Thursday, March 16, 2006

Money Laundering—Vnuk Family

A federal in the Eastern District of Wisconsin has returned a four-count indictment charging Christopher S. Vnuk and his parents, Stephen T. and Sharon R. Vnuk, with and to engage in money laundering.[1]

According to federal prosecutors, “between approximately May 2000 and April 2003, Christopher Vnuk [allegedly] sold marijuana and conspired with his parents to launder the proceeds of his drug business.”[2] Like many other money laundering cases we have seen,[3] the proceeds were allegedly used to “buy collector and luxury cars and other things, including auto renovation, repair, and storage services.”[4] The parents’ roles in the allegedly scheme are alleged to be
  • buying, titling, and registering the cars in either or both of their names, when Christopher Vnuk “was the true purchaser and owner”; and
  • buying goods and services in their names when Christopher Vnuk “was the true purchaser of those goods and services.”[5]
It is further alleged that goods were purchased on the parents’ credit cards, which were paid off using the proceeds of the alleged drug sales, and that the parents’ bank accounts received commingled funds from the proceeds of their son’s alleged drug sales.[6]

As we mentioned , the government initiates forfeiture proceedings in cases which involve allegations of money laundering, and that has happened here. The following property is being sought by the government:
  • Stephen and Sharon Vnuk’s residence;
  • a 2002 Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG;
  • a 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle Coupe
  • a 1970 Plymouth Road Runner 440; and
  • over $15,000 in currency.[7]
Christopher Vnuk has already been imprisoned on State charges related to the “high-grade marijuana.”[8] He was arrested in 2003 “after he rapped on the door of an apartment … in Milwaukee, according to a police report. Undercover officers inside in the midst of an unrelated narcotics investigation opened the door, and he entered. Police conducted a pat-down search, finding about 1 ½ pounds of marijuana in several packages, $380 in cash and three cellular telephones.”[9] After police learned where Christopher Vnuk lived, they went to the house and the father, Stephen, allowed them inside where they found 77 bags of marijuana in one-ounce bags, and a large amount of cash hidden in the headboard of Christopher Vnuk’s bed.[10]

It is unclear whether the police had a search warrant for the residence, but it is in some ways irrelevant because Stephen Vnuk gave consent to the search. Generally, the Fourth Amendment “prohibits the warrantless entry of a person’s home, whether to make an arrest or to search for specific objects. The prohibition does not apply, however, to situations in which voluntary consent has been obtained, either from the individual whose property is searched, or from a third party who possesses common authority over the premises.”[11] Common authority, in turn, “rests ‘on mutual use of the property by persons generally having join access or control for most purposes.’”[12] Clearly a father has mutual use of a home. What could have been a problem was the location of where the cash was found. When a warrantless search is conducted, it is limited to those things that are in plain-view and clearly contraband. “When an officer observes an object left by its owner in plain view, no search occurs because the owner has exhibited ‘no intention to keep [the object] to himself.’ …. In contrast, when an individual conceals his possessions from the world, he has grounds to expect some degree of privacy.”[13] The "plain view" doctrine permits the warrantless seizure of private possessions where three requirements are satisfied:
First, the police officer must lawfully make an "initial intrusion" or otherwise properly be in a position from which he can view a particular area. Second, the officer must discover incriminating evidence "inadvertently," which is to say, he may not "know in advance the location of [certain] evidence and intend to seize it," relying on the plain view doctrine only as a pretext. Finally, it must be "immediately apparent" to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.[14]
If there was no warrant for the search of the headboard, then seizing that evidence would have been forbidden.


[1] US Attorneys Office, , Mar. 15, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] See, e.g., our posts on , , , , and .
[4] USAO, supra note 1.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] David Doege, , Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Mar. 15, 2006.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] United States v. Abdenbi, 361 F.3d 1282, 1287-88 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Illinois v. Rodriguez, 487 U.S. 177, 181 (1990)).
[12] Rodriguez, supra note 11, at 181.
[13] Illinois v. Cabelles, 543 U.S. 405, 416 n.6 (2004) (Souter, J. dissenting) (internal citations omitted).
[14] United States v. Morgan, 743 F.2d 1158, 1167 (6th Cir. 1984).

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 11:40 AM