The U.S. Supreme Court could soon decide whether simply concealing money is evidence of money laundering in a case that could have important implications for drug enforcement and perhaps even asset-forfeiture procedures.

The New York Times reported Feb. 28 that a majority of justices seemed skeptical of the government's broad interpretation of the money-laundering statute, which was challenged in a case involving a man who tried to cross the U.S.-Mexico border with $83,000 hidden in the floorboard of his car. The Justice Department contends that the fact that the money was hidden and that the man was heading for the border was enough to convict him of money laundering.

"On the government's theory, anyone who transports hidden money to get it out of the country, who drives the car, just the driver, is a money launderer," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Chief Justice John Roberts challenged the government's contention that putting money in a suitcase in the car trunk could be considered evidence of a "design to conceal," saying, "When I use a suitcase, I'm using it to carry my clothes, not to conceal them."

"No matter how you see it, this was precisely the conduct that Congress was getting at," replied assistant solicitor general Lisa H. Schertler.

Jerry V. Beard, the lawyer for the drug courier convicted in the case, argued that the money-laundering statute "does not criminalize concealing money's existence" and that his client "may have in fact concealed money itself, he did not conceal the 'nature, source, location, ownership or control' of the unlawful proceeds" -- the other tests the statute calls for in defining money laundering.

The government's interpretation of the law, added Beard, "would effectively render all transportation of funds necessarily to be money laundering."