United States v. Tajideen
Decision Date | 10 August 2018 |
Docket Number | Criminal Case No. 17-46 (RBW) |
Citation | 319 F.Supp.3d 445 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Kassim TAJIDEEN, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Joseph Palazzo, U.S. Department of Justice, Luke Matthew Jones, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Thomas A. Gillice, Jacqueline Lauren Barkett, Maia Luckner Miller, U.S. Attorney's Office National Security Section, Deborah A. Curtis, U.S. Department of Justice NSD Counterespionage Section, Karen Patricia Seifert, United States Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for United States of America.
Chibli Mallat, Mallat Law Offices, Beirut, Lebanon, David W. Bowker, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, William W. Taylor, III, Eric Robert Delinsky, Steven N. Herman, Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Mathew Jones, Ronald Meltzer, Washington, DC, Paul G. Cassell, Paul Cassell, Salt Lake City, UT, William James Murphy, Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant.
A federal grand jury has indicted the defendant on the following charges: (1) one count of conspiracy to conduct unlawful transactions and cause United States persons to conduct unlawful transactions with a Specially-Designated Global Terrorist ("SDGT") and to defraud the United States by dishonest means; (2) nine counts of unlawful transactions with a SDGT; and (3) one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. See generally Superseding Indictment ("Indictment"), ECF No. 89. The defendant has filed seven separate motions to dismiss1 challenging various aspects of this prosecution and seeking dismissal of the Indictment in its entirety, all of which are ripe for consideration by the Court.2 Additionally, the defendant has requested an evidentiary hearing regarding one of these seven motions to dismiss. See Request for Evidentiary Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule of Specialty ("Def.'s Request"), ECF No. 137. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions,3 the Court concludes that it must deny each of the defendant's motions to dismiss the Indictment, as well as his request for an evidentiary hearing.4
On May 27, 2009, the defendant was publicly designated by United States Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("the OFAC") as a SDGT. See Government's Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery of Rule 16 and Brady Material ("Gov't's Resp.") at 6, ECF No. 31. "The designation blocks all assets of a designee and prohibits, inter alia, [United States] persons from knowingly participating in transactions with, or for the benefit of, the defendant without first obtaining a license from [the] OFAC." Id. at 7. Thereafter, "[o]n, July 22, 2010, the defendant filed an application with [the] OFAC, ... seeking his removal from the SDGT list." Id. The defendant continued to seek his delisting from the SDGT list, see id. at 8 ( ), until May 4, 2017, when he withdrew his delisting application, see id.
"On March 7, 2017, a Grand Jury in the District of Columbia returned an Indictment charging the defendant with Conspiracy to Violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (‘[the] IEEPA’) and the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations (‘[the] GTSR’), and to Defraud the United States; substantive violations of [the] IEEPA; and with conspiracy to launder monetary instruments." Gov't's 1st Opp'n at 5. "[0]n March 12, 2017, while traveling on business," the defendant "was detained in Morocco." Def.'s 7th Mot. to Dismiss at 2. "The [United States] Department of State submitted certified copies of [United States] Department of Justice papers, including the original indictment in this case, the arrest warrant, the applicable statutes, a summary of facts with an Arabic translation, and a photograph of [the defendant]" to Moroccan authorities. Id. at 3. The United States Department of State then "sent a diplomatic note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Kingdom of Morocco," which requested the defendant's extradition. Id. at 4. "[T]he Moroccan Court granted the government's extradition request, [and] on March 24, 2017, agents of the [United States] Drug Enforcement Agency transported [the defendant] to the United States." Id. at 5.
Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, on September 23, 2011, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13,224, declaring a national emergency with respect to the "grave acts of terrorism ... and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on United States nationals or the United States." Exec. Order. No. 13,224, 66 Fed. Reg. 49,079, 49,079 (Sept. 23, 2001). Through this Executive Order, President Bush invoked the authority granted to him under the IEEPA. see id. § 1, and blocked all property and interests in property of twenty-seven foreign terrorists, terrorist organizations, and their supporters, each which were designated as SDGTs, id. annex.
"Before trial, a defendant in a criminal case may move to dismiss an indictment on the grounds that it fails to state an offense ...." United States v. Hillie, 289 F.Supp.3d 188, 193 (D.D.C. 2018) ; see also Al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1, 10 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (); Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B)(v) ( ). The district court's inquiry regarding a motion to dismiss is limited to "[t]he operative question [of] whether the allegations [in the indictment], if proven, would be sufficient to permit a jury to find that the crimes charged were committed." Hillie, 289 F.Supp.3d at 193 ( )(quoting United States v. Sanford, Ltd., 859 F.Supp.2d 102, 107 (D.D.C. 2012) ); see also United States v. Sunia, 643 F.Supp.2d 51, 60 (D.D.C. 2009) (Walton, J.) ( ). "Adherence to the language in the indictment is essential because the Fifth Amendment requires that criminal prosecutions be limited to the unique allegations of the indictments returned by the grand jury." United States v. Hitt, 249 F.3d 1010, 1016 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Therefore, a district Hillie, 289 F.Supp.3d at 193 (quoting Sunia, 643 F.Supp.2d at 60 ).
Def.'s 1st Reply at 1. From the defendant's perspective, "[t]his prosecution violates [the] IEEPA," Def.'s 1st Mot. to Dismiss at 2, because "[i]t is premised on an Executive Order that either exceeds the scope of the statute that authorized it or has been misapplied by the Treasury Department," id. at 1; see also Def.'s 1st Reply at 2 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Search Multiple Email Accounts Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703 for Investigation of Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956
...money laundering separate and apart from the transactions that allegedly" violated the bank fraud statute. United States v. Tajideen , 319 F. Supp. 3d 445, 468 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing United States v. Piervinanzi , 23 F.3d 670 (2d Cir. 1994) ).6 In Carpenter , under the first prong, the Court......
-
United States v. Halkbank
...law at issue is aimed at protecting the right of the government to defend itself"); Facebook, 934 F.3d at 73; United States v. Tajideen, 319 F.Supp.3d 445, 457 (D.D.C. 2018). ...
-
In re Capitol Breach Grand Jury Investigations within the Dist. of Columbia
...To hold otherwise would be to lower "the exceedingly high burden of demonstrating a particularized need." United States v. Tajideen, 319 F. Supp. 3d 445, 473 (D.D.C. 2018). Particularized need has been found wantingwhere defendants sought grand jury materials in their own cases to probe the......
-
United States v. $599, 930.00 of Funds Associated with Cooperating Co. 1
... ... § 981(a)(1)(A) as funds ... involved in money laundering offenses. To prove such a ... violation, the Government must show “an overseas ... transfer with the intent to promote the carrying on of ... specified unlawful activity.” United States v ... Tajideen , 319 F.Supp.3d 445, 46768 (D.D.C. 2018) ... (quotations omitted) (quoting United States v ... Piervinanzi , 23 F.3d 670 (2d Cir. 1994)). To show that a ... money laundering violation warrants forfeiture, the ... Government must also show “a substantial connection ... ...