June 2, 2008 4:32PM # Supreme Court Rules on Money Laundering By [Tim Lynch](https://www.cato.org/people/tim-lynch) --- SHARE Interesting voting pattern in a [Supreme Court ruling today](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQ70Ay4juIbM&refer=home). Instead of the usual conservative & liberal voting blocs, we find Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens in the majority–while Breyer, Kennedy, Alito and Roberts dissent. The case is called *United States v. Santos* and the issue was how to interpret the term “proceeds” in the federal money laundering statute. The case was easy and should have been unanimous. When a term in a criminal law is unclear, the defendant should get the benefit of the doubt, not the rule-making, rule-enforcing state. That’s a legal doctrine called the “rule of lenity.” Unfortunately, the Supremes do not apply that rule consistently. Happily, the Court reached the correct outcome today. Here’s the money quote from Scalia: “When interpreting a criminal statute, we do not play the part of a mind reader.” The “we” in that sentence referred to the justices. But that goes ***double*** for the individuals & business firms that are regulated by vague federal regulations. The newest justices, Alito and Roberts, are showing their pro-state tendencies again. ##### Related Tags [Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies](https://www.cato.org/robert-levy-center-constitutional-studies) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).