United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
OPINION AND ORDER CLARIFYING CONDITIONS OF
SCHANZLE-HASKINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Leslie Shaw's Motion to Clarify
Conditions of Release (d/e 13) (Motion) and Memorandum in
Support (d/e 14).
Leslie Shaw is charged in a one-Count indictment with
conspiracy to engage in monetary transactions involving
criminally derived property from specified unlawful activity.
Specifically, the indictment charges that between January
2012 and April 2012, the Defendant received nine bank checks
from a bank located in the Central District of Illinois made
out to the Defendant. The indictment alleges that the
Defendant was aware that the checks were derived from some
form of unlawful activity and the sender of the checks had
been instructed to send the checks to the Defendant by
Defendant's co-conspirators. The indictment states the
checks sent to the Defendant total $147, 000. The indictment
further alleges that the Defendant deposited each of the nine
checks into a Wells Fargo savings or checking account in her
own name, kept a portion of the proceeds from these checks
for her own use, and either transported via airplane or wired
additional funds to co-conspirators in Jamaica.
indictment charges that this conduct violated 18 U.S.C.
§1956(h) which states that anyone who conspires to
commit the offense of laundering monetary instruments shall
be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the
offense the commission of which was the object of the
appeared before this Court on March 7, 2017 for an initial
appearance and arraignment. Defendant entered a plea of not
guilty to the charges in the indictment and was released on a
$10, 000 recognizance bond. The Defendant was released
subject to various conditions of release. One of those
conditions put at issue by the Defendant's Motion to
Clarify Conditions of Release (d/e 13) (Motion) is as
(7)(t) The Defendant must not maintain, or obtain employment,
at any place where you will be involved in the management or
handling of cash, credit, or any other financial instrument,
without disclosing information to your employer regarding
your federal charge and allowing the U.S. Probation Office to
verify your job duties and that such disclosure has been made
to your employer. (Condition (7)(t))
Counsel for the Defendant has filed the instant Motion and a
Memorandum in Support (d/e 14) (Memorandum).
Defendant is currently employed at Stewart Title Guaranty
Company in Texas. The nature of the job duties of the
Defendant is disputed. The Defendant attaches to her
Memorandum a job description for an “Escrow Processor
I” and a declaration concerning her job duties. The
contents of these documents will be discussed herein.
asks the Court to enter an order clarifying the meaning of
the condition stated above with regard to “(a) the
circumstances under which a Defendant must disclose her
charges to an employer, (b) whether the Probation Office is
authorized to verify such disclosure by directly contacting
the employer and (c) if the Probation Office is so
authorized, when such authorization comes into force”.
Defendant's Memorandum, Defendant indicates that the U.S.
Probation Officer “feels that she previously”
indicated she held the position of “Escrow Agent”
and, after calling Stewart Title, but not disclosing Ms.
Shaw's name, the Probation Officer reached the conclusion
that “Escrow Agents” and “Assistant Escrow
Agents” do handle financial instruments. Defendant
asserts that her job title is “Escrow Processor
I” and that she does not “handle” cash,
credit, or other financial instruments. (d/e 14, pg 5)
asserts that condition (7)(t) only authorizes the Probation
Office to verify the Defendant has made the disclosures and
does not authorize the Probation Office to make a disclosure
of Defendant's charges when contacting her employer to
verify whether she actually made such disclosures. For the
reasons stated below, the Court disagrees with the assertion
of the Defendant.
Defendant asserts that she is not an “Escrow
Agent”, but is, in fact, an “Escrow Processor
I”. To support her assertion, she attaches a job
description for “Escrow Processor I” which states
the job roles of the job title of “Escrow Processor
I”. (d/e 14-1, pg 2) Defendant also attaches to her
Memorandum a “Declaration of Leslie
Vaughn”. The declaration submitted by the Defendant
states that her job duties “include” a verbatim
recitation of the job duties set forth in the job description
of “Escrow Processor I” attached to the
Memorandum. This recitation does not indicate the actual job
duties of the Defendant. Defendant only states that the job
duties set forth in the job description are
“included” in her job duties. The declaration
also makes a ...