Los Angeles Money Laundering Lawyer

David M. Dudley provides premier legal services for individuals facing money laundering charges. He has defended against hundreds of money laundering prosecutions and has tried and won numerous federal cases as a defense attorney.

Unlike many large corporate law firms, Mr. Dudley structures a flat fee to cover these types of cases, rather than charging high hourly rates for work that is often unnecessary.

If you’ve been charged with or are under investigation for money laundering, it is important that you hire a highly skilled Los Angeles money laundering attorney with experience defending money laundering cases. Money laundering criminal investigations are extremely thorough and often involve financial experts who know how to follow the money trail.

Mr. Dudley has an in-depth knowledge of financial-crimes cases and takes an aggressive approach to minimize his clients’ sentences. In some cases, he has reduced his client’s financial culpability by millions of dollars.

Money Laundering Information

Money laundering refers to the act of hiding the true source of money that is being earned from an illegal enterprise. It is a complicated crime that involves intricate details, and in many cases, several financial transactions and outlets across the world.

Money laundering is related to a number of white collar crimes, including tax evasion, drug trafficking and organized crime. Investigations often involve the Internal Revenue Service, as many prosecutions involve tax evasion and/or tax fraud charges.

In the more recent years, since 9/11, money laundering has come under a much higher degree of scrutiny as terrorists are often involved in money laundering as a way to fund their criminal efforts.

Potential Punishments for a Money Laundering Charge

You do not automatically face legal punishments for getting charged with a crime, whether you face allegations of money laundering or not. However, after a conviction and court hearings, potential penalties are a possibility. The following are consequences you may face after a charge and conviction for money laundering:

• Jail time
• Fines
• Community service
• Educational courses
• Other court-ordered corrections

If you want to reduce or eliminate these punishments, you should work with a money laundering lawyer. A Los Angeles money laundering attorney like David M. Dudley can help you by assessing the circumstances, building arguments in your favor, and reducing the penalties you might face if you choose to act alone. Working with a money laundering lawyer who is confident and knows how to navigate the court system will make a substantial positive difference to your court proceedings.

How Can an Los Angeles Money Laundering Attorney Support You During Your Case?

If you are involved in legal matters of any sort, we strongly encourage you to work with a lawyer for support. Retaining services from a money laundering charges lawyer can be a great way to reduce penalties and strike charges, mitigate risks of lost rights, and much more. Your Los Angeles money laundering defense lawyer can speak on your behalf, manage paperwork and documents, collect and analyze evidence, and ensure you are on level footing with other parties and legal representatives.

Attorney David Dudley has the experience and knowledge necessary to lead you in the right direction and fight for your rights. There is no reason for you to represent yourself during these legal matters, and self-representation can easily lead to you facing unnecessary consequences. We encourage you to exercise your rights and work with a qualified money laundering lawyer.

Please speak with us at your earliest convenience, as this can improve your chances of legal success even more. Giving your money laundering attorney more time gives him the best possibility of supporting you sufficiently. This provides a Los Angeles money laundering defense lawyer with enough opportunity to familiarize themselves with your case, collect information, strategize how to move forward, and build defenses that put your circumstances in a better perspective.

Fight Money Laundering Charges in LA

Regardless of whether you are funding terrorist acts, the penalties for financial crimes are usually severe. You could be facing many years in prison and outrageous fines. To ensure the best outcome in your case and to avoid harsh penalties, you should contact money laundering attorney Mr. Dudley as soon as possible. 

He’s represented individuals facing major criminal allegations in 36 different states and handled matters in both the trial and appellate courts, state and federal. Mr. Dudley is admitted to the United States Supreme Court and seven federal circuit courts of appeal. Please fill out our contact form for a free consultation.

