Federal Criminal Defense Blog : Georgia Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Gillen Withers & Lake Law Firm : White Collar Crime, RICO, Trial : Atlanta, Savannah, GA

Last month, the U.S. Sentencing Commission issued its 2010 Proposed Amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which may be viewed here, which contain much of interest for both corporate and individual defendants.

In regard to corporations or “organizational" defendants, the Commission has proposed several changes to Chapter Eight of the Guidelines. The Proposed Amendments amend Guideline Section §8B2.1, governing compliance and ethics programs for corporations, by adding language in the Application Notes regarding personnel who must be aware of an organization’s document retention policies and conform to such policies and setting forth “reasonable steps that an organization should take after detection of criminal conduct.” The steps are:

First, the organization should respond appropriately to the criminal conduct. In the event the criminal conduct has an identifiable victim or victims the organization should take reasonable steps to provide restitution and otherwise remedy the harm resulting from the criminal conduct. Other appropriate responses may include self-reporting, cooperation with authorities, and other forms of remediation. Second, to prevent further similar criminal conduct, the organization should assess the compliance and ethics program and make modifications necessary to ensure the program is more effective. The organization may take the additional step of retaining an independent monitor to ensure adequate assessment and implementation of the modifications.

Section 8D1.4, governing conditions for probation for corporations or organizations, is also amended to provide, as conditions of probation, that an organization develop and submit a compliance and ethics program and retain an independent monitor. The amendment further provides that organizations must disclose any material adverse changes in its business or financial condition or prosepects, and any new criminal prosecutions, civil litigation, administrative proceedings, investigations or formal inquiries commenced against the organization.

Last September, the Commission had stated that one of its policy priorities would be to study alternatives to incarceration. Accordingly, the Proposed Amendments increase “Zone B” and “Zone C” of the Guidelines’ Sentencing Table by one level. Defendants with Guidelines calculations falling within Zone B are eligible, instead of a sentence of imprisonment, to have imposed “a sentence of probation that includes a condition or combination of conditions that substitute intermittent confinement, community confinement, or home detention for imprisonment…” pursuant to Section §5C1.1(b)(3).

The Commission has sought comments on its Proposed Amendments. It has also sought comments on potential revisions to certain specific offender characteristics as a basis for downward departure in sentence pursuant to the policy statements in Chapter 5 of the Guidelines, including age; mental and emotional condition; physical condition; military, civic, charitable, or public service, employment-related contributions and record of prior good works; and lack of guidance as a youth. The Commission has stated that it has considered eliminating these statements pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, which mandated that sentencing courts consider a defendant’s “history and characteristics” pursuant to Section 3553(a) in fashioning a reasonable sentence. Under the “old” Guidelines system, such factors were either prohibited or discouraged grounds for a downward departure in sentence.

The Proposed Amendments also take into account the Supreme Court’s landmark holding in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) that the Guidelines are advisory, rather than mandatory, by amending the instructions on applying the Guidelines in Section 1B1.1 to provide that, after a sentencing court has determined the proper sentencing range under the Guidelines and considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), “[t]he court shall then determine the sentence (i.e., a sentence within the guideline range, a departure, or a variance), considering the applicable factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) taken as a whole.”

The Proposed Amendments expand courts’ authority to impose probation as an alternative to incarceration in certain drug cases in a new proposed Guideline Section 5C1.3 provided that the defendant participates in a substance abuse treatment program and meets certain additional criteria. The Amendments furthermore suggest changes to determining a defendant’s criminal history in terms of the recency of prior offenses. Finally, the Proposed Amendments also recommend so-called “hate crimes” enhancements under Section 3A1.1 which provide for an increase of 3 or more levels to a defendant’s offense level where “the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation of any person…”
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Once again demonstrating the massive potential for crime created by our digital age, 28 year-old Albert Gonzalez pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to payment card networks last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey according to a DOJ press release. Gonzalez was charged with hacking into the computer networks of major financial and retail organizations and stealing data on tens of millions of credit cards and debit cards, in one of the largest data breaches in U.S. history. He gained unauthorized access to the payment card networks of New Jersey-based, Heartland Payment Systems; Texas-based convenience store chain 7-Eleven; and Hannaford Brothers Co. Inc., a Maine-based supermarket chain. He was indicted in New Jersey in August 2009. In September 2009, Gonzalez also pled guilty in the U.S. Distric Court for the District of Massachusetts to 19 counts of conspiracy, computer fraud, wire fraud, access device fraud and aggravated identity theft for hacking into retailers including TJX Companies, BJ’s Wholesale Club, OfficeMax, Boston Market, Barnes & Noble and Sports Authority. In the same month, he pled guilty to a count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud for hacking into the system of Dave and Buster's, a restaurant chain, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Gonzalez had several servers, or "hacking platforms," and would give access to the servers to other hackers. Gonzalez and others would use the platforms to store malicious software, or "malware," in launching attacks on their victims. Gonzalez's plea agreement states that it was forseeable that Gonzalez and his co-conspirators would have used the malware to steal tens of millions of credit and debit card numbers, affecting more than 250 financial institutions.

Gonzalez tested malware by running multiple anti-virus programs in an attempt to ascertain if the programs detected the malware. According to information in the plea agreement, it was foreseeable to Gonzalez that his co-conspirators would use malware to Gonzalez was indicted in New Jersey in August 2009 for this criminal conduct. His plea agreement provides for a sentence of imprisonment between 17 and 25 years. He is scheduled to be sentenced in the Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey cases in March.

The charges against Gonzalez are staggering in their scope. They also demonstrate that would-be cybercriminals should consider their online aliases carefully, as they may resurface in a Federal indictment, as in the case of Albert Gonzalez a/k/a "j4guar17" a/k/a "soupnazi," etc.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As noted at White Collar Criminal Prof Blog and The Justice Fellowship, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing last week on "Over-criminalization of Conduct and Over-federalization of Criminal Law." Organizations which addressed the Subcommittee on issues of over-criminalization and over-federalization included the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.

The hearing considered the lack of distinction between federal criminal and civil offenses, as well as over-federalization of criminal law where federal criminal laws have been enacted to cover offenses already subject to state criminal laws, usually providing for harsher penalties. The Subcommittee noted the existence of approximately 4,500 federal criminal laws, with approximately 50 new criminal laws enacted by Congress each year.

The hearing should be welcome news to most federal criminal defense practitioners. Reform in these areas is badly needed. In some cases, certain prosecutions of alleged federal crimes would be more equitably, and less expensively, handled through the imposition of civil fines and penalties. Furthermore, in many cases, State prosecutorial entities are as capable as Federal entities to prosecute offenders in areas where State and Federal criminal law overlaps. The Blog looks forward to the proposals for reform which result from the hearing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sir Robert Allen Stanford is scheduled to be arraigned today on conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, money laundering and obstruction charges in Houston in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Stanford is represented by attorneys Dick DeGuerin and Sean Ryan Buckley, of the Houston firm of DeGuerin and Dickson.

According to the docket for the case, the Government obtained its 21-count indictment, which can be viewed here, last Thursday and promptly moved to seal (i.e. prevent public access to) it, and then unsealed it on Friday shortly before Stanford’s arrest.

The Court will likely revisit the issue of whether Stanford is entitled to release before trial. On Friday, the Court ordered co-defendants Mark Kuhrt and Gilberto Lopez released on a $100,000 unsecured bond. However, given Stanford’s considerable wealth and ties abroad, any amount of bond imposed in his case will undoubtedly be far higher, if Stanford is granted pre-trial release at all, that is. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia determined that Stanford posed a high risk of flight, and denied bond.

The case will be tried before U.S. District Judge David Hitter, a brief description of whom can be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The writers of Federal Criminal Defense Blog have been busy writing on other matter and apologize for the brief hiatus. Much has happened in the sphere of white collar crime even during our short absence, most notably developments in the two largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history, and we have some catching up to do.

