IV. Cases

A. Cases dealing with “Hawalas” and 31 C.F.R.

1. U.S. v. Esfahani, 2006 WL 163025 (N.D.Ill. Jan 17, 2006)
2. U.S. v. Anvari-Hamedani, 378 F.Supp.2d 821 (N.D.Ohio Jul 25, 2005) – I attached this opinion. It addresses various arguments that we would make in a criminal prosecution.

B. Cases dealing with “Hawalas” Generally, the most important of which are Habbal and Bariek

1. U.S. v. Muse, 2007 WL 391563 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 30, 2007)
2. U.S. v. Rahman, 417 F.Supp.2d 725 (E.D.N.C. Jan 20, 2006) (involves operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, but it was decided under the pre-Patriot Act revision of 18 U.S.C.A. 1960, so it does not really help us).
3. U.S. v. Calimlim, 2005 WL 2922193 (E.D.Wis. Nov 04, 2005)
4. U.S. v. Habbal, 2005 WL 2674999 (E.D.Va. Oct 17, 2005). I attached this opinion. This case cites several statutes that might provide considerations of other violations that might occur (e.g. failing to disclose ownership interest in foreign bank accounts on tax returns, improper structuring of transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements under 31 U.S.C. § 5324). The case was a sentencing case where D operated a Hawala business properly under the federal registration requirements, but not under the state requirements. He ended up with 12 months imprisonment and 2 years probation.
5. U.S. v. Bariek, 2005 WL 2334682 (E.D.Va. Sep 23, 2005) (called into doubt on other grounds by, U.S. v. Mapp, 2007 WL 485513 (E.D.Mich. Feb 09, 2007)). I attached the Bariek opinion. This is another sentencing case like Habbal, with an even better explanation. The facts are close to our case. D complied with the federal requirements, but not the state requirements. It was a hawala, and money was sent to Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. But, the court did not discuss the 31 C.F.R. 560 regulations and violations. The only alleged wrongdoing was the unlicensed operation of the money transmitting business under state law as a violation of federal law.
6. U.S. v. Uddin, 365 F.Supp.2d 825 (E.D.Mich. Apr 11, 2005) (distinguished by Rahman)
7. Global Relief Foundation, Inc. v. New York Times Co., 390 F.3d 973, 33 Media L. Rep. 1001 (7th Cir.(Ill.) Dec 01, 2004) (this case seems to really be a defamation case and not that important).
8. U.S. v. Talebnejad, 342 F.Supp.2d 346 (D.Md. Sep 28, 2004), Reversed in Part, Appeal Dismissed in Part by, 460 F.3d 563 (4th Cir.(Md.) Aug 21, 2006), Certiorari Denied by, 127 S.Ct. 1313, 75 USLW 3437 (U.S. Feb 20, 2007) (declined to follow by Uddin, supra, and U.S. v. Keleta, 441 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. Jun 28, 2006))

C. Cases discussing the meaning of willful in terms of an ITR/IEEPA violation:

U.S. v. Quinn, 403 F.Supp.2d 57 (D.D.C. 2005) – This case involves violations of the ITR and IEEPA, but did not involve hawalas or money transmitting. It involved the transfer of goods and machine equipment. But it discusses the defense under 18 U.S.C.A. 1705.

U.S. v. Elashi, 440 F.Supp.2d 536 (N.D.Tex. 2006) (this case cites Quinn for the proposition that willful means that the violator need only know the general nature of the offense and not its specifics. "Surely neither Congress in passing IEEPA nor the Executive Branch in promulgating the [Iranian Transaction Regulations] intended to foreclose prosecution of persons who knew the gist, but not the exact details, of the law they are accused of violating.").

D. Cases citing other relevant provisions of the CFR

Kashani v. Tsann Kuen China Enterprise Co., Ltd., 118 Cal.App.4th 531, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 174 (Cal. App. 2 Dist.2004).

back