U.S. v. Ramerez, 03 CR.834 SHS.
| Decision Date | 07 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03 CR.834 SHS.,03 CR.834 SHS. |
| Citation | 313 F.Supp.2d 276 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Eduardo RAMEREZ, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Daniel R. Margolis, United States Attorney, New York, NY, for U.S.
Jonathan Marks, Jonathan Marks, P.C., New York, NY, for defendant.
Eduardo Ramerez was convicted by a jury on January 12, 2003 of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(B). He now moves pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. 29 to have that verdict set aside, or in the alternative, pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. 33 for a new trial.
The government charged Ramerez in a three count indictment with one count of conspiring to launder money and with two counts of participating in a financial transaction to launder money. The charges against Ramerez stem from his participation in a scheme to launder the proceeds of narcotics trafficking as follows: the cash proceeds of drug sales would be used to buy gold shot — or gold shot covered with silver — which in certain instances would be melted into the form of household items such as wrenches, belts and keys. Some of these were in turn painted to further disguise the fact that they were, quite literally, golden. The gold, or gold items, could then be more easily transported out of the United States without being detected by law enforcement.
At trial, the government introduced evidence that Ramerez worked as a watch repairman at Zarcos Jewelry, and that he and his employer, Fernando Obregon-Torres, assisted the government's confidential informant — Fabio Hernandez — to obtain gold in exchange for cash. Additionally, Ramerez and Obregon-Torres were connected to Alberto Quichiz, the owner of Alberto Jewelry, and assisted Hernandez in purchasing gold through Quichiz.
At trial, the government relied primarily upon the testimony of Hernandez and the recordings of his conversations with Ramerez and other conspirators. The government produced recordings of telephone conversations and recordings of meetings where Hernandez represented his cash to be the proceeds of narcotics trafficking in the presence of Ramerez and various other defendants. The government also introduced evidence of Ramerez's conversations with Hernandez about exchanging gold for cash. Hernandez testified that Ramerez had secured gold for him on more than one occasion. At the end of the trial, the jury acquitted Ramerez of Count One — that he participated in a money laundering conspiracy from April 2001 through June 2003, and Count Two — that he participated in a money laundering transaction on February 5, 2002 by assisting Hernandez in obtaining gold for cash. The jury convicted Ramerez of Count Three, thereby finding that he participated in a money laundering transaction on May 21, 2003.
Defendant seeks a judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 29. A district court will grant such a motion only if it concludes "that no rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." U.S. v. Jackson, 335 F.3d 170, 180 (2d Cir.2003) (citing Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(a), (c); United States v. Reyes, 302 F.3d 48, 52 (2d Cir.2002)). A defendant who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction "bears a heavy burden." Id. (citing United States v. Finley, 245 F.3d 199, 202 (2d Cir.2001)). The district court must view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and "all permissible inferences [must be] drawn in the Government's favor." Guadagna, 183 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir.1999). If "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt," then the jury's verdict must be upheld. U.S. v. Jackson, 335 F.3d at 180 (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)).
The jury convicted Eduardo Ramerez of Count Three of the indictment, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(B).1 That count alleged that he participated in a money laundering transaction on May 21, 2003. The Court instructed the jury that in order to convict Ramerez on this count, they must find that Eduardo Ramerez's conduct satisfied the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
The jury was also instructed that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2 Ramerez could be convicted on Count Three as an aider and abettor if the jurors found beyond a reasonable doubt that Ramerez "willfully and knowingly associated himself in some way with the crime and willfully and knowingly sought by some act to help make the crime succeed." (Trial Tr. p. 610:16-19). The Court also instructed the jury that the (Trial Tr. 610-611).
The evidence produced at trial was more than sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that Eduardo Ramerez engaged in a financial transaction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956, or that he aided and abetted others in their violation of that statute.
The jury was entitled to consider evidence that Ramerez was present at conversations that took place in his hearing between the government's confidential informant, Hernandez, and Ramerez's employer, Obregon-Torres. A rational juror could conclude from those conversations, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hernandez had represented the money to be the proceeds of illegal drug trafficking and that Ramerez believed that the money was the proceeds of illegal narcotics trafficking. For example, Hernandez said, in the presence of Ramerez on May 9, "my boss was receiving some cocaine here in the United States and so once he finished selling the cocaine he was going to give the money to me and we needed to buy gold to send it back to Colombia." (Trial Tr. 246); (Government Exhibit ("GX") 117 at 19).
A rational juror could also conclude from Ramerez's conversations with Hernandez on May 21, 2003 that Ramerez intended to assist, or did assist, Hernandez in completing a transaction to disguise the origins of the money. In a recorded telephone conversation, played for the jury, Hernandez said to Ramerez, "So I told him [Alberto Quichiz] that you recommended me and all so that ... I'll send you a small commission with him now." Ramerez responded, (GX 183T at 3). Ramerez's response here is sufficient to support an inference that he was agreeing that he had facilitated Hernandez's acquisition of gold from Quichiz and that he would accept the tip.
While the testimony could also be construed to support the conclusion urged by defendant — that...
To continue reading
Request your trial