wmlro.com: former prosecutor convicted of money laundering

In the USA, prosecutors like to toss everything they can think of onto the charge sheet. See a fraud charge, and there will be wire fraud, money laundering and, often, a range of offences with names so bizarre that they must, surely, be made up on the spur of the moment.

And the most popular of all is "conspiracy."

Conspiracy is popular because it is easy to prove: if an offence was committed by two people, and they discussed it in advance, then there's a conspiracy. OK, so it's a bit more complicated that that, but that's the gist of it.

Then there's the derivative effect: if the conspirators (Americans, for some grammatically cocked-up reason insist on the nonsensical term "co-conspirators") discussed the conduct but one of them did not proceed with it, he may still be prosecuted for conspiracy even though he did not meet the test for attempt.

It's that that puts lawyers in the firing line. Even if they did not actually assist in the commission of an offence, there is still conspiracy as a fall-back position and - even more remotely than that - the common law offence of "counselling, aiding and abetting," which has a very low threshold of involvement.

So why is the Harley case unusual? The defendant was convicted of money laundering for a client who ran a business trading in stolen computers and components. Christian Pantages, who pleaded guilty in his own trial and then gave evidence against Harley. She pleaded not guilty to laundering and conspiracy.

Yesterday, a Federal court in California found her guilty of laundering - but not of conspiracy.

Incredibly, the Jury foreman gave an impromptu press conference on the steps of the Court after the verdict. "[She]was as an experienced attorney with history and knowledge of the prosecutor side [but] she didn't act, she didn't get out," said Mark Porter, the jury foreman is reported by San Jose media as saying. "There were times she could have washed her hands of it, and didn't." The same media reports that she is currently suspnded from practice by the California State Bar after a series of disciplinary proceedings relating to her handling of other clients' affairs.

The laundering scheme was simple: more than USD125,000 was paid into her clients' account and then paid out again to Pantages and his wife.

The case was investigated by the US Immigration and Customs Service.

The jury failed to reach a verdict on the conspiracy charge.

Seemingly, they were sure that Harley, who recently changed her name from Hardon it is reported, knew exactly what she was doing. But, for reasons that have not been explained, appear to have concluded that she did not discuss and agree with Pantages the course of conduct.