Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:


United States v. Santos

Docket No.: 06-1005
Certiorari Granted: 4/23/2007
Argued: October 3, 2007
Decided: June 2, 2008


Discrimination in Employment, RICO, habeas, murder, stare decisis

PartyNames: United States v. Efrain Santos and Benedicto Diaz
Petitioner: United States
Respondent: Efrain Santos and Benedicto Diaz

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Citation: 461 F.3d 886
Supreme Court Docket

United States
Efrain Santos and Benedicto Diaz
553 U.S. 507 (2008)
Question Presented:

The principal federal money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1), makes it a crime to engage in a financial transaction using the "proceeds" of certain specified unlawful activities with the intent to promote those activities or to conceal the proceeds. The question presented is whether "proceeds" means the gross receipts from the unlawful activities or only the profits, i.e., gross receipts less expenses.


In the federal money laundering statute 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1), which makes it a crime to use the proceeds of an illegal activity to promote the activity or conceal the proceeds, does the word "proceeds" refer to the gross income received from the illegal activity or to the net income (profits, or gross income minus expenses)?

United States v. Santos

October 3, 2007

Vote: 5-4
Majority: Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, Thomas
Concurring: Stevens
Dissenting: Breyer,Alito,Roberts,Kennedy
Opinion By:

Warning: Use of undefined constant caseTitle - assumed 'caseTitle' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/supremec/public_html/supremecourtobserver.com/code/sofunctionsndb.php on line 1147

United States v. Santos
Case Documents

1United States v. Santos Oral Argument Transcript (HTML)
2Slip Opinion in United States v. Santos (Opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia)
3United States v. Santos Oral Argument Transcript
4United States v. Santos Oral Argument Transcript (HTML)
Additional documents for this case are pending review.