教授，博士生導師。復旦大學中國反洗錢研究中心首任主任，復旦大學俄...
復旦大學國際金融學院教授，中國反洗錢研究中心執行主任，陸家嘴金...
復旦大學法學院教授、博士生導師；復旦大學國際刑法研究中心主任。...
華東政法大學刑法學教授，復旦大學中國反洗錢研究中心特聘研究員，荷...
安永金融服務風險管理、咨詢總監，曾任螞蟻金服反洗錢總監，復旦大學...
周錦賢先生，香港人，廣州暨南大學法律學士，復旦大學中國反洗錢研究中...
高級經濟師，復旦大學金融學博士，復旦大學經濟學博士后。現供職于中...
武漢中南財經政法大學信息安全學院教授。長期專注于反洗錢/反恐...
生辰：1977.7.26 籍貫：遼寧撫順 民族：漢 黨派：九三學社 職稱：教授 研究...
祝亞雄，1974年生，浙江衢州人。浙江師范大學經濟與管理學院副教授，博...
復旦大學中國反洗錢研究中心特聘研究員；現任安永管理咨詢服務合伙...
工作履歷：曾在國家審計署從事審計工作，是國家第一批政府審計師；曾在...
The U.S. Department of Justice is urging the nation’s highest court to reject a petition from Baltimore defense attorney Kenneth W. Ravenell, who has challenged his 2021 conviction on a count of money laundering.
The government’s brief, filed last week before the U.S. Supreme Court, argues that Ravenell failed to prove at trial that he withdrew from a money laundering conspiracy involving one of his former criminal defense clients.
A five-year statute of limitations is central to Ravenell’s appeal. The defense team has argued that jurors at Ravenell’s trial should have been instructed on the statute of limitations and might have acquitted him if they found the money laundering conspiracy ended before July 2014, when the statute of limitations period began.
Once a sought-after criminal defense attorney who argued before the U.S. Supreme Court himself, Ravenell now faces nearly five years in federal prison if his conviction survives this appeal.
At Ravenell’s trial, the government accused him of helping to launder nearly $2 million in drug money for a former criminal defense client who ran a marijuana trafficking organization. The client, Richard Byrd, testified for the prosecution that Ravenell provided advice on how to evade law enforcement and accepted drug money as payment for his services.
Jurors found Ravenell guilty of money laundering but acquitted him of other charges, including racketeering and narcotics conspiracy, in December 2021.
Ravenell has argued on appeal that the government had to show his involvement in the conspiracy continued into the statute of limitations period.
In its latest filing, the government countered that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense in non-overt act conspiracy cases, making it the defense’s job to prove when the conspiracy ended.
“To raise the statute of limitations as a defense, the defendant must meet a burden of production by identifying evidence that the conspiracy terminated or the defendant affirmatively withdrew,” attorneys for the government wrote in their brief.
A jury instruction is only appropriate when a defendant shows evidence that the conspiracy ended before the statute of limitations period, the lawyers wrote. And the government went beyond its burden in this case by offering evidence that Ravenell was involved in the money laundering conspiracy past the statute of limitations deadline, the government argued.
“…Because the government introduced ‘ample evidence’ that the conspiracy continued beyond July 2, 2014, while petitioner offered ‘no affirmative evidence’ to support his statute-of-limitations defense, petitioner is unlikely to prevail even under the rule that he espouses” the government wrote.
A U.S. district judge and a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have both rejected Ravenell’s arguments. In a 2-1 decision, an appeals court panel concluded that the defense offered no affirmative evidence to show that Ravenell withdrew from the money laundering conspiracy before the statute of limitations period began.
The full appeals court voted 9-5 against reconsidering the panel’s decision.
Ravenell’s lawyers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in last year, arguing that there is a split among federal circuit courts on the statute of limitations issue.
The justices still have not said whether they will take up the case. Ravenell’s sentence is on hold until the Supreme Court rules on his petition for certiorari.