Selected Case Results: White Collar Crime

• P. v. H.W.: The defendant, who owned an insurance agency and the office building from which the agency did business, was accused of attempting to bribe a city official to avoid having to spend money for substantial construction necessary to place the building in compliance with city codes. After the defense presented its claim at a preliminary hearing that the prosecution could not prove that the object which the defendant allegedly offered to the public officer had any market value, the district attorney agreed to DISMISS all felony charges.
• S. v. H.S.: The defendant, who owned a computer business, was arrested with his alleged co-conspirators in possession of over $400,000 in cash at the culmination of a reverse sting operation during which undercover officers offered to sell them counterfeit Intel computer chips. Before trial, the court granted a defense motion to DISMISS the indictment, which included numerous serious felony charges.
• U.S. v. W.C.: The defendant managed several major music artists. During a nationwide tour, an employee of his company used several fraudulent credit cards to pay for hotel rooms, airline tickets, and other expenses. The federal government subsequently indicted the defendant for mail and wire fraud. Before trial, however, Attorney Dudley was able to convince the Assistant United States Attorneys handling the prosecution to DISMISS the indictment against his client.
• P. v. R.B.: The defendant was charged with numerous counts of money laundering. A two-week trial resulted in a HUNG JURY. Shortly before the re-trial was to commence, the prosecutor agreed to DISMISS all charges.
• Investigation of N.M.: Federal law-enforcement agents targeted N.M., a real estate investor, for millions of dollars in real estate fraud. Over several years, N.M. was represented by Attorney Dudley. Federal authorities were able to bring NO CHARGES against N.M.
• P. v. M.W.: The defendant was a Chinese businessman who received from the purported victim goods worth over $250,000. As partial payment for those goods, the defendant provided the supplier with a check for $100,000. The defendant’s bank returned the check for insufficient funds. The prosecution charged the defendant with several felony fraud counts in relation to his provision of that check. At preliminary hearing, Attorney Dudley persuaded the court that the district attorney had not met its burden of proving that his client had the necessary wrongful intent. Consequently, the judge DISMISSED the case against the defendant.
• P. v. J.T.: Local authorities charged the defendant and his company, a mid-size nationwide bakery, with various code violations. Some of the charges were filed as felonies. The defense eventually convinced prosecutors to DISMISS the case.
• P. v. M.W.: While in the process of obtaining her United States citizenship, the defendant was arrested in possession of a substantial amount of counterfeit Microsoft software less than two years after Attorney Dudley had persuaded a court in another state to DISMISS a similar case against her. The district attorney in the new matter filed several serious felony counts against the defendant and subsequently refused to consider any settlement not involving a felony plea. Conducting his own research, Attorney Dudley was able to find an obscure statute, apparently not used by prosecutors in years, the violation of which represented a felony, but not a felony involving moral turpitude which would have prevented her successful naturalization. After the district attorney agreed to let the defendant plead no contest to that statute as a resolution of the case, the defendant received a sentence of PROBATION with no jail time (even though Microsoft attorneys had asked the judge to incarcerate her) and then obtained her American citizenship. After she completed her term of probation, the defense persuaded the judge to DISMISS the case.
• U.S. v. C.V.: The defendant was the office manager for several health clinics which allegedly defrauded the government and several health insurance companies of over $42,000,000 dollars. The United States Attorney named her as a principal conspirator in a multi-count indictment. After litigating numerous pre-trial motions, the defense eventually negotiated a disposition for approximately 22 months of TIME SERVED.
• U.S. v. J.T.: The defendant owned an international trading company which allegedly smuggled millions of dollars in illegal products into the United States from China and faced federal smuggling charges. The defense negotiated a settlement of the case which allowed the defendant to serve only six months in a prison camp.
• U.S. v. S.W.: Federal customs authorities arrested the defendant as the recipient of over $3,000,000 in counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes shipped in a container from China. After negotiating a plea to one count of a multi-count federal indictment, the defense persuaded the court to sentence the defendant below the applicable sentencing guideline range. Ultimately, the Mr. Dudley’s client served only eleven months for the offense.
