The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gene E.K. Pratter, J.
Fifteen years' worth of Reidar Arden's telemarketing and other activities at various locations in the Western Hemisphere culminated in his conviction by a jury, part of which is now challenged because, according to Mr. Arden, the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction on eight counts of money laundering as charged in the Indictment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Mr. Arden's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on Counts 6 through 13.
A federal grand jury returned an Indictment on August 13, 1998, charging Reidar Carroll Arden with one count of conspiracy to engage in the interstate transportation of stolen securities valued at $5,000 or more in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371; four counts of interstate transportation of stolen securities valued at $5,000 or more in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2314; and eight counts of concealment money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1956(a)(1)(B)(I). These eight counts of money laundering are the subject of the pending motion. The unlawful conduct at issue allegedly occurred more than 15 years ago, between March 1993 and June 1994 when Mr. Arden, as the owner-operator of a Los Angeles-based telemarketing company*fn1 , induced victims to send checks to his company by misleading them into thinking they had won valuable prizes or would receive large sums of money. The Indictment described the money laundering scheme as involving the purchasing from one of two coin companies in Southern California of gold coins and other similar valuables via wire transfers from a Bank of America account set up in Las Vegas with proceeds from the telemarketing scheme, thus hiding the origin of the ill-gotten wealth Mr. Arden was amassing.
Trial commenced on October 15, 2008.*fn2 At the close of the Government's case and again at the close of all the evidence, including Mr. Arden's own testimony and the Government's rebuttal presentation, Mr. Arden moved for judgment of acquittal. The Court reserved ruling on the motions. The jury found Mr. Arden guilty on all counts on October 24, 2008.
Within a week of the verdict, Mr. Arden submitted a written motion pursuant to Rules 29 and 33 for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial as to all counts. The motion requested leave to supplement his arguments upon review of the trial transcripts. By Order of November 17, 2008, the Court directed Mr. Arden to file and serve the supplement on or before December 3, 2008. Mr. Arden was directed to set out specifically the record citations and legal authorities on which he relied for his motion(s). No filing was made, and no relief from the Court's November 17, 2008 Order was requested until the June 2008 efforts commenced by Mr. Arden's latest attorney.*fn3 On March 5, 2009 Mr. Arden's trial counsel withdrew and his current attorney's appearance was entered. Mr. Arden's scheduled sentencing hearings were postponed at the defense request, most recently as a by-product of the filing of the present motion.
The pending Supplemental Motion for Judgment of Acquittal was filed on June 26, 2009. The Government opposes the Motion. As indicated, Mr. Arden's sentencing has been yet again rescheduled to July 24, 2009.
Rule 29(a) provides as follows:
(a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.
Rule 29(b) provides that the district court may reserve decision on the motion:
(b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.
Rule 29(c) provides that the defendant may renew his motion for acquittal within seven days after the jury reaches a verdict, and that if the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court ...