Bindinglaw

IL · jury_instructions

Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 17.43

Definition Of Money Laundering

activein force · 2026-08-19 – presentas-observed

A person c

ommits the offense of money laundering when he knowingly engages or

attempts to engage in a financial transaction in criminally derived property [(of a value

exceeding $10,000 but not exceeding $100,000) (of a value exceeding $100,000)] [(with the

intent to promote the carrying on of the unlawful activity from which the criminally derived

property was obtained) (where he knows or reasonably should know that the financial transaction

is designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or

control of the criminally derived property)].

Committ

ee Note

720 ILCS

5/29B -1(a) (West Supp.1993) (formerly Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, §29B -1(a)

(1991)); added by P.A. 85- 675, effective January 1, 1988; amended by P.A. 86- 1459, effective

January 1, 1991; P.A. 88-258, effective August 9, 1993.

Give Ins

truction 17.44.

Give I

nstructions 17.43A, 17.43B, 17.43C, and 17.43D, defining the terms “financial

transaction”, “financial institution”, “monetary instrument”, and “criminally derived property”

respectively, as applicable.

Betwe

en January 1, 1988, and January 1, 1991, money laundering was a Class 3 felony

regardless of the value of the property alleged to be criminally derived. After January 1, 1991, if

the value exceeds $10,000 but not $100,000, the offense is a Class 2 felony; and, if it exce eds

$100,000, the offense is a Class 1 felony. Because the value now determines the penalty, when

laundering property exceeding $10,000 in value is charged, the Committee believes value is an

essential element to be decided by the jury similar to substance weight in People v. Kadlec, 21

Ill.App.3d 289, 313 N.E.2d 522 (3d Dist.1974), and People v. Hill, 169 Ill.App.3d 901, 524

N.E.2d 604, 120 Ill.Dec. 574 (1st Dist.1988). See also People v. Harden, 42 Ill.2d 301, 247

N.E.2d 404 (1969); but see, People v. Jackson, 99 Ill.2d 476, 459 N.E.2d 1362, 77 Ill.Dec. 113

(1984). When the jury must decide this element, use the first bracketed material in this

instruction and use all four propositions in Instruction 17.44.

Particu

lar care must be taken with instructions and verdict forms when disputes about

value support lesser included offenses. See an example regarding weight rather than value in the

Provenance

Source
illinoiscourts.gov
Retrieved
2026-08-20
Edition
2026-08-19
Content hash
be242a94f18f1d8f8ed859145f8d569f5b0e929b6f962421cd7f6a5b8293db2e
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.
Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 17.43 · binding.law