Case: United States of America, Plaintiff – Appellee v.

Pavel Ivanovich Lazarenko, Defendant –

Appellant (2008)

Facts: Lazarenko is a former Prime Minister of Ukraine. Using his senior position he received money
from businessmen that depended on him as a person who obtained governmental power and the
Defendant also took part in the business of that people by keeping 50 % of shares and getting 50% of
profit. These sums of money had been transferred to foreign banks. He conspired to commit money
laundering for conducting financial transactions that involved proceeds of exortion, wire fraud, and
receipt and interstate transportation of stolen property. The United States District Court for the Northern
District of California convicted convicted Defendant with charges stated above; there was an appeal by
Lazarenko to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Issue:(1) Did Lazarenko’s conduct violated Ukranian law?

(2) Did the charges match with the wrongdoings he had really done?

(3) Were the evidence sufficient to convict him with these charges?

Holding: (1) Yes: Lazarenko’s conduct violated Ukranian law because his actions were prohibited by
Ukranian statutes.

(2) No: The charges do not fully match with the wrongdoings he had really done because some
of the charges must be reviewed and overturned.

(3) Yes: The evidence were sufficient to convict Lazarenko with these charges because it was
alleged in the indictment against him, and it was legally sufficient.

Reasoning: (Justice McKeown)

Lazarenko’s challenge doesn’t achieve novelty status simply because it involves foreign law. In this case
the violation of Ukranian law is the specified unlawful activity. The indictment provided detailed
allegations regarding the basis of the charges. The jury was instructed that it had to find a violation of
Ukranian law and was provided with the elements of the relevant Ukranian statutes.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based on retroactive
misjoinder, nor did the court improperly limit Lazarenko’s closing argument.

Lazarenko’s convictions were affirmed on counts for conspiracy, money laundering (violation of 18
U.S.C.). Lazarenko’s convictions on counts for wire fraud and for interstate transportation of stolen
property were reversed.