This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Rimberg (D) admitted that he did operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business in Manhattan which was established to affect more than one interstate wire transmission that was not registered under Section 5330 of Title [31] within the required 180 days. D was introduced to a business investor from South America who wished to invest $1 million in cash for the production of a movie. The goal was to use the $1 million to leverage an additional $5 million from lenders to be used for the marketing of the movie. D was assured that the money was 'clean.' The idea was for the $1 million cash to be delivered to D's offices, and for the money to be deposited into a client's account, and then wired to different designated accounts. D testified that he 'didn't feel good about it,' but agreed and went ahead with the arrangement. D was paid a $25,000 fee. Several years later, D learned that the money was 'drug money.' D was initially charged with money laundering; however, upon acknowledgment by the government that D had no knowledge that the money was linked to narcotics, the respondent pleaded guilty to a lesser offense. On October 19, 2017, D was immediately suspended from the practice of law. D asks this Court to consider the fact that no client was harmed, that he has already paid a high price professionally for his actions, that he is a devoted family man, and that he has engaged in many volunteer and charitable activities in his community.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.