We’ll start with the second largest—an indictment indictment against billionaire Texas financier Sir Robert Allen Stanford, 59, was unsealed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Friday according to the Associated Press  and the BBC. The 50-page indictment alleges that Stanford and six other defendants with allegedly perpetrated a $7 billion Ponzi-style fraud. It charges Stanford and the other defendants with 21 counts, including 7 counts of wire fraud, 10 counts of mail fraud, conspiracy to obstruct an investigation for the Securities and Exchange Commission, obstruction of an investigation by the SEC and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Defendants Laura Pendergest-Holt, Gilberto Lopez and Mark Kuhrt are executives of Stanford Financial Group. Defendant Leroy King, a former bank regulator for the Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda, allegedly accepted more than $100,000 in bribes from the other defendants in order to allow the alleged scheme to continue.

The indictment alleges that the defendants sold certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, based in Antigua, to investors, promising large returns. The defendants allegedly made false claims to investors regarding the growth of Stanford Financial Group’s assets.

The scheme had approximately 30,000 investors. Stanford is alleged to have diverted more than $1.6 billion in investment funds in personal loans to himself. More than $1 billion in investment money is allegedly unaccounted for. Stanford is also charged in the indictment with allegedly conspiring to obstruct an SEC proceeding. Stanford Financial Group’s finance chief, James M. Davis, is cooperating with investigators. Davis has been charged with fraud and obstruction in a separate indictment.

Stanford was the owner of a newspaper, two restaurants, and a development company in Antigua, and was a cricket enthusiast and owner of the Stanford cricket grounds in Antigua. In 2008, Stanford staged a $20 million, winner-takes-all, match between a West Indian XI and England at the grounds. In 2006, Stanford became the first American to be knighted by Antigua and Barbuda.

Stanford is represented by attorney Dick DeGuerin, who has issued a statement to the press that Stanford is innocent of the charges. Stanford has made repeated statements as to his innocence and has alleged that no money was lost.

Stanford surrendered to the FBI on Thursday and had his initial appearance on Friday. U.S. Magistrate Judge Hannah Lauck determined that Stanford posed a flight risk and ordered him to remain in custody pending a future detention hearing in Houston. Several governments have frozen his assets. Stanford faces as much as 250 years in prison if convicted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Federal Government is spending billions on bailouts and stimulus in order to resuscitate the economy. This money, however, does not come without strings, both in the non-criminal and the criminal sphere. Following is a survey of the potential criminal consequences of misuse of monies issued by the Government under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) , 12 U.S.C. § 5201 et seq., part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) of 2008.

President Georgia W. Bush signed the EESA and TARP into law on October 3, 2008. As of the end of March, the Treasury Department has disbursed $303.4 billion out of $700 billion in TARP funds, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) status report . Most of the monies—$198 billion—have gone to TARP’s Capital Purchase Program (CPP), the preferred stock and warrant purchase program. About $40 billion has been given to failing institutions, and approximately the same amount has been used for targeted investment programs. $24.5 billion has been given to the auto industry.

The central TARP provision, 12 U.S.C. § 5211, governing purchases of troubled assets, authorizes the Secretary of the of Treasury “to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary…” 12 U.S.C. § 5211(a)(1). Section 5211 further directs the Secretary to prevent unjust enrichment of financial institutions in making purchases. 12 U.S.C. § 5211(e).

The Comptroller General is responsible for oversight of TARP. 12 U.S.C. § 5226(a). The Comptroller General, through the GAO, is also charged with auditing programs, activities, receipts, expenditures and financial transactions under TARP. 12 U.S.C. § 5226(b).

12 U.S.C. § 5234 provides that “Any Federal financial regulatory agency shall cooperate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies investigating fraud, misrepresentation, and malfeasance with respect to development, advertising, and sale of financial products.” 12 U.S.C. § 5234.

As related by an article at NewGeography.com, TARP creates three monitoring entities, one of which has the authority to prosecute crimes relating to TARP, the Special Inspector General (SIGTARP). SIGTARP is headed by Special Inspector General in charge, Neil Barofsky, dubbed the "TARP Cop." SIGTARP has set up a hotline for citizens to report fraud or “evidence of violations of criminal and civil laws in connection with TARP” and had received 200 tips and launched 20 criminal investigations by the end of April. SIGTARP has released a 250-page report on TARP to educate the public http://sigtarp.gov/reports/congress/2009/April2009_Quarterly_Report_to_Congress.pdf.  

