## Facts

- David Whitfield and Haywood Hall were charged in federal district court with conspiracy to launder money under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).
- At trial, they requested a jury instruction requiring the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
- The district court refused the requested instruction.
- The jury convicted both defendants, and they were sentenced under § 1956(h).
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding § 1956(h) contains no overt-act element.
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve disagreement among the circuits on whether § 1956(h) requires proof of an overt act.

## Issues

1. Whether a conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) requires proof that a conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
- The Court held that § 1956(h) does not require proof of an overt act.
- The Court rejected the argument that § 1956(h) merely enhances penalties for conspiracies prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 371, which includes an overt-act requirement.
- Because § 1956(h) is textually sufficient to define a conspiracy offense and does not refer to § 371, the government need not prove an overt act to convict under § 1956(h).

## Legal Principles

- When Congress enacts a conspiracy statute that omits an express overt-act requirement, courts generally will not imply an overt-act element.
- Statutory text modeled on general conspiracy language with an overt-act clause (as in 18 U.S.C. § 371) carries an overt-act requirement; text modeled on conspiracy provisions lacking such a clause does not.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) creates a standalone money-laundering conspiracy offense and imposes the same penalties as the underlying money-laundering offense without requiring proof of an overt act.

## Conclusion

A defendant may be convicted of money-laundering conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) without proof or jury findings that any conspirator committed an overt act; the agreement to commit the underlying laundering offense is sufficient.


Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (2005)