United States v. Al Kassar
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19357
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- DEA sting operation abroad targeted Monzer al Kassar and associates for arms trafficking to a group posing as FARC.
- DEA undercover agents met with al Kassar in Spain; al Ghazi and Godoy participated and were present during key negotiations.
- Payments totaling over €235,000 were wired to accounts controlled by al Kassar in connection with the purported deal.
- Defendants were indicted on five counts (kill U.S. citizens, kill U.S. officers, conspiracy to acquire/export SAMs, provide material support, money laundering); Ghazi faced severed trial.
- Defendants were convicted on all counts; Ghazi was convicted on three counts; sentences ranged from 25–30 years; Ghazi later sentenced to 25 years.
- Appeal challenges ran through jurisdiction, due process, admissibility of classified evidence, and sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| extraterritorial jurisdiction | Kassar defendants had nexus to U.S. aims, not mere conduct abroad. | Nexus was manufactured by DEA; unlawful extraterritorial reach. | extraterritorial jurisdiction proper; nexus exists via aims to harm U.S. or U.S. interests |
| outrageous government conduct | sting operation did not coerce beyond lawful infiltration; not outrageous | government conduct so extensive as to violate due process | no outrageous conduct; district court proper in ruling |
| admissibility of classified evidence | classified contacts could bolster defense | denial of evidence violated right to present a complete defense | no due process violation; evidentiary rulings affirmed; rules 404/403 applicable |
| § 2332g conspiracy to acquire/export SAMs | statute criminalizes conspiracies to acquire/export SAMs | conspiracy not criminalized by the statute; concerns about agency authorization and scienter | statute criminalizes conspiracies to acquire/export SAMs; sting not authorized conduct; conspiracy valid |
| § 2339B material support | knowledge of organization's terrorist status suffices; no need for specific intent | statute may require intent to aid specific terrorist aims or raise due process concerns | knowledge-based standard upheld; no due process violation; Law Project controls |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (extraterritorialjurisdiction in criminal statutes; nexus to US interests)
- Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (Supreme Court 1964) (fair warning for criminal liability; due process considerations)
- United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1990) (nexus analysis for extraterritorial application)
- United States v. Peterson, 812 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1987) (protective jurisdiction where activity harms U.S. interests)
- United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) (outrageous government conduct; heavy deference to investigatory methods)
- United States v. LaPorta, 46 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 1994) (outrageous conduct standard; discovery of coercion/overreach)
- United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) (stings; creation of opportunity not outrageous conduct)
- United States v. Wallace, 532 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2008) (manufactured jurisdiction; limits on entrapment/element proof theories)
- United States v. Desimone, 119 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 1997) (conspiracy elements and involvement of government agents)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (Supreme Court 2010) (statutory knowledge standard for aiding terrorist organizations)
- United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (extraterritorial reach and jurisdictional nexus)
- United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007) (interpretation of multi-element conspiracy instructions)
- United States v. Goldstein, 442 F.3d 777 (2d Cir. 2006) (plain-error review for jury instructions)
- United States v. Avraham, Not Applicable (Not Applicable) (Placeholder to avoid empty fields)