Whitfield v. United States

Facts of the Case

In 1992, Congress enacted


Did a conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(h), require proof of an overt act furthering the conspiracy?


No. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the Court’s unanimous ruling that because the federal money laundering law’s text did not expressly make committing an overt act an element of the conspiracy offense, the government did not need to prove such an act.

Case Information

  • Citation: 543 US 209 (2005)
  • Granted: Jun 21, 2004
  • Argued: Nov 30, 2004
  • Decided Jan 11, 2005