Legal News

Judge Dismisses Count I of Ben Kuehne?s Money Laundering Indictment

By Dan Slater

A few weeks back we mentioned that things were looking good for Ben Kuehne, the Miami lawyer who was indicted earlier this year after vouching for Colombian drug lord Fabio Ochoa’s $5.2 million legal payment to Roy Black. At a pretrial hearing, U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke said she found the government’s central charge against Kuehne “disturbing.” The money-laundering conspiracy charge gave her pause, she said, because it implied any defense lawyer could be prosecuted for accepting tainted fees.

Today, those sentiments gave rise to an order dismissing Count I of the indictment. The issue in that count, explains David Markus in his Southern District of Florida blog, was whether Kuehne (pictured) could be prosecuted for receiving legal fees in light of a statutory exemption for “transaction[s] necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.” (Click here for the 13-page order.)

Judge Cooke found that Kuehne could not be prosecuted because the funds were for legitimate legal services. Yet, she makes clear that her order does not provide blanket protection for money laundering by lawyers:

The dismissal of Count One of the Indictment does not prevent the Government from properly prosecuting attorneys for money laundering related crimes, nor does it totally negate criminal liability for an individual who may conspire to launder tainted funds to pay legal fees. The government’s concern that application of the [statutory exemption for legal fees] would hinder or bar prosecution of anyone who had contact with tainted funds that were eventually used to pay criminal defense fees is unfounded. The Indictment, in Counts 2 through 6, also charges Defendants under 18 U.S.C. §1956 with money laundering concealment conspiracy and concealment money laundering. There is no exemption contained in §1956 for transactions necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. None of these Defendants have moved to dismiss Counts 2 through 6. . . .

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on December 22, 2008 (boomark / email).