## Facts

- Boubacar Bah owned and operated a money-transmission business serving primarily West African customers.
- Bah received cash in New York from customers for transmission to recipients abroad.
- Bah lacked a New York money-transmitter license required by New York Banking Law § 650.
- Bah obtained a New Jersey money-transmitter license and contended that transmissions occurred from New Jersey under that license, even if funds were received in New York.
- The district court interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 1960 to criminalize Bah’s New York receipt of money for transmission without a New York license, regardless of where transmission occurred.
- Based on that interpretation, the district court excluded evidence of Bah’s New Jersey license as irrelevant.
- Bah presented a character witness for truthfulness; on cross-examination, the government asked about a prior customer complaint accusing Bah of fraud, and the court allowed the inquiry.
- Bah sought Criminal Justice Act funds to bring thirteen overseas witnesses to testify that recipients had successfully received transmitted funds; the court denied the request.
- The jury convicted Bah of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business under 18 U.S.C. § 1960.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1960(b)(1)(A) incorporates New York Banking Law § 650 so broadly that operating in New York without a New York license is a federal offense based solely on “receiving money for transmission,” even if transmission occurs under a valid license in another state.
2. Whether the district court’s jury instructions and related evidentiary rulings (including exclusion of the New Jersey license evidence) improperly reflected an overbroad construction of § 1960.
3. Whether permitting cross-examination of a defense character witness about a past customer complaint, and denying CJA funds for overseas witnesses, required reversal.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the district court misconstrued § 1960 by treating it as incorporating, as a matter of federal law, New York’s separate prohibition on engaging in the business of receiving money for transmission without a license.
- Because the erroneous interpretation affected the jury instructions and the exclusion of the New Jersey license evidence, the appellate court could not determine whether the jury convicted Bah for conduct prohibited by federal law or only for conduct prohibited by New York law.
- The court concluded that the character-witness cross-examination and the denial of CJA funds did not independently warrant reversal (any error was harmless or within the district court’s discretion).

## Legal Principles

- 18 U.S.C. § 1960 criminalizes operating an “unlicensed money transmitting business” by reference to whether state law requires a license for the operation of such a business and punishes unlicensed operation.
- Section 1960 incorporates the existence of a relevant state licensing requirement but does not federalize every regulatory feature or distinct sub-offense contained in a state’s money-transmission statute.
- When a defendant offers character evidence, the government may cross-examine the character witness about specific instances relevant to the trait at issue, subject to the trial court’s discretion under the rules governing character evidence.
- Decisions on CJA funding for proposed witnesses are committed to the district court’s discretion, including assessments of necessity and cumulativeness.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that § 1960’s incorporation of state law is limited to state licensing requirements for money-transmission businesses and does not automatically transform New York’s broader ban on unlicensed “receipt for transmission” into a federal crime; the resulting instructional and evidentiary errors required vacatur and a new trial.


United States v. Bah, 574 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2009)