Archive
Two Indicted for Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Terrorists
The DOJ recently announced that Ali Charaf Damache, an Algerian man who resided in Ireland, and Mohammad Hassan Khalid, a Pakistani citizen and U.S. lawful permanent resident who resided in Maryland, have been charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists in a superseding indictment returned on October 20, 2011 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Damache, aka “Theblackflag,” 46, is charged in the superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and one count of attempted identity theft to facilitate an act of international terrorism. Damache was arrested by authorities in Ireland in March 2010 where he is currently being held on unrelated charges. The United States intends to seek his extradition from Ireland to stand trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. If convicted of the charges against him in the superseding indictment, Damache faces a potential sentence of 45 years in prison.
Khalid, aka “Abdul Ba’aree ‘Abd Al-Rahman Al-Hassan Al-Afghani Al-Junoobi W’at-Emiratee,” 18, is charged in the superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists. Khalid was arrested in Ellicot City, Md., on July 6, 2011, and is currently in custody in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. If convicted of the charge against him in the superseding indictment, Khalid faces a potential sentence of 15 years in prison.
The indictment alleges that, from about 2008 through July 2011, Damache and Khalid conspired with Colleen R. LaRose, Jamie Paulin Ramirez and others to provide material support and resources, including logistical support, recruitment services, financial support, identification documents and personnel, to a conspiracy to kill overseas. LaRose, aka “Fatima LaRose,” aka “JihadJane,” pleaded guilty in February 2011 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to kill in a foreign country, false statements, and attempted identity theft. Ramirez pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in March 2011 to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists.
According to the indictment, Damache, Khalid and others devised and coordinated a violent jihad organization consisting of men and women from Europe and the United States divided into a planning team, a research team, an action team, a recruitment team and a finance team; some of whom would travel to South Asia for explosives training and return to Europe to wage violent jihad.
The indictment alleges that Damache, Khalid, LaRose and others recruited men online to wage violent jihad in South Asia and Europe. In addition, Damache, Khalid, LaRose and others allegedly recruited women who had passports and the ability to travel to and around Europe in support of violent jihad. The indictment further alleges that LaRose, Paulin-Ramirez and others traveled to and around Europe to participate in and support violent jihad; and that Khalid and LaRose and others solicited funds online for terrorists.
The investigation leading to this indictment included coordinated efforts by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in Philidelphia, and the FBI Field Divisions in New York, Denver, Washington, DC, and Baltimore. Authorities in Ireland also provided assistance.
It is unclear from the indictment whether any of the co-conspirators were informants working under the direction of the FBI or if they were actual co-conspirators. If these co-conspirators were informants working with investigators then the defendants might be able to benefit from an entrapment defense. Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge if (1) the government induced the crime and (2) the defendant lacked the predisposition to engage in the alleged criminal conduct. This defense is designed to discourage the government from “gaming” otherwise innocent people into thinking they can successfully engage in and attempt crimes. These individuals are subsequently arrested by the very authorities who set them up. Given that several of the co-conspirators in this case had already pled guilty it would be interesting to know if any of them exchanged their cooperation with this investigation for lighter sentences in their own cases. If so, the case for entrapment becomes more compelling.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
U.S. Citizen Indicted for Plotting to Attack Capitol, Pentagon, and U.S. Soldiers
On September 29, 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts indicted Rezwan Ferdaus, a 26 year old Northeastern University physics graduate. The indictment states that Mr. Ferdaus is accused of planning to commit acts of violence against the United States “with the goal of terrorizing the United States, decapitating its ‘military center,’ and killing as many [non-believers] as possible.”
Mr. Ferdaus has been specifically charged with 18 U.S.C. sections 844(f) for attempting to damage or destroy a Federal building, section 2155 for attempting to damage and destroy national-defense premises, section 844(d) for being in receipt and possesion of explosive materials, section 2339A for attempting to provide material support to terrorists, and section 2339B for attempting to provide material support to a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Mr.Ferdaus was also charged with 26 U.S.C. section 5861 for being in receipt of non-registered firearms.
Mr. Ferdaus thought he was meeting with members of al-Queda when in fact the individuals he was meeting with were undercover federal agents. Mr. Ferdaus revealed to federal agents that he extensively planned and took substantial steps to bomb the United States Pentagon and United States Capitol Building using remote controlled aircraft filled with explosives.
Mr. Ferdaus began designing and constructing detonation components for improvised explosive devices (IEDs) using mobile phones. These modified mobile phones were given to the undercover agents by Mr. Ferdaus who thought they were going to be used to kill U.S. soldiers overseas.
Mr. Ferdaus also requested firearms, ammunition, and explosives from the undercover agents whom he thought were al-Queda operatives. They provided him with C-4 explosives, AK-47 assault rifles and grenades. These items were needed for him to carry out a detailed plan to attack the Capitol and Pentagon with remote control aircraft that he shared with the undercover agents on two USB storage devices. The plans were highly detailed and contained “recon” photos of the proposed attack sites. As soon as Mr. Ferdaus was in receipt of these items he was arrested by federal law enforcement in Massachusetts.
If convicted on all counts, Mr. Ferdaus would face up to 80 years in prison and have any property linked to his criminal conduct subject to forfeiture. Had his conduct caused anyone to actually died, Mr. Ferdaus’ would be facing life in prison or even the death penalty.
What is apparent from this indictment is that the federal government is well prepared to deal with threats against the national security of the United States. With undercover agents and a series of effective criminal statutes, would-be terrorists often face many years in prison before their conduct actually harms anyone. However, investigators must conduct their sting operations carefully to ensure the target cannot utilize an entrapment defense.
Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge on the theory that “government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.” Thus there are two elements to the defense: (1) inducment by the government; and (2) the defendant’s lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. From the facts alleged in Mr. Ferdaus’ indictment, it seems that an entrapment defense would be unsuccessful because he possessed the disposition to engage in criminal conduct. He authored the plans to attack U.S. buildings and soldiers while the government merely “facilitated” his plans by providing the hardware necessary.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
FinCEN Implements New Rule Requiring U.S. Banks to Seek Information from Foreign Banks on Iranian Financial Ties
On October 5, 2011 the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) delivered to the Federal Register a final rule to implement section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA) to complement Treasury’s ongoing efforts to protect the international financial system from abuse by Iran. The rule becomes law upon its publication in the Federal Register.
The new rule will be published in 31 C.F.R. Section 1060.300 and is entitled “Reporting obligations on foreign bank relationships with Iranian-linked financial institutions designated under IEEPA and IRGC-linked persons designated under IEEPA.”
The goal of this new rule is to further separate the U.S. financial system from Iran by ensuring that no foreign banks with which U.S. institutions have corresponding accounts with have any ties to suspect Iranian financial institutions. The outcome of this rule will be to further isolate the Government of Iran, disrupt its ability to develop weapons of mass destruction or support terrorism, and encourage the broader international financial system to isolate Iran if it wants to benefit from doing business with the United States.
The rule accomplishes these goals by requiring a U.S. bank, upon a request from FinCEN, to inquire into whether any of the foreign banks with which it holds a correspondent account has dealings or accounts associated with the Government of Iran, blocked Iranian banks, or the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC). The rule also requires, upon request, inquiries into a foreign bank’s transfers of funds for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, an Iranian-linked financial institution or IRGC associated entity designated under IEEPA within the preceding 90 calendar days.
The new rule also requires that the U.S. bank request from the foreign bank a notification if the foreign bank subsequently establishes an account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA at any time within 365 calendar days from the date of the foreign bank’s initial response. A laundry list of requirements is listed in the new regulation dictating the specific disclosures a bank must report to Treasury with regards to financial dealings involving Iranian entities designated pursuant to IEEPA and any of the foreign banks with which the U.S. bank has a correspondent account. U.S. banks have 45 days after a request from FinCEN to file their initial report. A U.S. bank will also have 10 days to file a report to FinCEN if they are subsequently informed that a foreign bank they hold an account with opens an account with an Iranian-linked financial institution.
This line of inquiry will ultimately determine whether or not that foreign financial institution itself will be prohibited from maintaining or opening, in the United States, a correspondent account or payable-through account. As authorized by Congress in CISADA, if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that the foreign financial institution knowingly engages in certain specified activities, that foreign financial institution will not be allowed to maintain or open such accounts with U.S. financial institutions. Those specified activities include facilitating a significant transaction or transactions or providing significant financial services for a financial institution whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to IEEPA. This prohibition is specifically aimed at disrupting Iran’s proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction, or in connection with Iran’s support for international terrorism, or for the IRGC or any of its agents or affiliates whose property or interests in property are blocked.
Failure of a U.S. bank to comply with FinCEN’s request for inquirt into the Iranian-linked affairs of a foreign financial institution will subject the U.S. bank to both civil and criminal penalties as enumerated in 31 U.S.C. Sections 5321(a) and 5322.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
