In United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1, 2 (1998) this Court and the Eighth Circuit held in a substantive money laundering charge that venue is improper in the jurisdiction that generated proceeds or of the specified unlawful activity, emphasizing the statutes prohibited conduct "interdict only the financial transactions (acts located entirely in, not the anterior criminal conduct that yielded the funds allegedly laundered" United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1, 2 (1998). The court left open the question as to where venue would be appropriate in a conspiracy to money launder. The appellate courts assert that in a money laundering conspiracy, United States v Cabrales is not applicable.

1. Whether a person who obtains proceeds and makes a separate and distinct agreement from the anterior criminal conduct, to engage in a financial transaction in a different jurisdiction from where only the alleged proceeds from specified unlawful activity took place, confer venue to the specified underlying activity district in a conspiracy to money launder 1956(h) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i)

2. Whether the Constitution Sixth Amendment right, that guarantees The Trial of * * *shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been all Crimes committed, expands venue in conspiracy criminal trials to those places where the "essential elements," the anterior criminal conduct of a predicate crime took place but no "essential conduct elements," or acts in furtherance of the subsequent charged conspiracy was committed by any conspirators for that conspiracy?

whether-a-person-who-obtains-proceeds-and-makes-a-separate-and-distinct-agreement-from-the-anterior-criminal-conduct,-to-engage-in-a-financial-transaction-in-a-different-jurisdiction-from-where-only-the-alleged-proceeds-from-specified-unlawful-activity-took-place,-confer-venue-to-the-specified-underlying-activity-district-in-a-conspiracy-to-money-launder-1956(h)-in-violation-of-18-u.s.c.-§-1956(a)(1)(b)(i)