October Term 2007 · Docket 06-1005

Does the federal money laundering statute cover all crime proceeds or only profits?

The government argues the law covers all crime receipts. The defendants argue it covers only profits.

Official caption
United States v. Efrain Santos and Benedicto Diaz
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    The government advocate argued the Seventh Circuit misconstrued the statute. He stated the law covers all gross receipts, not just profits.

    The defense advocate argued paying expenses is necessary for business. He stated paying winners is essential to gambling operations.

    Justice Souter asked if robbery in a dark alley is automatically concealment. He sought to clarify the statutory elements.

    Justice Ginsburg asked about Judge Easterbrook's qualification regarding business-like operations. She cited gambling and contraband sales as examples.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the scope of the federal money laundering statute. The government seeks to convict the defendants. The defendants seek to overturn their convictions.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 3, 2007.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants the Court to uphold the conviction. It argues the statute covers all gross receipts from a crime.

The defendants want the Court to reverse the conviction. They argue the statute covers only net profits.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government contends the statute prohibits laundering all gross receipts. It rejects the profit-only interpretation.

The defendants contend the statute prohibits laundering only profits. They argue paying expenses is necessary for business operations.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked why the advocate stopped speaking. He noted he did not know the advocate was finished.

Justice Scalia asked why Congress would make all betting operations automatically violate two criminal statutes. He found this outcome extraordinary.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the scope of federal money laundering laws. It determines whether all crime receipts or only profits trigger criminal liability. This affects how prosecutors charge financial crimes.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON