United States v. Hasston, Inc.
185 F. Supp. 3d 55
D.D.C.2016Background
- Defendant Shantia Hassanshahi is charged with conspiracy to violate IEEPA and OFAC/IRAN sanctions by exporting goods/services to Iran without required OFAC licenses.
- Defendant moved to transfer venue to the Central District of California; the Court denied that motion in Nov. 2015 and permitted a supplemental filing on alleged factual discrepancies between the indictment and the Government’s filings.
- The Indictment pleads alternative venue grounds: (1) venue under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) because conduct occurred in D.C. and elsewhere, and (2) venue under 18 U.S.C. § 3238 because conduct began outside any particular U.S. district.
- Defendant argues venue is improper in D.C.: (a) § 3238 is the exclusive statute here (so venue must be in California where he was arrested/resides), and (b) even under § 3237(a) the alleged failure to obtain an OFAC license does not meaningfully occur in D.C. because applications can be submitted online from anywhere.
- The Court held venue is proper in D.C. under § 3237(a) because the omission (failure to apply to OFAC, which is located in D.C.) is a situs-tying act; and § 3238 is not an exclusive or mandatory exception that overrides § 3237(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) | Gov’t: omission (failure to obtain OFAC license) occurred in D.C. and supports venue there | Hassanshahi: omission can occur anywhere (online); not sufficiently tied to D.C. | Held: Venue proper under § 3237(a); failure to obtain OFAC license involves OFAC in D.C., fixing the situs there |
| Whether § 3238 is an exclusive/mandatory venue provision that requires trial where arrested/first brought | Gov’t: § 3238 is an alternative, not an exclusive exception to § 3237(a) | Hassanshahi: § 3238’s “shall be” language makes it mandatory and exclusive here (so venue must be in CA) | Held: § 3238 is not an express exception to § 3237(a); the statutes are not mutually exclusive |
| Whether an indictment pleading both § 3237(a) and § 3238 is defective/inconsistent | Gov’t: alternate allegations are acceptable; § 3237(a) is sufficient | Hassanshahi: inconsistency (indictment alleges crime began outside any district while govt says it began in U.S.) renders venue improper | Held: No defect — indictment’s § 3237(a) allegation suffices; § 3238 allegation is unnecessary but not fatal |
| Whether the Court should transfer venue for convenience | Gov’t: opposes transfer | Hassanshahi: seeks transfer to Central District of CA for convenience and due to arrest/residence | Held: Transfer denied; statutory venue in D.C. is proper (convenience arguments not resolved here) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 808 F.3d 607 (2d Cir.) (§ 3238 not automatically exclusive; § 3237(a) may also apply)
- United States v. Zabaneh, 837 F.2d 1249 (5th Cir.) (§ 3238 not an express exception to § 3237(a))
- United States v. Williams, 589 F.2d 210 (5th Cir.) (venue statutes not mutually exclusive)
- Johnston v. United States, 351 U.S. 215 (U.S.) (failure to perform a legally required act fixes situs at place of required performance)
- United States v. Quinn, 401 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D.D.C.) (omission to secure license from D.C. agency supports venue in D.C.)
- United States v. Montgomery, 441 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C.) (analogous holding that failure to seek export authorization ties venue to D.C.)