Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
United States of America v. Robert Sensi
Date: 12-09-2025
Case Number:
Judge: Paul G. Gardephe
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in New York City
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best New York Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
“As alleged, Paul Campo and Robert Sensi conspired to assist CJNG, one of the most notorious Mexican cartels that is responsible for countless deaths through violence and drug trafficking in the United States and Mexico,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton. “As part of that support, the defendants laundered hundreds of thousands of dollars they believed to be CJNG drug proceeds, agreed to launder millions more, and even agreed to use their financial expertise to facilitate cocaine trafficking right here in New York City. By participating in this scheme, Campo betrayed the mission he was entrusted with pursuing for his 25-year career with the DEA. CJNG is a violent and corrupting criminal enterprise that New Yorkers want broken. I commend the extraordinary efforts of the DEA in aggressively pursuing CJNG and those who support their deadly and corrupt efforts, no matter who they may be.”
About This Case
What was the outcome of United States of America v. Robert Sensi?
The outcome was: A criminal indictment is not proof of guilt.
Which court heard United States of America v. Robert Sensi?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York County), nY. The presiding judge was Paul G. Gardephe.
Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Robert Sensi?
Plaintiff's attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in New York City. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best New York Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was United States of America v. Robert Sensi decided?
This case was decided on December 9, 2025.