Cases typically center on three significant evidentiary issues: (1) whether the evidence sufficiently shows that the funds were drug proceeds, (2) whether the defendant knew the funds were drug proceeds, and (3) whether the defendant knew of the illicit purpose of the transaction or transfer. Recently, the Federal circuit courts have held that circumstantial evidence, detailing the characteristics of the individuals involved in the transaction and the particular method with which the transaction was conducted, often combined with expert testimony, may be sufficient to satisfy these evidentiary burdens. Thus, the government may meet its burden of proving the critical elements of the money laundering offense by introducing circumstantial evidence that the defendant was deliberately ignorant or willfully blind to the obvious truth regarding the source of the funds and the illicit intent of the transaction. In such cases, the consequences for the defendant can be significant. Footnotes