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)

QUESTION PRESENTED 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)(1)(B)@) 2.Whether the Constitution Sixth Amendment right, that guarantees The Trial of all Crimes * * * shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed, expands venue in conspiracy criminal] trials to those places where the “essential elements,” the anterior criminal conduct of a predicate crime took place i . ? but no “essential conduct elements,” or acts in furtherance of the subsequent charged conspiracy was committed by any conspirators for that conspiracy? ii