In February, SIGTARP began issuing all financial insititutions receiving TARP funds audit letters requesting, within 30 days:

1. A narrative of (a) the recipient's anticipated use of TARPfunds; (b) whether the TARP funds were segregated from other institutionalfunds; (c) the recipient's actual use of TARP funds to date; and (d) the recipient's expected use of unspent TARP funds.
2. The recipient’s specific plans for addressing executive compensation, and the status of implementation of any plans.

The audit letters further request supporting documentation and requires that the response be:

[B]e signed by a duly authorized senior executive officer of your company, including a statement certifying the accuracy of all statements, representations, and supporting information provided, subject to the requirements and penalties set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 [the Federal false statement criminal provision].

 SIGTARP subsequently issued a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheet to TARP fund recipients. Earlier this year Barofsky testified before the Senate Finance Committee that the massive amounts of TARP money "will inevitably attract those seeking to profit criminally" and that SIGTARP was "looking at the potential exposure of hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money lost to fraud." Among SIGTARP's current investigations is insurance giant AIG.

 On March 11, 2009, FBI Director Robert Muller stated before the the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies:

With the passage of recent legislation that includes billions of dollars being infused into the U.S. economy, including the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA), the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and other asset relief programs, we anticipate an increase in fraud. In addition to the agents that are currently on board, the FBI’s 2010 budget includes 143 new positions (50 special agents and 93 professional staff) and $25.5 million to assist the FBI in combating mortgage and corporate fraud.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress09/mueller060409.htm.

Only one investigation has resulted in charges relating to abuse of TARP funds so far. In April, a felony information was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, charging Gordon B. Grigg, a financial advisor in Franklin, Tennessee, with four counts of mail fraud and four counts of wire fraud. Grigg is charged with having allegedly embezzled more than $10,922,000 in client investment funds in a Ponzi-type scheme. He is alleged to have conducted a scheme since 1996 to defraud investors by inducing them to invest in pooled-client purchases of fixed-term certificates of deposit, private placements, corporate notes and debentures in the name of Grigg’s company, ProTrust. Grigg allegedly falsely told investors that he personally managed the accounts, that he had negotiated partnerships and special business relationships with several of the nation’s most successful investment firms, and that the investments were safe and would generate and sustain high rates of annualized returns. He is also charged with allegedly falsely representing that he had already committed more than $5,000,000 in Pro Trust pooled client funds towards purchase of TARP guaranteed debt as part of private placement partnership. The Government alleges that Grigg never invested the investors’ monies, but instead used the monies to disburse false “earnings” and “returns of deposit” to clients who cashed out their ProTrust investment accounts, and for his own personal benefit and expenses.

In order to conceal the scheme, Grigg fabricated documents, including correspondence, invoices and account statements, and used counterfeit corporate letterhead and the forged signatures of national investment firm executives. From 1990 to 2009, Grigg solicited approximately sixty investors to invest approximately $10,922,661, of which, approximately $6.6 million was returned to investors who either cashed out or closed their Pro Trust investment accounts. 

Special Inspector General Barofsky announced in the press release by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee on the charges against Grigg:

“The filing of charges today against Gordon Grigg, the first criminal charges brought in connection with a SIGTARP investigation, marks a significant milestone in the evolution of SIGTARP and of TARP oversight generally.”

“Today, SIGTARP, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee, the SEC, and the FBI, along with our state and local partners, serve notice on all who might try to profit criminally from the current national crisis that the United States Government stands ready to detect, investigate and punish any and all who use the TARP program to commit fraud.  This is true irrespective of whether the victim is the United States Government itself, unsuspecting investors, or struggling home owners.”

 With hundreds of billions in TARP funds already disbursed and hundreds of billions remaining to be disbursed, and great public concern over how such staggering amounts of money are being spent and used, TARP-related criminal investigations and prosecutions can only increase. Recipients of TARP funds must be especially careful in using the funds for their intended purposes and in scrupulously accounting for all uses of the funds. It is furthermore of utmost importance that recipients exercise extreme caution and thoroughness in responding to audit inquiries from SIGTARP, including through the retention of competent and proactive legal counsel.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By way of background, the Government originally charged Syed Haris Ahmed in a sealed indictment filed on March 23, 2006. The Government obtained a Superseding Indictment on July 19, 2006. It has charged Ahmed and his co-defendant, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, with one count of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, in violation of Title 18 United States Code Sections 956 and 2332b; one count of providing and attempting to provide material support to terrorists, in violation of Title 18, Sections 956, 2332b and 2339A; one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, in violation of Title 18, Section 2339B; and one count of attempting to provide material support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, in violation of Title 18, Section 2339B.

