From a criminal defense prospective in money laundering cases, Deschenes v. The State of Texas, 253 S.W.3d 374 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d.) is one of the most important appellate decisions to come along in quite some time.
Mr. Deschenes was stopped for speeding on Interstate 40 in Gray County, Texas (the county seat is Pampa – just 60 miles east of Amarillo) by the Texas Highway Patrol. The trooper issued him a warning ticket and then asked him if he could search his car. Mr. Deschenes consented and $17,620.00 was found in the trunk of the car. Mr. Deschenes was arrested and indicted for money laundering under the provisions of § 34.02 of the Texas Penal Code.
At trial, the State failed to offer any evidence as to any specific criminal activity. The State’s principal witness, the arresting officer, made several references to “drug trafficking” and “drug smuggling” while generally describing the activities of individuals engaged in drug trafficking. There was no evidence connecting Mr. Deschenes and the money to any specific felony. The jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to a term of ten years confinement in the Texas prison system (the prison term was probated for ten years) and a fine in the amount of $10,000.00 was imposed. Mr. Deschenes appealed.
The Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo reversed the trial court’s judgment of conviction and rendered its own judgment of acquittal. The Court stated that:
In order for a conviction for money laundering to be upheld, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence of a temporal connection, or nexus, between the money and some criminal activity.
— Deschenes at 381-382
The Court noted that the evidence tending to establish a connection between the $17,620.00 and some unnamed criminal activity amounted to mere conjecture. In support of a nexus between the money and some unidentified “criminal activity,” the State pointed to some 22 profiling characteristics and a positive alert by a narcotics dog. The Court was not impressed and went on to write:
Profiling characteristics are normally factors courts consider when determining whether Fourth Amendment rights are implicated by a brief investigatory detention. The mere fact that a person’s actions match a drug courier profile and that person is carrying a large amount of money that might be involved in some illegal activity is insufficient to establish probable cause to justify forfeiture, and it is insufficient to establish a nexus between the money and some criminal activity beyond a reasonable doubt.
— Deschenes at 385
If you have been charged with money laundering in Texas, the facts of your case should be reviewed in light of the Deschenes decision.
To read the Court’s opinion, click here.