October Term 2007 · Docket 06-1456
Does moving drug money across a border count as laundering?
The dispute centers on whether transporting cash from a drug deal constitutes money laundering under federal law.
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. Schertler argued the statute does not demand proof that proceeds will be cleansed after crossing the border.
Mr. Beard argued the statute requires intent to minimize the criminal taint of unlawful proceeds.
Justice Stevens asked for clarification on what constitutes a method of transportation in this context.
Justice Breyer questioned whether a literal reading of the statute supports the side that brought the case's interpretation.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-41
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Regalado Cuellar moved cash from a drug transaction across a border. The government convicted him of money laundering. Cuellar argues the law requires intent to hide the money's criminal origin. The government argues the law targets hiding the money itself.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 25, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
Cuellar wants the conviction overturned because he did not intend to hide the money's criminal origin.
The United States wants the conviction to stand because the law targets hiding the money itself.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
What each side says
Cuellar argues the statute requires intent to minimize the criminal taint of proceeds, not just conceal existence.
The United States argues the statute contains no requirement to prove the money will be cleansed later.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked what crime exists if possessing money is criminal but not laundering.
Chief Justice Roberts asked why transporting money does not conceal ownership or location.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-41
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal money laundering laws. It determines whether simple transport of drug proceeds triggers criminal liability. The outcome shapes how prosecutors charge financial crimes involving illegal proceeds.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
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 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-41
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 27, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
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.