To sustain a conviction for money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), there must be proof, among other things, that a defendant knew that the transportation of illicit funds across the border was designed to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of such funds. As this Court explained in Regalado Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (2008), "design" means purpose or plan, not merely effect, so substantial efforts to conceal money are insufficient to support a conviction.

Following Regalado Cuellar, two Circuits, the Third and the Nineth, have loosened the above standard, while the Second Circuit has adhered to Regalado Cuello. Should this Court thus resolve the existing divide over the breadth of the money laundering statute?

Whether a circuit split exists regarding the interpretation of the money laundering statute's knowledge requirement under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i)