FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50423 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:14-cr-00648- CAS-9 HARINDER SINGH, AKA Lnu, Sonu, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 9, 2020 Pasadena, California Filed May 3, 2021 Before: Barrington D. Parker, * Paul J. Watford, and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Parker; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Watford * The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 UNITED STATES V. SINGH SUMMARY ** 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 ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 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 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals