- 60 -
The record is void of any evidence to establish that Jay
Hoyt or anyone else violated the Oregon theft by deception
statute with respect to the partnerships. Accordingly,
petitioners have not met their burden of establishing a theft on
the partnership level for section 165 purposes applying the
Oregon theft by deception statute.
Petitioners also cite the Oregon money laundering statutes,
Or. Rev. Stat. secs. 164.170 and 164.172 (2001), as establishing
a theft from the partnerships. Other than providing evidence of
Jay Hoyt’s conviction for violation of a similar Federal statute,
petitioners fail to present any evidence showing how the Oregon
statutes establish a theft on the sheep partnerships.
Petitioners have not provided evidence that Jay Hoyt or
anyone else conducted a financial transaction with proceeds of an
unlawful activity of a sum equal to the total amount invested by
the partners in each of the years at issue. Unlike the
indictment and evidence presented at Jay Hoyt’s Federal criminal
trial, petitioners failed to present any evidence that Jay Hoyt
or anyone else during any of the years at issue knowingly engaged
in a financial transaction in Oregon of a value greater than
$10,000 in property using the proceeds of any unlawful activity.
Additionally, both of the Oregon money laundering statutes
require proof that an underlying unlawful activity was committed
to obtain the proceeds involved in the financial transaction.
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011