(D)  Significance of Parenthetical.  This category is defined by reference to a statute, with a parenthetical describing some of the contents of the statute.  It is possible to argue that the parenthetical is a limitation describing a portion of the statute that is included within the aggravated felony category, although there is authority going both ways depending on the exact wording.  See § 7.17(B), supra.

MONEY LAUNDERING ELEMENTS
Cuellar v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1994 (Jun. 2, 2008) (federal money laundering conviction, for international transportation of the proceeds of unlawful activity, under 18 U.S.C. 1956, reversed for lack of proof that the defendant did more than merely hide the money during its transport or did anything to create the appearance of legitimate wealth).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - DRUG TRAFFICKING - MONEY LAUNDERING UNDER $10,000 AS A DRUG TRAFFICKING AGGRAVATED FELONY
A conviction of money laundering, under 18 U.S.C. 1956, 1957, should not be considered a drug trafficking aggravated felony. It is certainly not a drug trafficking crime, under the second theory, since it cannot be considered a "felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), or Chapter 705 of Title 46." (18 U.S.C. 924(c)(2), referred to in INA 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B). As the Ninth Circuit held: "Lara-Chacon's conviction under the Arizona racketeering statute is not a 'drug trafficking crime' because his crime is not 'punishable under the Controlled Substances Act.'" Lara-Chacon v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2003).

The Ninth Circuit continued:

In assessing whether a crime is a drug trafficking crime, we consider categorically whether the "full range of conduct" encompassed by the statute of conviction is punishable by the Controlled Substances Act. United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905, 907-09 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). The money laundering statute under which Lara-Chacon was convicted penalizes many different types of racketeering that are not punishable by the Controlled Substances Act, which makes it illegal to "use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income[derived from committing any prohibited drug offense punishable by more than one year], or the proceeds of such income." See 21 U.S.C. 854. The Arizona statute under which Lara Chacon was convicted defines money laundering as follows: "A person is guilty of money laundering in the second degree who: 1. Acquires or maintains an interest in, transacts, transfers, transports, receives or conceals the existence or nature of racketeering proceeds knowing or having reason to know that they are the proceeds of an offense." Ariz.Rev.Stat. 13-2317(A)(1) (West 1999). In addition to acts for financial gain "involving ... prohibited drugs, marijuana, or other prohibited*1153 chemicals or substances," racketeering under Arizona law includes acts involving theft, asserting false claims, obscenity, a scheme or artifice to defraud, prostitution, terrorism, drug crimes punishable for less than one year, and counterfeiting, among others. Ariz.Rev.Stat. 13-2301(D)(4) (West 1999). Thus, the "full range of conduct" encompassed by the Arizona statute is not punishable by the Controlled Substances Act, which, for example, does not address terrorism, prostitution, theft, drug crimes punishable for less than a year, or obscenity. We therefore turn to the modified categorical approach.

(Id. at 1152-1153.)

A money-laundering conviction could therefore only be a drug trafficking aggravated felony if it was included within the plain language of the definition: "illicit trafficking in a controlled substance . . . ." (Ibid.) Standing alone, a financial transaction involving drug-trafficking proceeds does not appear to fall within this definition, since no federally defined controlled substances are exchanged in the money laundering transaction itself. In Lara-Chacon v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003), a conviction under a state money-laundering statute was found not to be a drug-trafficking aggravated felony, but in that case the government only had a PSR which was not admissible under the modified categorical approach. Logically, financial transactions involving the proceeds of a sale of drugs are distinguishable from the drug transaction itself, and so should not fall under the "illicit trafficking" portion of the drug trafficking aggravated felony definition.