Aiding and abetting requires (1) an act contributing to the commission of the crime; and (2) the intent to aid in the commission of the crime. In United States v. Bronzino the Sixth Circuit, yesterday, found Vincenzo Bronzino guilty of aiding and abetting money laundering.

Bronzino paid an illegal betting debt to Peter Messina using 15,000 dollars worth of legally obtained betting chips. Messina was reluctant to take the chips. He was afraid that if he tried to cash them in he would have to give his name. Bronzino told him not to worry. That as long as he cashed less than 10,000 dollars of chips in at a time he would be okay. The law requires that anyone involved in a cash transaction of over ten thousand dollars provide their name and identity as well as the source of the money.

However the offense of structuring a money laundering transaction is accomplished by manipulating an event by using multiple transactions to avoid the ten thousand dollar limit. Bronzino did not deny that Messina committed money laundering when he used multiple transactions to convert the fifteen thousand dollars of gambling chips into cash. But he argued that by encouraging Messina to use multiple transactions he was not aiding and abetting the crime.

The Sixth Circuit found that Bronzino committed an act contributing to the commission of the crime with the intent to aid in the commission of the crime. Specifically he contributed to money laundering by “teaching” Messina how to perform multiple transactions in an attempt to avoid detection. As such he was a catalyst without which the crime would not have occurred.

Second, as to Bronzino’s intent, Bronzino argued that he did not have the intent to violate the money laundering laws. He merely wanted to encourage Messina to take the chips in payment of the debt. To be guilty of money laundering one must have the specific intent to violate the same law as the individual committing the offense. The Court found that while they had different motivations they had the same intent. Both wanted “to make the illegal venture succeed.” They both “shared the common purpose of consummating the transaction without triggering the federal reporting requirement,” The Sixth Circuit finding both an act and the intent upheld the conviction.