United States v. Amirnazmi
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9741
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Amirnazmi, a US-Iranian dual citizen and chemical engineer, marketed TranTech’s ChemPlan software to Iran and allied entities.
- He engaged NPC, IBACO, and NITD in deals to provide software, tech transfer, and plant-construction assistance in Iran beginning in the late 1990s and into 2000s.
- Amirnazmi traveled to Iran and met Iranian officials; he sought to return to Iran to assist in building Iran’s chemical industry.
- U.S. sanctions and IEEPA were invoked; OFAC licensing and regulations (ITR) restricted transactions with Iran, with an informational-materials exemption and various carve-outs.
- A ten-count indictment (later superseded with three bank-fraud counts) charged conspiracy under IEEPA, substantive IEEPA counts, FARA/foreign-agent counts, and false statements; jury convicted on all but one IEEPA count and on false statements and bank fraud.
- The district court denied motions for acquittal and a new trial; Amirnazmi was sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of IEEPA delegation | IEEPA unconstitutionally delegates criminal power to the President. | IEEPA’s delegation is constitutionally constrained and passes scrutiny under Touby. | IEEPA delegation upheld; constraint standard satisfied. |
| Congressional oversight under NEA/1622(b) | Congress’s failure to hold six-month reviews voids executive sanctions. | Congress’ inaction does not terminate or invalidate continuing authority. | Failure to meet §1622(b) does not automatically terminate the emergency; adequate oversight remains. |
| Informational-materials exemption scope | ChemPlan falls within informational materials; conviction should be vacated. | OFAC’s carve-out is a permissible construction that excludes bespoke, non-existing-at-transaction materials. | OFAC interpretation sustained; ChemPlan not exempt as a matter of law; sufficient evidence supported the verdict. |
| Vagueness of OFAC regulations | Regulations are impermissibly vague regarding what qualifies as informational materials. | Regulations provide fair notice given sophistication of actors and available guidance. | Regulations not unconstitutionally vague; scienter requirement mitigates notice concerns. |
| Conspiracy variance and statute-of-limitations | Pre-2003 acts create a separate conspiracy outside the indictment’s scope. | Pre-2003 acts were part of a continuing conspiracy; no prejudice from admitted evidence. | No substantial prejudice; no variance invalidating the conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981) (recognizes broad executive power under emergencies with constraints)
- Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991) (upholds constrained delegation for criminal regulation)
- Beacon Prods. v. Reagan, 814 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987) (congressional oversight provisions and failure to vote doesn't automatically terminate emergency)
- Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 292 (1981) (congressional silence not equivalent to disapproval in foreign affairs)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (economic regulation vagueness and notice considerations)