From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
United States v. Stavroulakis
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
952 F.2d 686 (1992)
Facts
Nick Stavroulakis (defendant) met an undercover Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent, David Maniquis, at the direction of a government informant. Maniquis told Stavroulakis that he wanted to launder cash earned from narcotics sales. Stavroulakis agreed to help Maniquis launder his money. Stavroulakis recruited an acquaintance, Kostas Giziakis, who worked as an officer at a bank, to help launder money. Stavroulakis told Giziakis that the money to be laundered was derived from an illegal gambling operation because he thought Giziakis would object to laundering drug money. Stavroulakis, Maniquis, and Giziakis all met at a branch of Giziakis’s bank. The three men worked out the plan to launder the money under the premise that the money was from gambling. Later, the three met again at Giziakis’s bank. Maniquis gave Giziakis the first portion of cash. Stavroulakis opened an account in which to deposit the money. The plan to launder money had commenced. Stavroulakis was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and convicted of conspiracy to violate the federal money-laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Stavroulakis appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McLaughlin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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.