United States v. Singh, No. 18-50423 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to launder money in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(h), conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, and operating such a business in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1960. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a hawala operation, a money transmitting network that he and his coconspirators used to move drug trafficking proceeds from Canada to the United States and eventually to Mexico.
The panel concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions; the government's closing arguments did not constructively amend Counts II and III of the indictment; and there was no Confrontation Clause violation and no abuse of discretion in the district court's rulings regarding the cross-examination of a cooperating witness. The panel also concluded that it was not required to resolve the issue of whether a clear and convincing evidence standard or a preponderance of the evidence standard should apply, because the record supports the application of the six-level USSG 2S1.1(b)(1) enhancement, because defendant knew that the laundered funds were drug trafficiking proceeds, under either standard of proof. The panel noted that the district court ultimately imposed a sentence of 70 months, which is well below defendant's Guidelines range of 151–188 months.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed Harinder Singh’s convictions and sentence for conspiracy to launder money (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)), conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business (18 U.S.C. § 371), and operating such a business (18 U.S.C. § 1960), stemming from Singh’s involvement in a hawala operation, a money transmitting network that he and his coconspirators used to move drug trafficking proceeds from Canada to the United States and eventually to Mexico. Rejecting Singh’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to his § 1956 conviction, the panel held that a jury could have reasonably concluded that Singh intended to conceal the ownership and control of the drug proceeds, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). The panel also rejected Singh’s sufficiency-of-the- evidence challenge to his convictions under § 1960, which provides that money transmitting “includes” transferring funds on behalf of the public. Explaining that “includes” deems what follows to be a non-exhaustive list of what the statute covers, the panel held that “on behalf of the public” is not a necessary element of § 1960. The panel disagreed with Singh’s argument that because he did not advertise his services or make them generally available to everyone, his transactions were not “on behalf of the public.” The panel UNITED STATES V. SINGH 3 therefore concluded that Singh’s conduct triggered liability under § 1960. The panel held that even if “on the behalf of the public” were an element—which it is not—the government proved it. As to Singh’s contention that the government’s closing arguments constructively amended the indictment’s § 1960 counts, the panel saw no plain error. The panel explained that the indictment charges that Singh worked with others in a money transmitting business based on the hawala network, which is not “distinctly different” from charging Singh with conducting his own money transmitting business, and that the indictment was not substantially altered at trial. The panel held that the district court did not violate the Confrontation Clause, nor abuse its discretion, in limiting the cross-examination of a cooperating witness. Without resolving whether a clear and convincing evidence standard or a preponderance of the evidence standard should apply, the panel held that the record supports, under either standard, the district court’s application of an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(1) based on Singh’s knowing that the laundered funds were drug trafficking proceeds. Judge Watford concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed with the majority that Singh’s conduct rendered him guilty of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business in violation of § 1960, but in his view, Singh’s conduct did not amount to participation in a money laundering conspiracy. 4 UNITED STATES V. SINGH
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.