## Facts

- Defendants participated in two related schemes to move bank funds overseas through fraudulent wire transfers.
- In the Irving Trust scheme, a bank insider provided detailed information about wire-transfer security and a target account; defendants arranged an overseas destination account and prepared to initiate a multi-million-dollar transfer.
- Defendant Tichio supplied a Swiss account intended to receive the funds and assist in distribution.
- Defendant Piervinanzi supervised operational security and arranged for a participant to place the call initiating the transfer.
- The Irving Trust transfer failed because the insider intentionally sabotaged it due to safety concerns; no funds were obtained.
- In the separate Morgan Guaranty scheme, Piervinanzi used account access information to cause fraudulent wire-transfer instructions to be sent to the bank, resulting in at least some unauthorized movement of funds.
- After an eleven-day jury trial in the Southern District of New York, Piervinanzi and Tichio were convicted of conspiracy, attempted bank fraud, and attempted money laundering tied to Irving Trust; Piervinanzi was also convicted of wire fraud and money-laundering offenses tied to Morgan Guaranty.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported attempted bank fraud convictions where the Irving Trust transfer failed and no funds were obtained, and whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York.
2. Whether the evidence supported attempted international money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2) based on steps taken to transfer anticipated proceeds to foreign accounts.
3. Whether a transaction associated with the Morgan Guaranty scheme constituted a “monetary transaction in criminally derived property” under 18 U.S.C. § 1957, or instead was part of the underlying fraud generating the proceeds.
4. Whether conspiracy convictions were improper due to overlap with substantive fraud and money-laundering counts.
5. Whether sentencing required revision after any partial reversal.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed convictions for conspiracy, wire fraud, attempted bank fraud, and attempted money laundering.
- The court held that the Irving Trust conduct constituted a “substantial step” toward bank fraud despite failure of the transfer, because defendants gathered insider information, arranged foreign accounts, and initiated the transfer process; the failure was not voluntary abandonment.
- Venue in the Southern District of New York was upheld because the attempted fraud targeted a bank located in that district and involved conduct directed there.
- The court affirmed attempted money laundering convictions under § 1956(a)(2) because defendants took substantial steps toward transferring funds from the United States to foreign accounts.
- The court vacated Piervinanzi’s conviction under § 1957, concluding the charged transaction did not involve criminally derived property distinct from the underlying fraud.
- The court remanded both defendants’ cases for resentencing in light of the vacatur, affirming the remainder of the judgments.

## Legal Principles

- Attempted bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 may be proven by substantial steps toward executing a fraudulent scheme against a financial institution, even if no loss occurs and the attempt fails for reasons outside defendants’ control.
- Attempted international money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2) may be established where defendants take substantial steps to transfer funds from the United States to a foreign destination, even if the transfer is not completed.
- Section 1957 requires a “monetary transaction” in “criminally derived property,” meaning proceeds already obtained from specified unlawful activity; the statute does not reach transactions that are merely part of executing the underlying fraud that generates the proceeds.
- Conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 is independently punishable based on an agreement to commit offenses plus an overt act, even when substantive offenses are also charged.
- When a conviction is vacated, the sentencing package must be reconsidered to ensure Guidelines calculations reflect only valid counts.

## Conclusion

The court sustained broad attempt and conspiracy liability for fraudulent international wire-transfer schemes but limited § 1957 money-laundering exposure by requiring a transaction in proceeds already derived from the underlying crime; it therefore vacated the § 1957 count and remanded for resentencing.


United States v. Piervinanzi, 23 F.3d 670 (2d Cir. 1994)