ARGUMENT Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, "at any time while the case is pending, the court may hear a claim that the indictment or information fails to invoke the court's jurisdiction or to state an offense." Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B). The crux of Count Four is that the defendants operated a money transmitting business without obtaining a license to do so from the Office of Banking and Financial Institutions of the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Code § 26-1002.

Jenkins v. Smead Mfg. Co., No. 09-CV-0261-IEG (BLM), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101545, at *9 (S.D. Cal. 9 Accord United States v. Kahl, 583 F.2d 1351 (5th Cir. 1978) (waiver occurs under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12).

(count two at ¶ 2.) ANALYSIS Defendants Wright and Henderson now move pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b) to dismiss counts one and two of the indictment. As to count one, defendants argue that the applicable statute of limitations for money laundering had expired before the government indicted defendants because, they claim, the transfer of 10951 S. Michigan was completed by May 28, 2002. However, because defendants’ conspiracy continued beyond the execution and recording of the February 7, 2003, quitclaim deed, the indictment is timely.