Miami drug kingpin contests 150-year sentence at 11th Circuit

MIAMI (CN) — A Spanish national accused of running an international drug trafficking ring asked an 11th Circuit panel Wednesday to overturn money laundering convictions that netted him 150 years in prison.

“The 150-year sentence is so horribly disparate, because it was never meant to be a guideline range for a country in which it has a completely different understanding of drug crimes, Spain,” Richard Klugh Jr., representing Alvaro Lopez Tardon, told the three-judge panel. “So the Sentencing Commission, its goal since the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was to harmonize United States treatment of United States crimes. It was never meant to reach into Spain and persecute somebody for the rest of his life.”

Prosecutors say Tardon oversaw a seven-year drug trafficking operation from his South Beach penthouse that smuggled thousands of kilos of cocaine from South America to Spain. The Spaniard used his estimated $14 million in profits to live in Miami luxury, buying million-dollar condos, fancy cars and expensive jewelry, according to court records.

In 2014, a federal jury convicted Tardon on one count of conspiracy and 13 money laundering charges. A federal judge sentenced him to 150 years in prison and a $14 million forfeiture judgment.

During oral arguments on Wednesday, Tardon’s attorney said prosecutors failed to show his client laundered proceeds obtained through domestic crimes, but still convicted him over those portions of federal money laundering statutes. Tardon was never accused of importing drugs into the United States.

“You cannot let a jury go and reach a verdict on an illegal invalid theory, which we know from this circuit’s precedent, it was an illegal theory that there were domestic drug proceeds,” Klugh said, his voice rising. “That’s not right. I’m sorry to be upset, but that’s not right.”

Klugh maintained that for the international money laundering charges, prosecutors also had to prove Tardon committed a felony drug offense overseas. Yet, he said, Tardon was never charged with felony drug offenses in Spain.

“But the evidence showed the money was derived from the sale of illegal drugs in Spain,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Britt Grant, a Donald Trump appointee. “But then the transactions occurred in the United States, the laundering occurred in the United States. Do you disagree with that?”

“We disagree as to some of the transactions, whether they really should be interpreted as having occurred in the United States,” Klugh answered.

The attorney also took issue with a warrantless search of Tardon’s property. According to court records, Tardon’s wife, acting as a FBI informant, took his diary, which included references to drug crimes, placed it in a bag and left it on the porch for authorities.

“Didn’t his then-wife have complete access to that property?” asked U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, a fellow Trump appointee.

“Not in the legal sense that the case law has used,” Klugh answered. “And this issue comes up more frequently with regard to computers and other types of private documents. But certainly, a diary is in that same category.”

“They knew it was his property,” Klugh continued. “She knew it was his property. She knew she had no right to dispose of it. They knew she had no right to dispose of it. They took the closed container and they didn’t tell anybody about it, least of all us as his counsel for two years. Least of all the magistrate who issues the search warrant.”

Andrew Noll, representing the government, argued that Tardon did not timely bring up his arguments that the money laundering statutes did not apply to foreign crimes.

“I want to be very clear that those are arguments about the kind of interplay of the statutes that were not raised until a mid-sentencing motion to dismiss the indictment,” Noll said. “So at any point prior to sentencing, he could have argued with respect to certain of the offenses, those proceeds can’t qualify as the underlying specified unlawful activity.”

Noll also defended the use of Tardon’s diary in his prosecution, because he gave it to his wife once years earlier.

Grant seemed to agree.

“Again, there’s no special rule for diaries,” the judge said. “Like, if I have an apartment with a roommate, can I consent to the police taking the diary of my roommate?”

“As a general matter, if you’re a roommate or a spouse, and you enjoy full access to the property, you have the ability as a co-tenant or a co-resident to consent to give over to the government or anyone else any of that property, at least for Fourth Amendment purposes,” Noll replied.

Grant asked why prosecutors did not let Tardon’s attorneys know they took the diary.

“The diary is not relevant to the search warrants,” Noll answered. “The search warrants were for 11 properties, none of which was the villa. And the villa is where this diary was.”

Jenny Wilson, an attorney representing some members of Tardon’s family, also appeared in front of the panel arguing against the forfeiture of nine luxury wristwatches, two cars and four condominium units.

“This is property that they paid for, that they owned, to which they held legal title, and which in some instances was seized from them without even a statutorily required evidentiary hearing,” Wilson said. “The jury in the forfeiture phase of the trial acquitted all of these properties of any involvement in the wrongdoing attributed to criminal defendant Alvaro Tardón.”

The government’s attorney disputed those claims.

“We put forward over 100 different exhibits to show that in fact, these entities or these individuals were straw owners or nominees for this property,” Noll said.

U.S. Circuit Judge Nancy Abudu, a Joe Biden appointee, joined Grant and Lagoa on the panel.

Follow @alexbpickett