• U.S. v. R.D.: An attorney was indicted for mail and wire fraud in federal court after filing an insurance claim for his yacht which he claimed had been destroyed by pirates in the Mediterranean Sea. Convicted at trial, the defendant hired Mr. Dudley for sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, Attorney Dudley persuaded the court to impose a prison term significantly less than that which both the government and the PSR had recommended. In the process, however, the court rejected the defense contention that a two-point upward guideline adjustment did not apply. The court of appeals later agreed with that argument and REVERSED the defendant’s sentence. A subsequent re-sentencing resulted in the defendant’s prison term being reduced.
• U.S. v. G.A.: The defendant owned several tobacco stores. As a result of an undercover operation, law-enforcement officers learned that he was avoiding payment of state taxes on cigarettes sold from his store by placing counterfeit tax stamps on the cigarette packages. A federal grand jury then indicted him for numerous contraband cigarette offenses through which he allegedly avoided paying over $1,500,000 in state taxes. The defense later reached a settlement of the case under which the defendant received a sentence of only 24 months. Although he was only a permanent resident, not a citizen, of the United States, the defendant was able to avoid deportation to his home country after his release from custody.
• U.S. v. D.M.: Accused of federal defense contract procurement fraud, the defendant was convicted at trial of all counts. Retained for the purpose of sentencing and appeal, Attorney Dudley argued that the loss figures reached by the government and the PSR were speculative. The district court disagreed and sentenced the defendant to over five years in prison. The court of appeals accepted the defense argument and REVERSED the trial court’s sentencing decision. As a result of that reversal, the government and the defense reached an agreement which reduced the defendant’s sentence by almost two years.
• P. v. C.H.: The defendant managed a post-market automotive supply store for a famous NBA basketball player. Executing a search warrant at the store, state and local authorities found a substantial amount of stolen automotive and computer equipment. Charged with numerous felony counts of receiving, and conspiring to receive, stolen property, the defendant faced over 20 years in prison because of a robbery and kidnapping conviction he had sustained many years earlier. Attorney Dudley was able to negotiate a settlement which resulted in his client receiving PROBATION with electronic monitoring and, after the probationary term was completed, a DISMISSAL of the case.
• P. v. S.L.: As an accountant for a nationwide private air transportation company, the defendant supposedly embezzled over $125,000 from that business. Prosecutors charged her with several felony embezzlement counts. Challenging some of the documentation which the alleged victim provided in support of its claims, the defense negotiated a disposition which permitted the defendant to receive PROBATION with electronic monitoring, while only having to pay $25,000 in restitution.
• S v. J.T.: The defendant was accused of fraudulently obtaining over $25,000 in credit from a casino. Pursuant to a civil settlement, Attorney Dudley was able to obtain a DISMISSAL of all felony charges.
• S v. Y.M.L.: The defendant was accused of providing a bad check for over $18,000 to a casino. Pursuant to a civil settlement, the defense obtained a DISMISSAL of all felony allegations.
• S. v. S.E.: A friend of the defendant asked her to cash a $7,500 check at a casino. That check turned out to be fraudulent. Under a civil settlement negotiated by Attorney Dudley, the prosecution agreed to DISMISS all felony charges.
• P. v J.C.: The defendant company was a dairy which sold cheese, among other dairy products, to retail stores. Unfortunately, a mysterious outbreak of listeria at the dairy contaminated several batches of cheese without the company’s knowledge. After eating the contaminated cheese, several people died. Prosecutors charged the owner of the company with involuntary manslaughter, among other serious felony allegations. Conducting its own investigation which supported its claim that company had undertaken sufficient health and safety precautions despite the unfortunate outbreak, the defense was able to negotiate a settlement for PROBATION with no jail time.
• P. v. M.R.: As the manager of a law office which had purportedly presented millions of dollars in fraudulent liability claims to auto insurance companies, the defendant was charged with felony insurance fraud. Although others in the conspiracy eventually pleaded guilty to offenses which sent them to state prison, the defendant obtained a sentence of PROBATION with no period of incarceration.
• P. v. J.L.: The defendant was allegedly a major “capper” in an automobile insurance fraud ring. Although he was facing numerous felony fraud charges carrying potential state prison sentences, the defendant received a PROBATIONARY sentence without incarceration.
• U.S. v. N.S.: A medical doctor was indicted federally for overcharging a government health insurance agency by more than $100,000 for services he had provided to several patients. Although the defendant was convicted at trial, he received a sentence of only 24 months for his misconduct.
