New York money laundering defense lawyer Duncan Levin, a former federal prosecutor, represents clients in complex financial investigations and criminal cases.
Duncan Levin previously served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York, where he handled financial investigations, money laundering, and asset forfeiture matters arising from complex federal offenses.
He later served as Chief of Asset Forfeiture in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. In that role, he oversaw criminal and civil forfeiture and monetary recoveries across matters involving white-collar fraud, international corruption, organized crime, terrorist financing, identity theft, and narcotics prosecutions. He also worked with the office’s Suspicious Activity Report team on federal money laundering, Title 31, and Bank Secrecy Act matters.
Mr. Levin now teaches asset forfeiture and money laundering as a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and Columbia Law School. That combination of prosecution, defense, financial-enforcement, and academic experience gives the firm an unusually informed perspective on how the government develops and presents financial cases—and how those cases can be challenged.
Federal money laundering prosecutions are commonly brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Depending on the statute and subsection, prosecutors may allege that a transaction promoted unlawful activity, concealed the source or ownership of criminal proceeds, avoided a reporting requirement, or involved more than $10,000 in criminally derived property. Conspiracy charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) are also common.
New York prosecutions may proceed under Article 470 of the New York Penal Law. The available charges and degree of the offense can depend on the nature of the alleged criminal conduct, the value of the property, the structure of the transactions, and the defendant’s alleged knowledge or intent.
These statutes are broad, but they do not make every transaction involving allegedly unlawful proceeds a money laundering offense. The government must prove the elements of the particular charge. Questions about knowledge, intent, tracing, attribution, and the legitimate purpose of a transaction are frequently central to the defense.
A financial investigation often begins quietly. The first visible event may be a grand jury subpoena, search warrant, interview request, seizure notice, bank-account restriction, or inquiry from a regulator. In other cases, the investigation remains undisclosed while prosecutors collect bank records, electronic communications, business documents, tax information, and evidence from witnesses or cooperating individuals.
Bank Secrecy Act records may also play an important role. Financial institutions maintain extensive compliance systems and may file confidential Suspicious Activity Reports based on transaction patterns, customer information, perceived inconsistencies, or other indicators of risk. A bank’s concern may initiate or support an investigation, but a compliance judgment is not the same thing as proof of a criminal offense.
By the time the subject learns of the investigation, the government may already have assembled a substantial financial record. Early defense work therefore requires more than responding to the most recent subpoena. It requires identifying the likely theory of the case, reconstructing the transactions in their actual commercial and personal context, and anticipating where the investigation is headed.
Money laundering cases often turn on the meaning assigned to financial activity. A transfer may be portrayed as concealment when it had an ordinary business purpose. A series of transactions may be characterized as structuring or layering without sufficient attention to how the business operated. Funds from lawful and allegedly unlawful sources may be commingled, creating difficult tracing and attribution questions. Communications may be read in isolation rather than in the context in which they occurred.
The defense may require a transaction-by-transaction analysis of bank records, contracts, invoices, accounting materials, electronic communications, cryptocurrency records, or international transfers. Depending on the matter, the firm may work with forensic accountants, investigators, industry specialists, foreign counsel, or digital-asset experts.
Among the questions that may require close examination are:
The aim is not simply to offer an alternative description of the transactions. It is to test the government’s theory against the actual records, the governing statute, and the burden of proof.
Levin & Associates represents clients during confidential investigations, grand jury proceedings, government interviews, proffer discussions, charging negotiations, motion practice, trial preparation, and sentencing. The firm also advises clients responding to subpoenas, search warrants, document demands, and requests for interviews from federal or state authorities.
Matters may involve allegations of money laundering, conspiracy, fraud, structuring, unlicensed money transmission, sanctions violations, tax offenses, cryptocurrency transactions, or cross-border financial activity. The firm’s role is calibrated to the circumstances of the case—whether the immediate objective is preventing charges, narrowing an investigation, litigating the government’s evidence, or preparing for trial.
Money laundering investigations frequently extend beyond the criminal case. Prosecutors may seek seizure warrants, restraining orders, civil forfeiture, criminal forfeiture, or substitute assets. Banks may independently restrict or terminate accounts because of perceived compliance risk. A business can lose access to operating funds even before a court has adjudicated the underlying allegations.
The firm coordinates the criminal defense with its asset seizure and forfeiture practice so that the investigation and the treatment of the client’s property are addressed as parts of the same problem.
International matters may also implicate correspondent banking, foreign evidence, beneficial ownership, sanctions, or blocked property. Where necessary, the firm integrates the defense with its OFAC and sanctions practice and works with appropriate counsel in other jurisdictions.
No. A money laundering allegation may involve wires, checks, securities, real estate, business payments, investments, cryptocurrency, or other transfers of value. The use of an offshore account is not required, and the use of a legitimate financial institution does not itself establish criminal intent.
Yes. A bank may impose its own compliance restriction, or the government may obtain a seizure warrant or restraint order during an investigation. An early priority is determining who imposed the restriction, what authority supports it, and what process is available to challenge it.
Counsel should generally be consulted when a person or business receives a subpoena, search warrant, interview request, seizure notice, account restriction, or other indication of a financial investigation. Decisions made at the outset—particularly concerning documents, interviews, communications, and financial access—can shape the course of the matter.
Levin & Associates represents clients in sensitive federal and New York money laundering investigations and prosecutions. The firm brings prosecutorial experience, detailed financial analysis, and senior-level judgment to matters in which criminal, financial, regulatory, and reputational consequences are closely connected.
To discuss a matter, contact the firm. Please do not submit confidential or time-sensitive information through the website form.
Strategic representation in criminal defense, complex financial investigations, regulatory matters, and high-stakes disputes.
Contact