Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 17.44

To susta

in the charge of money laundering, the State must prove the following

propositions:

First Proposition: That the defendant knowingly engaged or attempted to engage in a

financial transaction in criminally derived property; and

Second Proposition: That when the defendant did so, he [(intended to promote the

carrying on of the unlawful activity from which the criminally derived property was obtained)

(knew or reasonably should have known that the financial transaction was designed in whole or

in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the criminally

derived property)] [(.) (; and)]

[Third Proposition: That the value of the criminally derived property exceeded [

($10,000 but did not exceed $100,000) ($100,000)].]

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions

has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions

has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty.

Committ

ee Note

720 ILCS

5/29B -1(a) (West, 1992) (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 I

nstruction 17.43.

Give the

bracketed Third Proposition if property of a value exceeding $10,000 is at issue.

See the Com

mittee Note to Instruction 17.43.

Use appl

icable bracketed material.

When acc

ountability is an issue, ordinarily insert the phrase “or one for whose conduct he

is legally responsible” after the word “defendant” in each proposition. See Instruction 5.03.

_____________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________