• U.S. v. K.R.: A Jamaican citizen, the defendant faced a federal indictment for conspiring to purchase a falsified American passport. Although the defendant was wanted for numerous crimes in Jamaica and Great Britain, including multiple homicides, the defense was able to negotiate a deal which resulted in him receiving a sentence of eight months.
• U.S. v. T.S.: The defendant was indicted for over $6,000,000 in bank fraud in three jurisdictions: the District of Minnesota, the District of West Virginia, and the Central District of California. After extended negotiations, the defendant, who was looking at 20 to 30 years in federal custody, received a sentence of less than eight years.
• U.S. v. M.T.: The federal government charged the defendant with organizing a $1,000.000 mortgage fraud scheme. Before the government indicted the defendant for running another $4,000,000 real estate fraud scheme, Attorney Dudley reached a deal with the federal prosecutor pursuant to which the defendant admitted his involvement in the first scheme in exchange for a prosecutorial decision not to name him in the second. At sentencing, the defendant, who had a substantial criminal record, received a sentence of just 41 months.
• P. v. J.S.: Accused of organizing an extensive automobile insurance fraud network, the defendant was facing numerous felony fraud charges. Although the defendant was purportedly responsible for almost $1,000,000 in losses to various insurance companies, the defense worked out a deal which resulted in the defendant serving only one year of actual prison time.
• P. v. E.D.: While working in the accounting department of medical clinic which provided free and discounted services to the poor, the defendant embezzled $1,200,000. Consequently, the district attorney charged her with several felony fraud counts. After producing a psychiatric report and other documents which demonstrated that the defendant engaged in the unlawful conduct only to support a massive gambling addiction, the defense was able to obtain a disposition under which she received a prison term of only four years.
• U.S. v. R.S.: Paying retail clerks and medical receptionists to scan the credit cards of customers, the defendant used the information obtained to manufacture counterfeit credit cards. When he was indicted federally, the government claimed that he had caused losses of over $1,000,000 to cardholders and financial institutions. After reaching a plea bargain which left open the issue of aggregate loss, Attorney Dudley convinced the court to apply a reasonable doubt standard to the government’s claim of how much money his conduct caused victims, even though the court was not legally required to use such a high standard. Applying that standard of proof, the court found that the government could only demonstrate losses of $420,000. The court then departed slightly downward from the resulting guideline range to impose a sentence of 46 months, 41 months lower than the government’s recommendation.
• P. v. F.I.: The defendant, a day trader of stocks and bonds, purchased a considerable amount of computer equipment from a retail store, equipment which turned out to be stolen. After he was charged with felony possession of stolen property, the defense worked out a misdemeanor disposition for PROBATION which prevented him from going to jail and permitted him to remain in the country even though he was not a citizen.
• U.S. v. R.Y.: While directing a telemarketing operation, the defendant sold worthless art to consumers under false pretenses. According to the federal government, which indicted him for mail and wire fraud, the defendant’s conduct cost his victims over $7,000,000. After negotiating a plea agreement which held him accountable for several million dollars less than that, the defense persuaded the district court to impose a sentence of 60 months, a term far lower than that which he was originally facing.
• U.S. v. J.C.: Federal authorities indicted the defendant in two separate districts for conspiring to distribute over $1,000,000 in counterfeit software. The defense later negotiated a plea agreement which consolidated the two cases in one district and allowed for a sentence of PROBATION.
• P. v. M.T.: A bank repossessed an expensive sports car which the defendant had purchased by providing false information for his loan application. Because the bank received a low price of the vehicle at auction, it claimed a loss of $100,000 due to the defendant’s conduct. The district attorney then charged him with several felonies. Over the prosecutor’s objection, Attorney Dudley persuaded the judge to impose a PROBATIONARY sentence with no jail time if the defendant provided rapid restitution to the victim institution. The defendant did, in fact, provide such full restitution and successfully completed his term of probation. On defense motion, the court later DISMISSED the case.
• U.S. v. W.R.: The federal government charged the defendant with causing more than $140,000 in losses as part of a credit card scheme. Attorney Dudley was able to negotiate a disposition pursuant to which the defendant received a sentence of only 15 months.