## Facts

- Michael H. Tarkoff, a Florida criminal defense lawyer, represented Ismael Arnaiz, a target of a grand jury investigation into a large Medicare fraud scheme.
- During plea negotiations, a federal prosecutor advised Tarkoff that the fraud caused substantial Medicare losses; Tarkoff did not dispute Arnaiz’s guilt and repeatedly stated Arnaiz had no significant legitimate assets.
- A secretary testified that Tarkoff acknowledged Arnaiz’s Medicare fraud and discussed moving Arnaiz’s money to hide it from the U.S. government.
- Federal agents explicitly warned Tarkoff that all money in Arnaiz’s possession came from Medicare fraud, was subject to seizure, and was not to be moved.
- Fraud proceeds were held in an offshore bank; while in Florida, Tarkoff made calls to arrange transfers to a foreign bank, including further communications from Florida and travel abroad connected to the transfers.
- Tarkoff was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)) and two counts of money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)) based on two monetary transactions that were executed outside the United States.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and § 1956(h) can support convictions when the charged monetary transactions were executed wholly outside the United States.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Tarkoff knew the property involved was criminal proceeds and that the transactions were designed to conceal or disguise the proceeds.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Tarkoff’s convictions on all counts.
- The court held that § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and § 1956(h) could apply on these facts despite the foreign execution of the transactions, given substantial U.S. connections to the scheme and Tarkoff’s domestic conduct in arranging the transfers.
- The court held the evidence sufficient to establish Tarkoff’s knowledge of the unlawful source of funds and an intent to conceal.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction under § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) may be sustained where foreign financial movements are tied to a domestic specified unlawful activity and the defendant undertakes significant conduct in the United States to arrange or further the transactions.
- Prior precedent limiting application of the transportation subsection (§ 1956(a)(2)) to transfers to or from the United States does not control prosecutions brought under § 1956(a)(1) for financial transactions when the case involves substantial domestic connections.
- Knowledge and concealment intent under § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) may be proven through circumstantial and direct evidence, including admissions, warnings from law enforcement, lack of legitimate income sources, and steps taken to move assets offshore to avoid seizure.
- On appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency, a jury verdict is upheld if, viewing the evidence in the government’s favor, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Tarkoff’s money-laundering and conspiracy convictions, holding that § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) can reach foreign-executed transactions when the defendant’s conduct and the underlying unlawful activity have substantial U.S. connections, and that the trial evidence supported findings of knowledge and concealment intent.


United States v. Tarkoff, 242 F.3d 991 (11th Cir. 2001)