The Government’s Superseding Indictment contains the following facts and allegations:

Ahmed was born in Pakistan in 1984 and became a naturalized U.S. citizen. Sadequee, who is allegedly nicknamed “Shifa,” was born in Virginia in 1986, and is of Bangladeshi descent.

In or around late 2004, Ahmed and Sadequee and another person engaged in alleged paramilitary training, including with paintball guns, in Northwest Georgia.

On or about February 26, 2005, Ahmed and Sadequee traveled to Toronto, Canada, by bus. While in Toronto, Ahmed and Sadequee allegedly met in person with “supporters of violent jihad” and “discussed strategic locations in the United States that were suitable for terrorist attack, including military bases and oil storage facilities and refineries.” Ahmed, Sadequee and the others allegedly also “explored how they might disrupt the world-wide Global Positioning System (GPS)” and “a plan for members of the group to travel to Pakistan to seek and receive paramilitary training that they would then use to engage in violent jihad.”

After returning to Atlanta, in or about March or April 2005, Ahmed and Sadequee further discussed these plans, and also the possibility of attacking Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia.

At or around this time, Sadequee was allegedly in communication with Younis Tsouli, an unindicted co-conspirator in the United Kingdom.

On or about April 10 and 11, 2005, Ahmed and Sadequee traveled to Washington, D.C., in Ahmed’s pickup truck. On April 11, Ahmed and Sadequee allegedly “made short digital video recordings… of symbolic and infrastructure targets of potential terrorist attacks in the Washington, D.C., area, including the United States Capitol; the headquarters building of the World Bank…; the Masonic Temple in Alexandria, Virginia; and a group of large fuel storage tanks near I-95 in northern Virginia.”

On returning to Atlanta, Ahmed allegedly gave the video clips to Sadequee so that he could send the clips to supporters of violent jihad abroad. Sadequee allegedly sent the video clips to Tsouli in the United Kingdom and Tsouli stored the clips on his computer along with other materials relating to violent jihad.

Between March and July 2005, Sadequee allegedly provided Ahmed with the contact information for Abu Umar, an unindicted co-conspirator, and told Ahmed that Abu Umar could assist Ahmed with obtaining paramilitary training in Pakistan. On or about July 17, 2005, Ahmed traveled from Atlanta to Pakistan for the alleged purpose of studying in a madrassa and then obtaining paramilitary training to engage in violent jihad in Kashmir or other locations, including the U.S. Ahmed is alleged to have intended to join Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (“Army of the Righteous”). Ahmed was allegedly unsuccessful in his attempts to enter a madrassa or to obtain paramilitary training, and returned to Atlanta.

On or about August 18, 2005, Sadequee traveled from Atlanta to Bangladesh to allegedly get married and to pursue violent jihad. Sadequee was stopped as he traveled through John F. Kennedy Airport in New York and was discovered to allegedly have two compact discs concealed in the lining of his suitcase which contained a Fairfax County, Virginia, Visitor’s Center map of the Washington area, including the sites of four potential terrorist targets which Sadequee and Ahmed had videotaped in April 2005. Sadequee was interviewed by federal agents and allegedly falsely stated that he had traveled to Toronto alone.

On or about August 19, 2005, Ahmed returned to Atlanta from Pakistan and was interviewed by federal agents at Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta. Ahmed allegedly made false and misleading statements about his travel to Canada and Pakistan, allegedly stating that he had made the trips to visit friends and family and to attend a religious school.

In the Fall of 2005, Ahmed allegedly researched shaped explosive charges and methods to defeat surveillance by government authorities. He also allegedly cautioned an individual to avoid discussing certain topics over the telephone.

On or about November 27, 2005, Ahmed allegedly told a supporter of violent jihad of his intent to go abroad again to train for, and engage in, violent jihad, and told the individual to read the indictment against Jose Padilla. At or around this time, Ahmed allegedly reviewed a periodical for gun enthusiasts.

