October Term 2004 · Docket 03-1293
Does a money laundering conspiracy require proof of an overt act?
The dispute centers on whether prosecutors must prove a specific criminal act occurred to charge a conspiracy under federal money laundering laws.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Samek argued that Congress enacted the statute solely to increase penalties for money laundering conspiracies.
She contended that Congress did not intend to abandon the overt act requirement for these offenses.
Mr. Marcus asserted that the money laundering conspiracy statute does not require proof of an overt act.
He stated that the text of the statute contains no such requirement as a primary reason.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-54 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-54 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 1-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 1-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-41
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case examines the legal requirements for prosecuting money laundering conspiracies. The core issue is whether the statute mandates proof of an overt act. the sides that brought the case argue this requirement remains in effect. The government contends the statute does not require such proof.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-54 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 30, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to confirm that proving an overt act is mandatory for a money laundering conspiracy conviction.
The government wants the Court to rule that the statute does not require proof of an overt act for such charges.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-54 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue that Congress intended to preserve the overt act requirement when enacting the specific penalty provisions.
The government argues that the statutory text contains no explicit requirement for proving an overt act in conspiracy cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-54 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked why the statute lists venue options in the alternative if an overt act were always required.
Justice Scalia asked if the cited provision is the only basis for establishing venue in these cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-54 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 1-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 1-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-41
Why it matters
This case defines the evidentiary burden for federal money laundering conspiracy prosecutions. It clarifies whether prosecutors must demonstrate a specific criminal act. The outcome shapes how courts interpret statutory silence on conspiracy elements. It impacts the scope of federal criminal jurisdiction over financial crimes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-54 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-54 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 1-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 1-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-41
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-54 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-54 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-13
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.