-XQH 'HFLGHGDQG)LOHG)HEUXDU\ %HIRUH-21(668+5+(,15,&+DQG'$8*+75(< &LUFXLW-XGJHV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB &2816(/ $5*8('.HQQHWK+.DUDP3(5$/7$-2+16721 .$5$06W&ODLU6KRUHV0LFKLJDQIRU$SSHOODQW-HQQLIHU -3HUHJRUG$66,67$1781,7('67$7(6$77251(< 'HWURLW0LFKLJDQIRU$SSHOOHH21%5,().HQQHWK+

  8QLWHG6WDWHVY&KLOLQJLULDQ 1RV 1RV 8QLWHG6WDWHVY&KLOLQJLULDQ 

.DUDP 3(5$/7$ -2+16721  .$5$0 6W &ODLU Whether this court views the district court’s action as a 6KRUHV 0LFKLJDQ IRU $SSHOODQW  -HQQLIHU - 3HUHJRUG choice between guidelines or a departure, the result is the $66,67$17 81,7(' 67$7(6 $77251(< 'HWURLW same. The heartland analysis that should be applied prior to 0LFKLJDQIRU$SSHOOHH determining which guideline applies is identical to the analysis that should be applied in determining whether a BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB departure is warranted. See Smith, 186 F.3d at 298. Moreover, in the departure context, this court has held that the 23,1,21 fact that a money laundering offense involved proceeds BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB related to unlawful activity other than drug trafficking or 1$7+$1,(/5-21(6&LUFXLW-XGJH'HIHQGDQW-DFN organized crime is not sufficient to take the offense outside of &KLOLQJLULDQDSSHDOVKLVIHGHUDOFRQYLFWLRQDQGVHQWHQFHRQ the heartland of the money laundering guideline. United PRQH\ODXQGHULQJFKDUJHV2Q$SULODJUDQGMXU\ States v. Reed, 167 F.3d 984, 995 (6th Cir. 1999); United RIWKH(DVWHUQ'LVWULFWRI0LFKLJDQUHWXUQHGDPXOWLSOHFRXQW States v. Ford, 184 F.3d 566, 587 (6th Cir. 1999). Thus, even LQGLFWPHQWDJDLQVW&KLOLQJLULDQDQDWWRUQH\DQGWKUHHRIKLV if the district court’s decision is treated not as a departure but FOLHQWV-DFN&KDUOHVDQG*HRUJH5DVKLG7KH5DVKLGVZHUH as an application of a more appropriate guideline, the district LQGLFWHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI IUDXGXOHQW EXVLQHVV YHQWXUHV court’s rationale was not sufficient to warrant the lower FRQFHUQLQJ WKH GHYHORSPHQW PDQXIDFWXUH DQG VDOH RI court’s decision not to apply the money laundering guideline DXWRPRELOHUDGDUEUDNLQJV\VWHPVWRDYRLGFROOLVLRQV$WD to the money laundering offense. Accordingly, the district EHQFK WULDO &KLOLQJLULDQ ZDV FRQYLFWHG RI FRQVSLUDF\ WR court’s sentence should be reversed and remanded with FRPPLWPRQH\ODXQGHULQJ+HZDVVHQWHQFHGWRPRQWKV instructions to re-sentence Chilingirian in accordance with the LPSULVRQPHQWWZR\HDUVVXSHUYLVHGUHOHDVHDQGUHVWLWXWLRQLQ money laundering guideline. WKH DPRXQW RI   &KLOLQJLULDQ QRZ DSSHDOV KLV FRQYLFWLRQ FLWLQJ LQDGHTXDFLHV LQ WKH LQGLFWPHQW DQG ,9&21&/86,21 LQFRQVLVWHQFLHV LQ WKH YHUGLFWV DQG FKDOOHQJLQJ WKH %DLO )RUWKHUHDVRQVVWDWHGDERYHZH5(9(56(WKHGLVWULFW 5HIRUP$FW7KHJRYHUQPHQWFURVVDSSHDOVFRQWHQGLQJWKDW FRXUW¶V VHQWHQFLQJ RUGHU DQG 5(0$1' WKH FDVH WR WKH WKHGHIHQGDQWZDVVHQWHQFHGXQGHUWKHZURQJJXLGHOLQH:H GLVWULFW FRXUW ZLWK LQVWUXFWLRQV WR UHVHQWHQFH -DFN DJUHH ZLWK WKH JRYHUQPHQW¶V FRQWHQWLRQ DQG WKHUHIRUH &KLOLQJLULDQ LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH PRQH\ ODXQGHULQJ $)),50  WKH GHIHQGDQW¶V FRQYLFWLRQ EXW 5(0$1' WKH JXLGHOLQH:H$)),50WKHUHPDLQGHURIWKHGLVWULFWFRXUW¶V FDVHWRSHUPLWUHVHQWHQFLQJXQGHUWKHDSSURSULDWHSURYLVLRQV MXGJPHQW RIWKH6HQWHQFLQJ*XLGHOLQHV ,)$&76 2Q$SULODJUDQGMXU\LQWKH(DVWHUQ'LVWULFWRI 0LFKLJDQUHWXUQHGDPXOWLSOHFRXQWLQGLFWPHQWDJDLQVWWKUHH EURWKHUV -DFN &KDUOHV DQG *HRUJH 5DVKLG DQG WKHLU DWWRUQH\ -DFN &KLOLQJLULDQ 7KH LQGLFWPHQW DURVH RXW RI D VFKHPHODUJHO\FDUULHGRXWE\-DFNDQG&KDUOHV5DVKLGWR GHIUDXG LQYHVWRUV LQ IUDXGXOHQW EXVLQHVV HQWLWLHV EDVHG RQ DFWXDORUQHDUO\FRPSOHWHGPXOWLPLOOLRQGROODUFRQWUDFWVIRU  8QLWHG6WDWHVY&KLOLQJLULDQ 1RV 1RV 8QLWHG6WDWHVY&KLOLQJLULDQ 

