Case 1:04-cr-00103-REB
Document 1096-28
Filed 03/30/2007
Page 1 of 3
INSTRUCTION NO. G-27 MONEY LAUNDERING 18 U.S.C. § 1957 The following defendants are charged with money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1957 as described in the chart below: Count 34 Date March 23, 2000 Defendant(s) NORMAN SCHMIDT Monetary Transaction Clearing of check #1012 in the amount of $20,000 on Reserve Foundation, LLC account at Bank One payable to America West Packaging $24,273.75 wire transfer from Smitty's account at Wells Fargo Bank account to Asset Holdings account at US Bank Clearing of check #1412 in the amount of $20,000 on Smitty's account at Wells Fargo Bank payable to Miloka Holdings Clearing of check #1428 in the amount of $35,000 on Smitty's account at Wells Fargo Bank, payable to Team Walker Motorsports Clearing of check #1460 in the amount of $50,000 on Smitty's account at Wells Fargo Bank, payable to Jannice McLain $219,703.41 wire transfer from Capital Holdings, LLC account at Wells Fargo Bank to Northwest Group, LLC account at US Bank Clearing of check #1037 in the amount of $55,000 from Capital Holdings, LLC account at Wells Fargo Bank, payable to Charles Lewis $25,000 wire transfer from Smitty's account at Wells Fargo Bank to Federal Recovery Group account at North Fork Bank
36
June 18, 2002
NORMAN SCHMIDT; MICHAEL SMITH
37
July 23, 2002
NORMAN SCHMIDT; CHARLES LEWIS
38
August 5, 2002
NORMAN SCHMIDT
39
August 7, 2002
NORMAN SCHMIDT
40
August 15, 2002
NORMAN SCHMIDT; MICHAEL SMITH
41
August 15, 2002
NORMAN SCHMIDT; CHARLES LEWIS
42
October 1, 2002
NORMAN SCHMIDT
Case 1:04-cr-00103-REB
Document 1096-28
Filed 03/30/2007
Page 2 of 3
43
November 18, 2002
NORMAN SCHMIDT; GEORGE ALAN WEED NORMAN SCHMIDT
Clearing of check #1621 in the amount of $130,000 on Smitty's account at Wells Fargo Bank, payable to Compliance Holding Co. $7,500,000 wire transfer from Capital Holdings, LLC account at Wells Fargo Bank to First Clearing Corp. account at First Union Bank Clearing of check #1735 in the amount of $65,000 on Smitty's account at Wells Fargo Bank payable to Concrete Building Systems Clearing of check #1008 in the amount of $92,632.60 on Fast Track, LLC, account at Key Bank payable to Compliance Holding Co. Withdrawal of $13,516.41 from Rocky Mountain Sports Promotions, LLC account at Commercial Federal Bank
44
December 12, 2002
45
December 30, 2002
NORMAN SCHMIDT
46
February 24, 2003
GEORGE ALAN WEED
47
May 2, 2003
NORMAN SCHMIDT
This law makes it a crime knowingly to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000 and which is derived from specified unlawful activity. To find the defendant whose case you are considering guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the government has proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt: First: the defendant engaged or attempted to engage; Second: in a monetary transaction; Third: in criminally derived property; Fourth: knowing that the property is derived from unlawful activity, namely mail fraud, wire fraud, or securities fraud; and Fifth: the property is, in fact, derived from specified unlawful activity, namely mail fraud, wire fraud, or securities fraud. 2
Case 1:04-cr-00103-REB
Document 1096-28
Filed 03/30/2007
Page 3 of 3
The term "criminally derived property" means any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained from a criminal offense. "Proceeds" can be any kind of property, not just money. You are not required to find that the defendant whose case you are considering knew that the unlawful activity was "specified unlawful activity," only that the defendant knew that the activity was unlawful. The term "conducts" includes initiating, concluding, or participating in initiating, or concluding a transaction. The term "monetary transaction" means the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or exchange, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce as defined in instruction number ____, or funds or a monetary instrument, by, through, or to a financial institution. "Interstate commerce" means commerce or travel between the states, territories or possessions of the United States, including the District of Columbia. It is not necessary that the defendant have intended or anticipated an effect on interstate commerce. All that is necessary is that the natural and probable consequence of the acts the defendant took would be to affect interstate commerce.
United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147, 1163 (10th Cir. 2005); 18 U.S.C. § 1957. 3