See also: FINANCIAL CONDITION.

Evidence of large amounts of unexplained cash found in a defendant’s possession or being spent by the defendant is admissible to show culpability where the crime charged is involves the receipt of money: e.g, narcotics distribution,{footnote}U.S. v. Ariza-Ibarra, 615 F.2d 1216, 1224 (1st Cir. 1979); United States v. Viserto, 596 F.2d 531, 536 (2d Cir. 1979); U.S. v. $364,960.00, 661 F.2d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Bernal, 719 F.2d 1475, 1478 (9th Cir. 1983).  See also United States v. Franco, 88-2006 (7th Cir. 1984) (implicitly approving of government’s offering financial records to show alleged drug dealer’s great wealth); United States v. Wood, 834 F.2d 1382 (8th Cir. 1987).
State v. Adams, 554 N.W.2d 686, 692 (Iowa 1996).
But see $107,000 (Tagle) v. State, 643 So.2d 917, 922 (Miss. 1994) (forfeiture not justified where no nexus shown between cash and drug trafficking).
CHECK United States v. Gonzalez, 922 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1991); United States v. Greiser, 502 F.2d 1295, 1299 (9th Cir. 1974).

CHECK See also United States v. Wood, 834 F.2d 1382 (8th Cir. 1987) (evidence that defendant purchased airplane with over $1million in small bills admissible, where crime charged involved pecuniary gain as motive).
Check 91 ALR2d 1046.{/footnote} or robbery.{footnote}People v. Webb, 862 P.2d 779, 802 (Cal. 1993); Holbird v. State, 650 P.2d 66, 68 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).{/footnote}  The fact that a defendant was involved in other criminal activities that may have contributed to the amount of cash goes to the weight, not the admissibility of the evidence.{footnote}United States v. Viserto, 596 F.2d 531, 536 (2d Cir.) (proof of cash expenditures relevant despite defendant’s claim that cash came from illegal gamling), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 841 (1979); U.S. v. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1105 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 832 (19__); U.S. v. Davis, 838 F.2d 909, 921 (7th Cir. 1988); ________, 669 F.2d 241, 256 (___Cir. 19__) (gambling); {/footnote}

Such evidence must not be too remote from the circumstances of the alleged offense, lest the jury simply consider it "bad character" evidence.{footnote}  Williams v. United States, 168 U.S. 382, 391, 18 S. Ct. 92, 95, 42 L.Ed. 509 (1897); United States v. Zarintash, 736 F.2d 66, 72 (3d Cir. 1984).{/footnote}  Where the offense charged does not involve the receipt of money, evidence that large amounts of money were found with the defendant is less likely to be admissible.{footnote}  Compare United States v. Kenny, 462 F.2d 1205 (3d Cir. 1972) and United States v. Zarintash, 736 F.2d 66, 71 (3d Cir. 1984).{/footnote}  Money in the possession of another must be connected somehow with the defendant.{footnote}  United States v. Zarintash, 736 F.2d 66, 72 (3d Cir. 1984); United States v. Crisp, 435 F.2d 354, 360 (7th Cir. 1970); United States v. Williams, 561 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1977).{/footnote}  Likewise, where money found on another’s property is offered against a defendant, there must be some connection between the defendant and the property.