On June 5th, the United States Supreme Court held in Honeycutt v. United States that a criminal defendant is not jointly and severally liable for property his co-conspirator derived from the crime, and that he only can be ordered to forfeit property he actually obtained from the crime.  Although the decision was unanimous (with Justice Gorsuch abstaining), the outcome was far from preordained.

Until 2015, courts applying the forfeiture statute, 21 U.S.C. § 853, had uniformly held that co-conspirators are jointly and severally liable for amounts received pursuant to the conspiracy.  That rule was adopted by nine circuits.  However, in 2015, the D.C. Circuit split with its sister circuits in United States v. Cano Flores, rejecting joint and several liability for co-conspirators.    The district court in Honeycutt sided with the D.C. Circuit, but the Sixth Circuit reversed, following the overwhelming majority view of the other Courts of Appeal.

The result in Honeycutt, and the underlying analysis and related policy arguments, may have implications in other government enforcement contexts, including in securities cases. Further, the result appears to obligate the government to perform some degree of a tracing analysis to tie individual defendants to specific tainted funds – an analysis which might be difficult in complex fact patterns involving multiple defendants and the use of multiple entities or financial accounts. Continue Reading A Criminal Defendant Cannot Forfeit Property He Never Received

IED Bomb still lifeOn March 24, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed an indictment charging Kassim Tajideen, an alleged prominent financial supporter of the Hizballah terror organization, with evading U.S. sanctions and conspiring to commit money laundering.  Tajideen, of Beirut, Lebanon, was arrested in Morocco earlier this month and has made his initial appearance in federal court in Washington, D.C.

According to the government, Tajideen, through his multi-billion dollar network of businesses based in Lebanon and Africa, contributed tens of millions of dollars to Hizballah. For this reason, in May 2009, the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) designated Tajidden as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (“SDGT”).  This designation makes it illegal for U.S. companies to do business with Tajideen or any entity that he controls.  More broadly, it is illegal for U.S. companies to transact business with any entities or individuals on OFAC’s blacklists.

The indictment charges Tajideen with one count of conspiracy to evade U.S. sanctions, specifically the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) and the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, by transacting business with three U.S. businesses, referred to only as Business A, Business B and Business C, and by concealing from OFAC that he was benefitting from these transactions. Tajideen is also charged with seven counts of unlawful transactions with a SDGT, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.

According to the indictment, Tajideen heads a large-scale commodity distribution business based primarily in Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates and Angola, but which operates throughout the world, including in the U.S. The business utilized what the government says was “a web of vertically integrated companies, partnerships and trade names.” The indictment further alleges that Tajideen and others engaged in a scheme to do business with U.S. companies while concealing Tajideen’s involvement.  As part of that scheme, between approximately July 2013 and the present, Tajideen, his employee, codefendant Imad Hassoun, and other unnamed co-conspirators illegally caused at least 47 wire transfers totaling over $27 million to be sent to entities in the U.S. for the purchase of frozen poultry and other items.  These payments caused the U.S. entities to illegally ship goods from the U.S. without obtaining the proper licenses from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), charges that Tajideen and others conspired to both promote and conceal the conspirators’ illegal business transactions with U.S. persons through numerous wire transfers from bank accounts held by Tajideen’s companies in the United Arab Emirates to bank accounts held within the U.S. in order to pay for transactions involving Businesses A, B and C.

It has been reported that the investigation is continuing. Specifically, the government wants to determine whether Businesses A, B or C knowingly did business with Tajideen after he was designated a SDGT. Tajideen is alleged to have restructured his business empire after the designation and to have created new trade names in order to evade the sanctions and continue doing business with U.S. companies.  But Tajideen’s alleged deception may not save Businesses A, B and C from the government’s crosshairs.  Companies are responsible for conducting due diligence to determine whether entities and individuals with whom they do business – including middlemen, corporate shells and newly formed firms – are linked to individuals or entities on OFAC’s blacklists.  So while this indictment shows that the U.S. is taking aggressive action against Hizballah, it also underscores the need for U.S. companies to have robust export control compliance programs so that they can ensure they are not doing business with terrorists.

If you would like to remain updated on these issues, please click here to subscribe to Money Laundering Watch.

The federal courts continued in 2016 to produce a stream of cases pertaining to money laundering. We focus on three below because they involve analysis of basic issues that frequently arise in money laundering litigation.

Justitia, a monument in Frankfurt, Germany

The first case tests the money laundering statute’s reach in prosecution of an alleged international fraud perpetrated primarily outside of the United States—an increasingly common fact pattern as cross-border cases proliferate and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutes more conduct occurring largely overseas. The other two cases involve defense victories that focus on critical issues of mental state: the question of specific intent under the BSA, and the question, under the money laundering statutes, of knowledge by a third party that a transaction involved proceeds of another person’s crime. The issue of third-party knowledge is often crucial in prosecutions of professionals. Continue Reading 2016 Year End Review: Money Laundering Opinions of Note