USA PATRIOT Act Convictions—Kurds

The rationale for enacting the USA PATRIOT Act was to make it easier to prosecute terrorists. The reality, however, is that very few alleged terrorists have been prosecuted under the Act. Instead, the provisions of the Act have been used against librarians, money launderers and as a rationale to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance. The Act has also been used against “[t]hree Kurdish men who transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Middle East.”^[1]

The three men, all of whom have been granted asylum in the United States, have no alleged ties to terrorism.^[2] Rasheed Qambari, Amir Rashid, and Ahmed Abdullah were rescued a decade ago by the US military after Saddam Hussein accused them of treachery and threatened their lives because they served American relief agencies in Iraq.^[3] Mssrs. Abdullah and Rashid pleaded guilty “in hopes for leniency,” and prosecutors “agreed no to ask for prison time for them.”^[4] Mr. Qambari went to trial and was convicted, leading prosecutors to seek prison time for him.^[5] A fourth man, Fadhil Noroly, is facing trial next month.^[6]

Like many people in recent months,^[7] the three men were accused of “running money-transfer businesses without licenses.”^[8] The law is controversial because it makes such money transfers illegal “even if operators aren’t aware of the law.”^[9] Some courts have called the law unconstitutional because it creates arbitrary classifications between money transmitters in states that require licenses for money transmitters and those in states that do not require licenses.^[10] Other courts have called the law constitutional, but have required proof that defendant know that the business is required to be licensed.^[11] This is because “the contemporary view [of law] disfavors strict liability offenses.”^[12] However, other courts have taken the exact opposite approach and have required only proof that the business was not licensed.^[13] According to this view, “the legislative history of the Patriot Act amendment to [18 U.S.C. §] 1960 makes clear that a section 1960 violation is a general intent crime that does not require proof of the defendant’s knowledge of the federal registration requirement.”^[14] With this clear disagreement across circuit lines, the question will presumably come before the US Supreme Court for a definitive answer eventually.

The judge in the three men’s case, however, determined that they had not “evil intent” and thus sentenced them only to a term of probation and assessed a fine.^[15]

---

[1] 3 Kurdish Men Spared Prison in Funds Transfer, AP (via Kurdmedia.com), Jun. 27, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Calvin R. Trice, Va. Kurds Violated Patriot Act, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Jun. 25, 2006.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] See, e.g., our posts on the subject here, here, and here.
[8] Trice, supra note 3.
[9] Id.
[10] See United States v. Barre, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1091 (D. Col. 2004).
[11] See United States v. Talebnejad, 342 F. Supp. 2d 346 (D. Md. 2004).
[12] Id. at 354.
[13] See United States v. Uddin, 365 F. Supp. 2d 825 (E.D. Mich. 2005).
[14] Id. at 829.
[15] AP, supra note 1.