## Facts

- Vickie S. Cabrales was indicted in the Western District of Missouri as the sole defendant for conduct involving proceeds traceable to cocaine sales in Missouri.
- The indictment charged: (1) conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii); (2) substantive money laundering under § 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii); and (3) engaging in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property over $10,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 1957.
- The substantive counts alleged that, in January 1991, Cabrales deposited $40,000 into a Florida bank account and later made four withdrawals of $9,500 each, all in Florida.
- Cabrales moved to dismiss the substantive money-laundering counts for improper venue, arguing that all charged financial transactions occurred in Florida, not Missouri.
- The district court dismissed the substantive counts (Counts II and III) for improper venue but allowed the conspiracy count (Count I) to proceed.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Counts II and III, and the Supreme Court granted review limited to venue for the substantive counts.

## Issues

1. Whether venue for substantive money-laundering offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii) and 1957 is proper in the district where the unlawful proceeds were generated when all charged laundering transactions occurred in another district.
2. Whether the substantive money-laundering offenses qualify as “continuing offenses” under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) so as to permit prosecution where the underlying criminal activity occurred.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously held that Missouri was not a proper venue for the substantive money-laundering counts.
- The Court affirmed dismissal of Counts II and III for improper venue.
- The Court concluded the charged laundering offenses occurred wholly in Florida because the statutes criminalize the financial transactions, not the earlier criminal activity that produced the funds.
- The Court rejected treating the substantive counts as “continuing offenses” under § 3237(a) based solely on the Missouri source of the funds.
- The Court left undisturbed the disposition permitting the conspiracy count to proceed in Missouri.

## Legal Principles

- Federal criminal venue is determined by identifying the offense’s locus delicti from the nature of the crime charged and the location of the acts constituting it.
- Article III, the Sixth Amendment, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 18 require trial in the district where the offense was committed.
- 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii) and 1957 target the conduct of financial transactions; the illicit origin of the funds is an antecedent circumstance relevant to proof but does not supply venue.
- 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) applies only where the charged offense is begun, continued, or completed across districts based on the offense’s conduct elements; it does not apply when the defendant’s charged conduct occurred in a single district.

## Conclusion

Because the substantive money-laundering statutes criminalize only the financial transactions and Cabrales’s charged transactions occurred entirely in Florida, venue in Missouri was improper even though the funds were derived from Missouri drug trafficking; the dismissal of the substantive counts for improper venue was therefore affirmed.


United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1 (1998)