Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Siriwans_DOJresponse

Siriwans_DOJresponse

Ratings: (0)|Views: 105 |Likes:
Published by corruptioncurrents

More info:

Published by: corruptioncurrents on Sep 12, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/19/2014

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.United States AttorneyROBBERT E. DUGDALEAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Criminal DivisionJONATHAN E. LOPEZ (SBN 210513)Deputy Chief, Asset Forfeitureand Money Laundering SectionCriminal DivisionUnited States Dept. of Justice1400 New York Ave, N.W.Bond Building, Room 2200Washington, D.C. 20005Telephone: (202) 307-0846Facsimile: (202) 616-2547Email: jonathan.lopez@usdoj.govAttorneys for PlaintiffUNITED STATES OF AMERICAUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAWESTERN DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.JUTHAMAS SIRIWAN,aka “the Governor,” andJITTISOPA SIRIWAN,aka “Jib,”Defendants.)))))))))))))CR No. 09-81-GWGOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE INOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONTO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT;DECLARATION OF JONATHAN E. LOPEZHearing Date:October 20, 2011Hearing Time:8:30 a.m. ______________________________)Plaintiff United States of America, through its counsel ofrecord, hereby files its Response in Opposition to defendants’Motions to Dismiss the Indictment. The government’s Oppositionis based upon the attached memorandum of points and authorities,the attached declaration of Jonathan E. Lopez, the files andrecords in this matter, as well as any evidence or argumentpresented at any hearing on this matter.
Case 2:09-cr-00081-GW Document 67 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 57 Page ID #:741
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DATED: September 9, 2011Respectfully submitted,ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.United States AttorneyROBERT E. DUGDALEAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Criminal DivisionJENNIFER SHASKY CALVERYChief, Asset Forfeitureand Money Laundering SectionCriminal DivisionUnited States Dept. of Justice/s/JONATHAN E. LOPEZDeputy Chief, Asset Forfeitureand Money Laundering SectionCriminal DivisionUnited States Dept. of JusticeAttorneys for PlaintiffUNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ii
Case 2:09-cr-00081-GW Document 67 Filed 09/09/11 Page 2 of 57 Page ID #:742
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION:PAGETABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................iv-viiMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES............................1I.SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT......................................1-6II.DISCUSSION..............................................6-49A.THE INDICTMENT PROPERLY CHARGES LEGITIMATE AND FAMILIARMONEY LAUNDERING OFFENSES..........................6-221.Defendants’ Claims Ignore a Fundamental Aspect of18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A): There Is No RequirementFor Separate Ill-Gotten Gains or “Proceeds” to BeObtained Before the Statute Can Be Charged....7-132.“Double Duty” Is Permissible Under 18 U.S.C. §1956(a)(2)(A); Contrary to Defendants’ AssertionsThere Is No Merger Problem...................13-163.The Promotion Aspect of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A)Is Properly Charged..........................17-214.The Rule of Lenity Is Not Implicated by TheseFamiliar and Often-Used Charges..............21-22B.THE SUAS ARE APPROPRIATELY CHARGED IN THIS CASE...22-301.The FCPA Is a Proper SUA.....................22-252.The Thai Offenses Defendants Promoted Fit SquarelyWithin 18 U.S.C. § 1956(C)(7)(B)(iv).........26-30C.THE MONEY LAUNDERING STATUTES PROVIDE FOREXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION FOR THE STATUTESCHARGED...........................................31-35D.THIS COURT IS THE PROPER FORUM FOR THE INDICTMENT.35-491.Defendants' Statutory Construction Analysis Fails:The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality HasBeen Rebutted by Section 1956's Plain Text...36-382.Application of § 1956 (a)(2)(A) to Defendants DoesNot Violate International Law................38-453.Section 9 of Thailand’s Penal Code Is Not anAssertion by Thailand of Sole Jurisdiction OverThe Offenses in The Indictment...............45-49III.CONCLUSION................................................49
iii
Case 2:09-cr-00081-GW Document 67 Filed 09/09/11 Page 3 of 57 Page ID #:743

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->