United States v. Tajideen
319 F. Supp. 3d 445
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- Defendant Kassim Tajideen was designated a Specially-Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) by OFAC in 2009; he sought delisting and was later indicted in D.C. on IEEPA, GTSR, conspiracy to defraud the United States (§ 371), and money‑laundering (§ 1956) counts.
- He was detained in Morocco in March 2017; U.S. authorities sought and obtained his extradition to the United States based on an indictment and supporting materials.
- The Superseding Indictment charges: conspiracy to violate IEEPA/GTSR and to defraud the U.S.; nine substantive IEEPA counts; and a money‑laundering conspiracy count.
- Tajideen filed seven pretrial motions to dismiss (challenging IEEPA scope, U.S.-person causation, § 371 sufficiency, specificity of alleged false statements, § 1956(a)(2) merger, and Rule of Specialty/extradition misconduct) and requested an evidentiary hearing on the extradition issue.
- The Court reviewed statutory text, precedent, and the indictment’s face and denied all motions and the hearing request, finding the Indictment legally sufficient and no basis to dismiss on Rule of Specialty or prosecutorial‑misconduct grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Tajideen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of IEEPA / Executive Order 13224 | EO13224 falls within IEEPA’s broad emergency authority; President may address terrorism generally | EO13224 is an overbroad, permanent regulatory regime untethered to the 9/11 emergency; misuse of IEEPA | Court: EO13224 is within IEEPA; designation of groups/persons under the EO does not exceed statutory authority — motion denied |
| Applicability to non‑U.S. persons & "causing" U.S. persons to transact | IEEPA text and provisions apply extraterritorially and permit prosecution of non‑U.S. persons who cause U.S. persons to violate sanctions | Tajideen: not a U.S. person; indictment fails to show he ‘‘caused’’ U.S. persons or that U.S. persons were innocent intermediaries | Court: IEEPA applies extraterritorially; indictment need not allege U.S. persons were unwitting; aiding/abetting and conspiracy theories suffice — motion denied |
| § 371 conspiracy to defraud — must it allege loss of money/property? | § 371 covers conspiracies that impair or obstruct lawful governmental functions; monetary loss not required | § 371 must be limited to conspiracies depriving U.S. of money/property or bribery schemes | Court: § 371 covers conspiracies to impair governmental functions (no money/property requirement); count pleaded adequately — motion denied |
| § 371 — sufficiency of conspiratorial agreement pleading | Indictment alleges agreement, objects, and multiple overt acts; satisfies Rule 7 | Count one contains only unilateral false statements and lacks factual allegation of an agreement to defraud OFAC | Court: Indictment alleges conspiratorial agreement, objects, and overt acts; pleading adequate — motion denied |
| Specificity of alleged false statements / Bill of Particulars | Indictment and produced discovery identify letters and misrepresentations to OFAC; defendant has adequate notice | Count one fails to identify which specific statements/omissions are false; requests bill of particulars | Court: Indictment sufficiently apprises defendant; specific letters and categories are identified; bill of particulars denied as unnecessary and untimely |
| § 1956(a)(2) money‑laundering — must laundering be distinct from underlying offense? | § 1956(a)(2) penalizes international transfers intended to promote unlawful activity and does not require a distinct act separate from the underlying activity | Every alleged transfers are identical to the underlying IEEPA transactions, so the money‑laundering alleged is not analytically distinct (merger) | Court: Following Piervinanzi, § 1956(a)(2) does not require a separate laundering act distinct from the specified unlawful activity; Hall (re merger) concerned §1956(a)(1) and is not controlling — motion denied |
| Rule of Specialty / extradition misconduct and grand‑jury transcripts | Government followed Moroccan extradition law; charges in Superseding Indictment are the same as those presented for extradition; no misconduct shown | Government procured extradition by emphasizing terrorism allegations and then dropped/softened them; seeks disclosure/grand jury transcripts and evidentiary hearing | Court: Defendant was extradited for the same charges; documentary record does not show government misconduct; no particularized need for grand‑jury disclosure; evidentiary hearing denied — motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (statutory interpretation begins with text)
- Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222 (IEEPA/TWEA statutory history and scope)
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (conspiracy to defraud § 371 covers impairment of governmental functions)
- Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (broad scope of conspiracy to defraud the United States)
- United States v. Dean, 55 F.3d 640 (D.C. Cir.) (§ 371 conviction need not show monetary loss)
- United States v. Piervinanzi, 23 F.3d 670 (2d Cir.) (§ 1956(a)(2) does not require laundering distinct from underlying activity)
- United States v. Hall, 613 F.3d 249 (D.C. Cir.) (distinct‑act/merger discussion applied to § 1956(a)(1), not § 1956(a)(2))