## Facts

- In 2004, Humberto Fidel Regalado Cuellar drove a Volkswagen Beetle on a Texas highway toward the Mexican border.
- Law enforcement stopped and searched the car, discovering nearly $81,000 in cash.
- The cash was hidden in a secret compartment under the rear floorboard, bundled in plastic bags, and covered with animal hair; the vehicle showed signs of tampering consistent with concealment.
- The government prosecuted Cuellar under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) for attempting to transport criminal proceeds from the United States to a place outside the United States, knowing the transportation was “designed” to conceal or disguise specified attributes of the funds.
- A jury convicted Cuellar; the Fifth Circuit (en banc) affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) is satisfied by proof that illicit funds were concealed during transportation, without proof that the transportation’s purpose was to conceal or disguise the funds’ nature, location, source, ownership, or control.
2. Whether the statute requires proof that the defendant sought to create an “appearance of legitimate wealth.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) does not require proof that the defendant sought to create an appearance of legitimate wealth.
- The Court also held that the statute cannot be satisfied solely by evidence that the money was hidden while being transported.
- The government must prove that the transportation itself was planned with the purpose of concealing or disguising one of the statute’s listed attributes of the funds.
- On the record presented, the evidence showed concealment to avoid detection during transit, not that the act of transporting the money was intended to conceal or disguise the listed attributes; the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), “designed to conceal or disguise” requires proof of purpose (intent), not merely an incidental effect of concealment.
- Concealment of money’s physical presence during movement (the manner of transport) does not, by itself, establish that the transportation was intended to conceal the money’s nature, location, source, ownership, or control.
- The statute’s scope is not limited to classic “making dirty money look clean,” and it does not impose a separate “appearance of legitimate wealth” element.
- To convict, the prosecution must connect the transportation plan to concealment or disguise of a statutorily specified attribute, rather than relying on generalized secrecy or efforts to evade law enforcement.

## Conclusion

The Court limited § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) to cases where the government proves that moving the funds was intended to conceal or disguise the funds’ nature, location, source, ownership, or control, and held that concealment during transport alone is not enough.


Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (2008)