United States v. Kim
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
595 F.2d 755 (1979)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Hancho Kim (defendant) was charged with receiving money from the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) to bribe United States congressmen. The government (plaintiff) conceded that Kim never bribed anyone but claimed Kim took KCIA money for that purpose, then converted it to his own use. A KCIA agent testified to delivering $300,000 to Kim once in September 1974 and again in June 1975. Kim had serious financial troubles that ended abruptly after he allegedly received the first payment in $100 bills. Kim paid his debts within weeks, many with $100 bills, and spent over $200,000 over the next nine months. Defense counsel argued Kim had other financial resources in Korea that explained his spending. The defense offered a telex from a Korean bank stating that Kim had personally withdrawn $400,000 in 1977 that was deposited into his account in 1975. The bank had closed Kim’s account and did not prepare or rely on the telex as part of its business records. Instead, a bank employee prepared the telex solely to respond to a government subpoena. A branch manager said the telex was the first of its kind in the bank’s history. The judge excluded the telex as inadmissible hearsay. Kim was convicted and appealed, arguing the telex qualified under the exception to hearsay for business records.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (MacKinnon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
