Section 1956(f) specifically provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by the money laundering statute if, inter alia, “the conduct is by a United States citizen or, in the case of a non-United States citizen, the conduct occurs in part in the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(f)(1). Here, the Complaint fails to allege any conduct by LCB, either in whole or in part, occurring within the United States.

Section 1956(f) specifically provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by the money laundering statute if, inter alia, “the conduct is by a United States citizen or, in the case of a non-United States citizen, the conduct occurs in part in the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(f)(1). Here, the Amended Complaint fails to allege any conduct by LCB, either in whole or in part, occurring within the United States, aside from the funds being wired to the Car Dealers which will be discussed below.

Claimants Misunderstand the Knowledge Requirement. Claimants contend that the Second and Third Claims, which are based on violations of money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957, fail to plead facts to show that Nguema had sufficient “knowledge.” Section 1956 requires that a defendant Case 2:11-cv-03582-GW-SS Document 44 Filed 03/12/12 Page 23 of 32 Page ID #:318 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 must know “of a design to conceal aspects of the transaction.”

The Complaint’s remaining allegations do not cure this defect because not one alleges that any of the relevant acts or omissions occurred in this District. The Government claims the Out-of-State Assets are forfeitable because they are traceable to the proceeds of an SUA (First Claim) or a subsequent money laundering transaction in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956-57 (Second, Third, and Fourth Claims). Thus, the Government could establish jurisdiction in this District if (i) any of the SUAs giving rise to the forfeiture occurred in this District, or (ii) the subsequent laundering of the proceeds from those SUAs occurred in this District.

2. The Complaint Fails to Allege Fraud In addition to the U.S. law based SUAs, the Government’s forfeiture complaint rests on two “offenses against a foreign nation”: (1) an offense against a foreign nation involving the misappropriation of public funds by or for the benefit of a public official under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv); (2) an offense against a foreign nation involving fraud against a foreign bank under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iii). An “offense against a foreign nation” is defined as an offense that is “prohibited under the law of the foreign nation in which it is committed.”

2. The Complaint Fails to Allege Fraud In addition to the U.S. law based SUAs, the Government’s forfeiture complaint rests on two “offenses against a foreign nation”: (1) an offense against a foreign nation involving the misappropriation of public funds by or for the benefit of a public official under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv); (2) an offense against a foreign nation involving fraud against a foreign bank under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iii). An “offense against a foreign nation” is defined as an offense that is “prohibited under the law of the foreign nation in which it is committed.”

2. The Complaint Fails to Allege Fraud In addition to the U.S. law based SUAs, the Government’s forfeiture complaint rests on two “offenses against a foreign nation”: (1) an offense against a foreign nation involving the misappropriation of public funds by or for the benefit of a public official under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv); (2) an offense against a foreign nation involving fraud against a foreign bank under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iii). An “offense against a foreign nation” is defined as an offense that is “prohibited under the law of the foreign nation in which it is committed.”

2. The Complaint Fails to Allege Fraud In addition to the U.S. law based SUAs, the Government’s forfeiture complaint rests on two “offenses against a foreign nation”: (1) an offense against a foreign nation involving the misappropriation of public funds by or for the benefit of a public official under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv); (2) an offense against a foreign nation involving fraud against a foreign bank under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iii). An “offense against a foreign nation” is defined as an offense that is “prohibited under the law of the foreign nation in which it is committed.”

2. The Complaint Fails to Allege Fraud In addition to the U.S. law based SUAs, the Government’s forfeiture complaint rests on two “offenses against a foreign nation”: (1) an offense against a foreign nation involving the misappropriation of public funds by or for the benefit of a public official under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv); (2) an offense against a foreign nation involving fraud against a foreign bank under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iii). An “offense against a foreign nation” is defined as an offense that is “prohibited under the law of the foreign nation in which it is committed.”

2. The Complaint Fails to Allege Fraud In addition to the U.S. law based SUAs, the Government’s forfeiture complaint rests on two “offenses against a foreign nation”: (1) an offense against a foreign nation involving the misappropriation of public funds by or for the benefit of a public official under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iv); (2) an offense against a foreign nation involving fraud against a foreign bank under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iii). An “offense against a foreign nation” is defined as an offense that is “prohibited under the law of the foreign nation in which it is committed.”