The Third Circuit has since clarified the holding of Smith: WKHVDOHRIDXWRPRELOHUDGDUEUDNLQJV\VWHPVDQGUHODWHGUDGDU WHFKQRORJ\ Where money laundering is not ‘minimal or incidental,’ and is ‘separate from the underlying crime’ and intended &KLOLQJLULDQVHUYHGDVWKHDWWRUQH\IRUWKH5DVKLGVDQGWKH to ‘make it appear that the funds were legitimate’ or to 5DVKLGIDPLO\¶VFRPSDQ\9HKLFOH5DGDU6DIHW\6\VWHPV,QF funnel money into further criminal activities, § 2S1.1 is ³9566´   IURP  RU  WKURXJK WKH GDWH RI WKH an applicable guideline. The guideline may also be LQGLFWPHQW+HKHOGDILIWHHQSHUFHQWVKDUHLQ9566 applicable if there is evidence that the activities which fulfilled the broad statutory requirements for money ,Q  &KLOLQJLULDQ UHSUHVHQWHG 9566 ZKHQ LW ILOHG D laundering were extensive with drug trafficking or other &KDSWHU  EDQNUXSWF\ UHRUJDQL]DWLRQ SHWLWLRQ ZKLFK ZDV serious crime. ODWHU FRQYHUWHG LQWR D &KDSWHU  OLTXLGDWLRQ SURFHHGLQJ 'XULQJWKHSHQGHQF\RIWKHEDQNUXSWF\SURFHHGLQJVDJURXS United States v. Mustafa, 238 F.3d 485, 495 (3d Cir. 2001) RILQYHVWRUVUHIHUUHGWRDVWKH³5XGGHU*URXS´HQWHUHGWKH (quoting United States v. Bockius, 228 F.3d 305, 313 (3d Cir. SLFWXUH  ,Q $XJXVW  &KDUOHV 5XGGHU PHW WKH 5DVKLGV 2000)). In this case, it could also be argued that even if this ZKHQKHZDVZRUNLQJIRU*HQFRUS$HURMHW ³$HURMHW´ ZKLFK Circuit were to apply Smith, its rationale would fail to ZDVGLVFXVVLQJZLWK9566WKHSRVVLELOLW\RIEX\LQJLWVUDGDU produce the result desired by Chilingirian. The money EUDNLQJWHFKQRORJ\RUSHUKDSVWKHFRPSDQ\,Q'HFHPEHURI laundering in this case was not minimal nor incidental, and it $HURMHWLQIRUPHGWKH5DVKLGVWKDWWKH\ZRXOGQRWJR appears to have been funneled through the client trust account IRUZDUG ZLWK DQ\ GHDOV  1HYHUWKHOHVV 5XGGHU DQG RWKHU in order to make it appear legitimate and to further the radar SHRSOHZKRNQHZ&KLOLQJLULDQDOVRLQYHVWHGLQ9566 technology/fraud scheme. ,QHDUO\LQOLJKWRIWKHEDQNUXSWF\WKH5XGGHUVEHJDQ 7KH7KLUG&LUFXLWUHOLHGRQ866*$SSHQGL[$   WDSLQJ WHOHSKRQH FRQYHUVDWLRQV ZLWK WKH 5DVKLGV DQG ZKLFKVWDWHV³>L@ILQDQDW\SLFDOFDVHWKHJXLGHOLQHVHFWLRQ &KLOLQJLULDQ,QRQHRIWKHVHFRQYHUVDWLRQV&KLOLQJLULDQVDLG LQGLFDWHGIRUWKHVWDWXWHRIFRQYLFWLRQLVLQDSSURSULDWHEHFDXVH WKDWKHKDGEHHQZRUNLQJRQVRPHWKLQJWKDWZDVJRLQJWREH RIWKHSDUWLFXODUFRQGXFWLQYROYHGXVHWKHJXLGHOLQHVHFWLRQ IDEXORXV  Chilingirian also reassured RWKHUs that he was PRVWDSSOLFDEOHWRWKHQDWXUHRIWKHRIIHQVHFRQGXFWFKDUJHG working on several deals.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Chilingirian, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-chilingirian-ca6-2002.