Not for moving the money alone. California’s money laundering law, Penal Code section 186.10, reaches transactions above set dollar amounts only when the person either intended to promote or facilitate criminal activity or knew the money came from criminal activity. If you truly did not know, and did not mean to further a crime, moving the money is not that crime. Knowledge can be proved from the circumstances, though, so what the evidence shows you knew, and when, decides the case.

What the prosecution has to prove

To convict you of money laundering, the prosecution must prove that you conducted, or tried to conduct, one or more financial transactions involving money through a financial institution; that the amounts crossed the statute’s thresholds (over $5,000 in a seven-day period, or over $25,000 in a 30-day period); and that you either intended to promote or facilitate criminal activity or knew the money was criminal proceeds (CALCRIM No. 2997). “Conducting” a transaction includes participating in one, and the law’s definition of a financial institution goes well beyond banks, to businesses such as check cashers and licensed money transmitters (Penal Code section 186.9). The firm’s money laundering page gives a broader overview of the statute.

The intent alternative in section 186.10(a)(1) requires a specific intent to promote or facilitate criminal activity, and a person who did not know any crime was involved could not have intended to advance one. So when the person who moved the money says they were deceived, the dispute is about knowledge.

What “knowing” means under this statute

Both the statute and the jury instruction are written in terms of knowledge. The statute applies to a person acting “knowing that the monetary instrument represents the proceeds of” criminal activity or funds derived from it, and CALCRIM No. 2997 asks whether the defendant knew the money “represented the proceeds of criminal activity” or came from those proceeds. Neither text contains a “should have known” standard or asks what a reasonable person would have suspected. On their face, both require knowledge.

Neither the statute nor CALCRIM No. 2997 says whether deliberately avoiding the truth can take the place of knowing it, and the 2026 edition of the CALCRIM instructions contains no instruction on that idea. If your case involves evidence that you ignored warning signs or avoided asking questions, how the law treats that is a specific question for your lawyer.

This page covers California’s statute. Federal law has its own money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. section 1956, with different elements and definitions, and this page does not address how federal courts treat knowledge.

How knowledge gets proved, or disproved, at trial

Knowledge is often proved, or disproved, through circumstantial evidence: how you were recruited, what you were told, and what you did when something seemed off. A mental state may be proved that way (CALCRIM No. 225), so warning signs you noticed, and how you responded to them, are evidence a jury can weigh in deciding what you actually knew. Ignoring red flags is not a safe harbor.

The same instruction also limits that evidence. Before a jury may rely on circumstantial evidence to find that you had the required knowledge, it must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion the evidence supports is that you had it. If the evidence supports two reasonable conclusions, one that you knew and one that you did not, the jury must conclude that the required mental state “was not proved” by that evidence. Jurors must also accept only reasonable conclusions and reject unreasonable ones, so an innocent explanation helps only if it is a reasonable reading of the evidence.

Evidence that tends to show what you actually knew

  • How you were approached: a posted job, a dating app match, or a message from someone you had never met, and any surviving ads, postings, or messages.
  • What you were told the money was for, and whether you asked questions before agreeing.
  • Whether you were promised a fee or a percentage of the money, and whether you kept one.
  • Whether the explanation changed over time, or the person recruiting you avoided direct answers.
  • Any fraud alert or hold your own bank placed on the transaction, and what you did afterward.
  • The point, if any, where you stopped, asked more questions, or tried to back out.

What to do now

Keep the recruitment messages, job postings, and chat history exactly as they are; do not delete or edit anything. If a defendant tried to hide evidence, a jury can be told that the conduct may show awareness of guilt, although it cannot prove guilt by itself (CALCRIM No. 371). Practically, it makes sense to talk with a lawyer before you answer a bank’s or an investigator’s questions about what you knew and when you knew it.

If you moved or received money for someone else and are now being asked about a scam you did not know about, the Law Offices of David S. Chesley can review the messages, bank records, and timeline with you. Call (800) 755-5174.