In early 2006, Ahmed allegedly engaged in efforts to detect and evade suspected government surveillance. In March of 2006, agents from the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force engaged in a series of interviews with Ahmed, in which Ahmed allegedly attempted to conceal the true nature of his, Sadequee’s and their alleged co-conspirators’ discussions, activities and plans. After the interviews began, Ahmed communicated with Sadequee in Bangladesh and warned him about the FBI’s interest in their activities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The trial of Syed Haris Ahmed is Georgia’s most significant terrorism case and we will collect for readers daily information on the trial and additional information. Today’s information on the Ahmed/Sadequee Trial comes from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, WSBTV and CNN.

Ahmed is 24, an Atlanta area native and a former student at Georgia Tech. Ahmed waived his right to jury trial, and his case is being tried before District Court Judge William S. Duffey in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia without a jury. Jack Martin, of Martin Brothers, P.C., is representing Ahmed. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert McBurney is representing the United States. Ahmed’s co-defendant, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, will be tried in August. Stephanie Kearns of the Federal Defender Program is representing Sadequee.

On Monday, Mr. Martin gave his opening statements to the Court, describing Ahmed as a confused, frustrated and immature young man who “fell prey” to websites espousing extremist views. Mr. Martin characterized the alleged plans for terrorist acts as “passing random thoughts, momentary ideas, childish fantasies, unformed, inchoate notions.” Mr. Martin argued that Ahmed had the ability to commit the alleged acts but said “No.” He stated that Ahmed’s idea of paramilitary training was shooting paintball guns with a friend in the North Georgia woods.

Mr. McBurney argued that Ahmed “one step removed from the bomb throwers” and intended to wage violent jihad. Mr. McBurney argued that Ahmed was a would-be terrorist who went to Pakistan to join the Taliban. He said that the videos made by Ahmed while allegedly “casing” locations in Washington, D.C., including the Capitol and the Pentagon, were intended to prove to terrorists overseas that Ahmed had access to Washington’s “backyard” and could get in close to targets. McBurney said the government’s case is about supporting terrorism and not actually “pulling the trigger or dropping the bomb.”

FBI Special Agent Mark Richards testified for the government. During Agent Richard’s testimony, the government showed some of the videos. In one video of the World Bank Building, Ahmed bobbed up and down so much that Mr. Martin asked Special Agent Richards “If a terrorist was attacking on a pogo stick, this might be useful, right?” However, another video shows Ahmed and Sadequee driving past the Pentagon with Sadequee stating “This is where our brothers attacked.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

    In rare circumstances, United States citizens are the victims, or even the perpetrators, of crimes in foreign nations. It is a basic premise—one that some Americans overlook—that while in a foreign county an American citizen is subject to that country’s laws, which in some cases can carry far harsher penalties that similar violations in the U.S. When charged with a crime in a foreign country, a U.S. citizen must go through that country’s criminal justice system and—as memorably attested to by films such as Midnight Express, Return to Paradise, Brokedown Palace and the National Geographic Channel’s series Locked Up Abroad—stay in that country’s prisons, sometimes under far worse conditions than American prisons.

    The United States Department of State protects the rights of American citizens abroad, provides a wide array of service to citizens who are detained abroad, works to ensure that citizens are afforded due process under local laws and are treated consistent with internationally recognized standards of human rights, and monitors conditions in foreign prisons. When a U.S. citizen is convicted of a crime in a foreign country, he or she, in some cases, may apply to be transferred to the United States to serve out the remainder of his or her foreign sentence if the foreign country has a “prisoner transfer treaty” with the U.S. See 18 U.S.C. § 4100 et seq. (In contrast, prosecutors who wish to prosecute individuals located in a foreign country utilize “mutual legal assistance treaties,” which the U.S. currently possesses with over 50 other nations, including the European Union as a whole). The U.S. is a party to two multilateral prisoner transfer treaties, the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, or COE Convention, and the Inter-American Convention on Serving Criminal Sentences Abroad, or OAS Convention, and, in addition, has bilateral prisoner transfer treaties in effect with approximately thirteen countries.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks