Eight Charged in Roanoke Federal Court with Varies Federal Crimes Related to an Alleged Cocaine Distribution Conspiracy

August 26, 2014

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on August 25, 2014 released the following:

“LYNCHBURG, VA—Eight individuals from the Lynchburg area have been charged with a variety of federal crimes related to an alleged cocaine distribution conspiracy that is accused of dispersing more than 500 grams of cocaine in the Lynchburg region between September 1998 and August 2012.

In an indictment returned July 24, 2014 by a Federal Grand Jury sitting in United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Roanoke, the following have been charged:

  • Edward Dennis Jones, 38, of Lynchburg, Va., has been charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, three counts of distributing cocaine and one count of illegal possession of a firearm.
  • Bryce Lewis Carter, 29, of Lynchburg, Va., has been charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and one count of distributing cocaine.
  • Carlos Demetrice Jackson, 28, of Amherst, Va., has been charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine.
  • Jeroid Montezs Matthews, 36, of Madison Heights, Va., has been charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and two counts of distributing cocaine.
  • Tony Sylvester Monroe, 40, of Evington, Va., has been charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine.
  • Tyrone Edwin Lewis, 28, of Madison Heights, Va., has been charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine.
  • Lateef Yusef Jones, 36, of Roanoke, Va., has been charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and attempt to distribute cocaine.
  • Randall Aaron Falwell, 28, of Lynchburg, Va., has been charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine.

The investigation of the case was conducted by Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Virginia Drug Task Force, the Virginia State Police, the Amherst County Sheriff’s Office, the Lynchburg Police Department, the Campbell County Sheriff’s Office, the Appomattox County Sheriff’s Office and U.S. Probation and Parole. Assistant United States Attorney Craig “Jake” Jacobsen will prosecute the case for the United States.

A Grand Jury Indictment is only a charge and not evidence of guilt. The defendant is entitled to a fair trial with the burden on the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

Federal Mail Fraud Crimes

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


“Attorney General, Manhattan U.S. Attorney, and FBI Assistant Director in Charge Announce Charges Against Two Derivatives Traders in Connection with Multi-Billion-Dollar Trading Loss at JPMorgan Chase & Company”

August 15, 2013

The New York Times on August 14, 2013 released the following:

Defendants Hid More Than Half-a-Billion Dollars in Losses Resulting from Derivatives Trading in JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Office; a Third Trader, Bruno Iksil, Entered a Non-Prosecution Cooperation Agreement

Eric Holder, the Attorney General; Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York; and George Venizelos, the Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), announced the unsealing of criminal complaints against Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout for their alleged participation in a conspiracy to hide the true extent of losses in a credit derivatives trading portfolio maintained by the Chief Investment Office (CIO) of JPMorgan Chase & Company (JPMorgan). Martin-Artajo served as a managing director and head of Credit and Equity Trading for the CIO, and Grout was a vice president and derivatives trader in the CIO.

Attorney General Eric Holder said, “Our financial system has been hurt in recent years not just by risky bets gone bad but also, in some cases, by criminal wrongdoing. We will not stop pursuing those who violate the public trust and compromise the integrity of our markets. I applaud U.S. Attorney Bharara, his colleagues in the Southern District of New York, and all of our partners on the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force for their longstanding commitment to combating all forms of financial fraud. And I pledge that we will continue to move both fairly and aggressively to bring the perpetrators of financial crimes to justice.”

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said, “As alleged, the defendants, Javier Martin- Artajo and Julien Grout, deliberately and repeatedly lied about the fair value of billions of dollars in assets on JPMorgan’s books in order to cover up massive losses that mounted month after month at the beginning of 2012, which ultimately led JPMorgan to restate its losses by $660 million. The defendants’ alleged lies misled investors, regulators, and the public, and they constituted federal crimes. As has already been conceded, this was not a tempest in a teapot but rather a perfect storm of individual misconduct and inadequate internal controls. The difficulty inherent in precisely valuing certain kinds of financial positions does not give people a license to lie or mislead to cover up losses; it does not confer a license to create false books and records or to make false public filings. And that goes double for handsomely paid executives at a public company whose actions can roil markets and upend the economy.”

FBI Assistant Director in Charge George Venizelos said, “The complaints tell a story of a group of traders who got in over their heads, and to get out, doubled down on a series of risky positions. In the first quarter of 2012, boom turned to bust, as the defendants, concerned about losing control to other traders at the bank, fudged the numbers on their daily book and in some cases completely made them up. It brought a whole new meaning to ‘cooking the books.’”

In a separate action, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced civil charges against Martin-Artajo and Grout.

According to the allegations in the criminal complaints unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

JPMorgan’s CIO is a component of the bank’s Corporate/Private Equity line of business, which, according to the bank, exists to manage the bank’s excess deposits—approximately $350 billion in 2012. Since approximately 2007, the CIO’s investments have included a so-called Synthetic Credit Portfolio (SCP), which consists of indices and tranches of indices of credit default swaps (CDS). A credit default swap is essentially an insurance contract on an underlying credit risk, such as corporate bonds. CDS indices are collections of CDSes that are traded as one unit, while CDS tranches are portions of those indices, usually sliced up by riskiness.

Under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and according to JPMorgan policy, CDS traders were required to value the securities in their portfolios on a daily basis. Those values, or “marks,” became part of the bank’s daily books and records. Because CDS indices and tranches are not traded over an exchange, traders are required to look to various data points in order to value their securities, such as actual transaction prices, price quotations from market makers, and values provided by independent services (such as Totem and MarkIT). JPMorgan’s accounting policy, which used the same methodology employed by the independent services, provided that the “starting point for the valuation of a derivatives portfolio is mid-market,” meaning the mid-point between the price at which market-makers were willing to buy or sell a security. Through about January 2012, CIO traders generally marked the securities in the SCP approximately to this mid-point, which they sometimes referred to as the “crude mid.”

The SCP was extremely profitable for JPMorgan—it produced approximately $2 billion in gross revenues since its inception—but in the first quarter of 2012, the SCP began to sustain consistent and considerable losses. From at least March 2012, Martin-Artajo and Grout conspired to artificially manipulate the SCP marks to disguise those losses. They did so, among other reasons, to avoid losing control of the SCP to other traders at JPMorgan.

Although Martin-Artajo pressured his traders, including Grout, to “defend the positions” in early 2012 by executing trades at favorable prices, the SCP lost approximately $130 million in January and approximately $88 million in February. In March 2012, when the market moved even more aggressively against the CIO’s positions, Martin-Artajo specifically instructed Grout and the head SCP trader, Bruno Iksil (who has entered a non-prosecution agreement), not to report losses in the SCP unless they were tied to some identifiable market event, such as a bankruptcy filing by a company whose bonds were in the CDS index. Martin-Artajo explained that “New York”—meaning, among others, JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Officer—did not want to see losses attributable to market volatility.

By mid-March 2012, Grout was explicitly and admittedly “not marking at mids.” He maintained a spreadsheet that kept track of the difference between the price that Grout recorded in JPMorgan’s books and records on the one hand, and the “crude mids” on the other. By March 15, 2012, according to Grout’s spreadsheet, the difference had grown to approximately $292 million. In a recorded online chat the same day, Grout explained that he was trying to keep the marks for most of the SCP’s positions “relatively realistic,” with the marks for one particular security “put aside.” That is, Grout mispriced that one particular security, of which the SCP held billions of dollars’ worth, by the full $292 million. The following day, Iksil told Martin-Artajo that the difference had grown to $300 million, and “I reckon we get to 400 [million] difference very soon.” In a separate conversation, Iksil remarked to Grout that “I don’t know where he [Martin-Artajo] wants to stop, but it’s getting idiotic.”

In the days that followed, Grout at times ignored Iksil’s instructions on how to mark the positions and instead followed Martin-Artajo’s mandate to continue to hide the losses. By March 20, 2012, Iksil insisted that Grout show a significant loss: $40 million for the day. In a recorded call, Martin-Artajo excoriated Iksil, finally emphasizing, “I didn’t want to show the P&L [the profit and loss].” Throughout the remainder of March 2012, while Iksil continued to try to insist that Martin-Artajo acknowledge the reality of the losses, Grout, at Martin-Artajo’s instructions, continued to hide them. As of March 30, 2012—the last day of the first quarter of 2012—Grout continued to fraudulently understate the SCP’s losses. These incorrect figures in the SCP were not only integrated into JPMorgan’s books and records, but also—as Martin-Artajo and Grout were well aware—into the bank’s quarterly financial filing for the first quarter of 2012 with the SEC.

During the course of the mis-marking scheme carried out by Martin-Artajo and Grout, the CIO’s Valuation Control Group (VCG) was supposed to serve as an independent check on the valuations assigned by traders to the securities that the traders were marking at month-end. The VCG, however, was effectively only staffed by one person and did not perform any independent review of the valuations. Instead, the VCG tolerated valuations outside the bid-offer spread as presented by Martin-Artajo and other CIO traders.

In August 2012, after Martin-Artajo and Grout were stripped of their responsibilities over the SCP and their scheme was discovered, JPMorgan restated its first quarter 2012 earnings and recognized an additional loss of $660 million in net revenue attributable to the mismarking of the SCP. JPMorgan announced that it was restating its earnings because it had lost confidence in the “integrity” of the marks submitted by Grout, at Martin-Artajo’s direction.

* * *

Martin-Artajo, 49, a Spanish citizen, and Grout, 35, a French citizen, are charged in one count of conspiracy; one count of falsifying the books and records of JPMorgan; one count of wire fraud; and one count of causing false statements to be made in JPMorgan’s filings with the SEC. They each face a maximum sentence of five years in prison on the conspiracy count and 20 years in prison on each of the three remaining counts in the complaints and a fine of the greater of $5,000,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss as to certain of the offenses.

This case was brought in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which Mr. Bharara serves as a Co-Chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group. The task force was established to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. attorneys’ offices, and state and local partners, it is the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory, and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud.

Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state, and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets; and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations.

Mr. Bharara praised the work of the FBI. He also thanked the SEC and the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs.

This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eugene Ingoglia and Matthew L. Schwartz are in charge of the prosecutions.

The charges contained in the complaints are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

Federal Mail Fraud Crimes

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Bank Employee, Edna Edith Sepulveda, Indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for Allegedly Committing Federal Bank Fraud Crimes

July 17, 2013

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on July 15, 2013 released the following:

“Bank Employee Charged with Bank Fraud

MCALLEN, TX— Edna Edith Sepulveda, 39, of McAllen, has surrendered to federal authorities following the return of an indictment alleging she perpetrated more than $200,000 in bank fraud, United States Attorney Kenneth Magidson announced today.

The indictment was returned July 9, 2013, and she made her initial appearance today, at which time she was permitted release upon posting bond.

According to the indictment, Sepulveda was a former employee of Inter National Bank of McAllen. Beginning in January 10, 2006, she allegedly devised a scheme to take money from Inter National Bank by fraudulent means. She then placed the funds into the accounts of her parents allegedly intended for her own personal use, according to the allegations. The total amount of loss to Inter National Bank is $232,351.19.

If convicted, Sepulveda faces up to 30 years in federal prison, as well as a $1 million fine.

This case is being investigated by the FBI with the cooperation of Inter National Bank. Assistant United States Attorney Jason C. Honeycutt is prosecuting the case.

An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.”

Federal Bank Fraud Crimes – 18 U.S.C. § 1344

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


“Federal public defenders warn of dire budget cuts”

July 3, 2013

Seattle PI on July 2, 2013 released the following:

By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press

“SEATTLE (AP) — The lawyers who represent poor people charged with federal crimes across the country say they already face an unfair fight when they head into court against the resources of the Justice Department — and that’s only going to get worse if draconian budget cuts occur as planned next year.

As a result of the automatic cuts known as sequestration, federal public defender offices have recently been told they must reduce spending by 14 percent for fiscal year 2014, on top of the roughly 9 percent suffered this year.

The result, the lawyers say, will be drastic layoffs for public defenders, expensive case delays and costly appeals — all for nothing, as pricier private attorneys are expected to step in to fill the void at government expense.

“Absent some immediate action, federal defenders will begin the process this summer of laying off between a third and half of their staff,” said a memo prepared by several federal public defenders. “They will begin closing many offices. The cuts will result in irreparable damage to the criminal justice system, and paradoxically, greater expense to the taxpayer as indigent defendants are increasingly assigned private counsel.”

Congress provides about $1 billion for the representation of criminal defendants who can’t afford their own lawyer. The money is split evenly between federal public defender program, which was established in 1970, and private attorneys, who are generally paid $125 an hour to represent defendants who can’t be represented by the public defenders because of conflicts of interest or other reasons.

Because the right to counsel is a constitutional guarantee, the federal defenders have no control over their workloads. When someone is charged and needs a lawyer, they’re appointed. If public defenders have to take fewer cases due to staffing cuts that work will fall to the private lawyers — who cost substantially more than full-time federal defenders, studies have shown.

“There are no actual savings here,” said Tom Hillier, the chief federal public defender in Seattle. “Sooner or later Congress is going to have to come to grips with the fact that they’re destroying institutions, and they’re not saving money.”

Under this year’s cuts, some public defenders lost their jobs and the rest are taking up to 20 days of unpaid leave. The federal public defender’s office in Los Angeles is simply closing for three weeks in September. The chief federal defender in southern Ohio laid himself off.

In New York, the trial of Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law was delayed because the public defenders who were representing him had to take furloughs, and in Boston, the lawyers for the surviving marathon bombing suspect have had to do it amid unpaid time off.

When staffing cuts force public defenders to ask for delays in cases or withdraw from cases altogether, it means defendants have to spend more time in pretrial custody — increasing jail costs and raising concerns about the right to a speedy trial, the defenders’ memo noted. The offices have also cut spending on training, travel, expert witnesses and case investigators — all of which can affect the quality of representation and give rise to appeals.

The cuts being required next year are even starker.

—In Seattle, Hillier said he will have to lay off nine employees or his entire office will have to take more than nine weeks of unpaid time off.

—In San Francisco, Federal Public Defender Steven Kalar said he will have to close at least one branch office — possibly Oakland, San Jose, or both — and stop working on certain types of complex cases.

—In the District of Columbia, Federal Public Defender A.J. Kramer said that his office would have to withdraw from a large number of cases. He’s already down 10 positions, out of 35 he would normally be authorized to fill.

“We’re headed to a huge fiscal crisis,” said Seattle U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan, whose office has added lawyers recently but also remains below historic staffing levels. “If the federal public defender closes shop, we can’t do our work. Everybody we charge, they’re entitled to a lawyer.”

“The fact that we are not fully funded makes it an unfair fight in court,” Hillier said. “The government has full resources and full staff, and we don’t.”

Nationally, more than 900 of the public defender program’s approximately 2,700 staff members are expected to be cut over the next two years. Defenders in more than 20 states are planning to close offices. Because it costs money to lay people off — in terms of severance, benefits and unemployment insurance claims — many offices have to lay off more than one-third of their staff to reach the 23 percent budget reduction.

Several federal defenders have argued that the cuts could be eased by delaying payments to the private attorneys until the next fiscal year, but U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik of Seattle said that wasn’t a good option. Lasnik serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference, a group of seven judges that oversees the budget for public defense.

“It’s almost like deficit spending,” Lasnik said. “That only works if we get money to replace the money we’re spending.”

He added: “This is not a defense-versus-prosecutors thing, or judges-verses-defense thing. The system doesn’t work if any one of the legs of the stool is not able to hold things up. We have a need for the funding of federal defenders.”

To ease the burden on the federal defenders, the Judicial Conference might have to reduce rates for private attorneys appointed to represent poor defendants, even though “they don’t make very much as it is,” Lasnik said.

That could result in experienced private lawyers declining to take cases, some attorneys argue.

The only real solution, said U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., is to replace sequestration, which was supposed to be so unpalatable that Congress would never let it happen.

“From children getting cut from Head Start, to workers being furloughed at our military bases, to the significant cuts federal public defenders across the country are facing and so much more,” she said, “the impacts of sequestration continue to grow in our communities, and it’s only going to get worse.””

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

Federal Mail Fraud Crimes

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Edward Snowden Charged by a Federal Criminal Complaint With Espionage Over NSA Leaks

June 22, 2013

CNN on June 21, 2013 released the following:

“U.S. charges Snowden with espionage

By Chelsea J. Carter and Carol Cratty, CNN

Washington (CNN) — Federal prosecutors have charged Edward Snowden, the man who admitted leaking top-secret details about U.S. surveillance programs, with espionage and theft of government property, according to a criminal complaint unsealed in U.S. District Court in Virginia on Friday.

The United States has asked Hong Kong, where Snowden is believed to be in hiding, to detain the former National Security Agency contract analyst on a provisional arrest warrant, The Washington Post reported, citing unnamed U.S. officials.

Hong Kong police did not confirm whether they received an arrest request, but Commissioner Andy Tsang said Saturday if they did, authorities would process it in accordance with law.

The complaint charges Snowden with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified intelligence to an unauthorized person. The latter two allegations amount to espionage under the federal Espionage Act.

Snowden, 30, has admitted in interviews he was the source behind the leak of classified documents about the NSA’s surveillance programs. Those leaks were the basis of reports in Britain’s Guardian newspaper and The Washington Post this month. The Guardian revealed Snowden’s identify at his request.

The documents revealed the existence of top-secret surveillance programs that collect records of domestic telephone calls in the United States and monitor the Internet activity of overseas residents.

The revelation rocked the Obama administration and U.S. intelligence community, raising questions about secret operations of the NSA and whether the agency was infringing on American civil liberties.

Obama, top legislators and national security officials defend the surveillance programs as necessary to combat terrorism and argue that some privacy must be sacrificed in a balanced approach.

They say the law allows collection of metadata, such as the time and numbers of phone calls, and that a special federal court must approve accessing the content — listening to the call itself.

Snowden is believed to be in hiding in Hong Kong, where he said in interviews earlier this month he fled with the classified documents after taking a leave of absence from his job as an intelligence analyst for NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamiliton. The company has since fired him.

A series of blog posts this week purportedly by Snowden said he leaked classified details about U.S. surveillance programs because President Barack Obama worsened “abusive” practices, instead of curtailing them as he promised as a candidate.

However, Obama “closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge,” a blog post said. The Guardian newspaper and website identified the author as Snowden.

Snowden said that he had to get out of the United States before the leaks were published by the Guardian and The Washington Post to avoid being targeted by the government.

In the interview with the South China Morning Post, he said he plans to stay in Hong Kong to fight any attempt to force him to return to the United States because he has “faith in Hong Kong’s rule of law.”

The complaint against him was filed under seal on June 14 in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, but it was unclear from the document whether the United States has asked or will be asking Hong Kong to detain Snowden.

There have been “some preliminary” discussions with Hong Kong authorities, a U.S. official with knowledge of the process told CNN.

The U.S. signed an extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 1996, just seven months before the then British colony was handed back to Beijing. Hong Kong’s extradition laws had previously been governed by the United States-United Kingdom extradition treaty.

This new treaty established an agreement under Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” that allows Hong Kong autonomy from Beijing in all matters apart from defense and foreign policy.”

As Federal Criminal Lawyer Douglas C. McNabb predicted, the U.S. has charged Mr. Snowden in a Federal Criminal Complaint. He was charged on June 14, 2013 with the following federal crimes:

  • 18 USC 641 – Theft of Government Property
  • 18 USC 793(d) – Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information
  • 18 USC 798(a)(3) – Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person

A copy of the Snowden Federal Criminal Complaint may be found here.

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


“Edward Snowden Charged With Espionage Over NSA Leaks”

June 22, 2013

The Huffington Post on June 21, 2013 released the following:

Reuters

“By Tabassum Zakaria and Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON, June 21 (Reuters) – The United States has filed espionage charges against Edward Snowden, a former U.S. National Security Agency contractor who admitted revealing secret surveillance programs to media outlets, according to a court document made public on Friday.

Snowden, who is believed to be in hiding in Hong Kong, was charged with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person, said the criminal complaint, which was dated June 14.

The latter two offenses fall under the U.S. Espionage Act and carry penalties of fines and up to 10 years in prison.

A single page of the complaint was unsealed on Friday. An accompanying affidavit remained under seal.

The charges are the government’s first step in what could be a long legal battle to return Snowden from Hong Kong and try him in a U.S. court.

Two U.S. sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States was preparing to seek Snowden’s extradition from Hong Kong, which is part of China but has wide-ranging autonomy, including an independent judiciary.

The Washington Post, which first reported the criminal complaint earlier on Friday, said the United States had asked Hong Kong to detain Snowden on a provisional arrest warrant.

There was no immediate response to requests for comment from Hong Kong’s security bureau.

Snowden earlier this month admitted leaking secrets about classified U.S. surveillance programs, creating a public uproar. Supporters say he is a whistleblower, while critics call him a criminal and perhaps even a traitor.

He disclosed documents detailing U.S. telephone and Internet surveillance efforts to the Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

The criminal complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Snowden’s former employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, is located.

That judicial district has seen a number of high-profile prosecutions, including the spy case against former FBI agent Robert Hanssen and the case of al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui. Both were convicted.

‘ACTIVE EXTRADITION RELATIONSHIP’

Documents leaked by Snowden revealed that the NSA has access to vast amounts of Internet data such as emails, chat rooms and video from large companies such as Facebook and Google, under a government program known as Prism.

They also showed that the government had worked through the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to gather so-called metadata – such as the time, duration and telephone numbers called – on all calls carried by service providers such as Verizon.

President Barack Obama and his intelligence chiefs have vigorously defended the programs, saying they are regulated by law and that Congress was notified. They say the programs have been used to thwart militant plots and do not target Americans’ personal lives, they say.

U.S. federal prosecutors, by filing a criminal complaint, lay claim to a legal basis to make an extradition request of the authorities in Hong Kong, the Post reported. The prosecutors now have 60 days to file an indictment and can then take steps to secure Snowden’s extradition from Hong Kong for a criminal trial in the United States, the newspaper reported.

The United States and Hong Kong have “excellent cooperation” and as a result of agreements, “there is an active extradition relationship between Hong Kong and the United States,” a U.S. law enforcement official told Reuters.

An Icelandic businessman linked to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks said on Thursday he had readied a private plane in China to fly Snowden to Iceland if Iceland’s government would grant asylum.

Iceland refused on Friday to say whether it would grant asylum to Snowden.”

As Federal Criminal Lawyer Douglas McNabb predicted, the U.S. has charged Mr. Snowden in a Federal Criminal Complaint. He was charged on June 14, 2013 with the following federal criminal violations:

  • 18 USC 641 – Theft of Government Property
  • 18 USC 793(d) – Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information
  • 18 USC 798(a)(3) – Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person

A copy of the Snowden Federal Criminal Complaint may be found here.

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


U.S. v. Edward J. Snowden – Federal Criminal Complaint

June 21, 2013

As Mr. McNabb predicted, the U.S. has charged Mr. Snowden in a Federal Criminal Complaint. He was charged on June 14, 2013 with the following federal criminal violations:

  • 18 USC 641 – Theft of Government Property
  • 18 USC 793(d) – Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information
  • 18 USC 798(a)(3) – Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person

A copy of the Snowden Federal Criminal Complaint may be found here.

“U.S. charges Snowden with espionage”

The Washington Post on June 21, 2013 released the following:

By Peter Finn and Sari Horwitz,

“Federal prosecutors have filed a criminal complaint against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a trove of documents about top-secret surveillance programs, and the United States has asked Hong Kong to detain him on a provisional arrest warrant, according to U.S. officials.

Snowden was charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.

The complaint, which initially was sealed, was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, a jurisdiction where Snowden’s former employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, is headquartered and a district with a long track record of prosecuting cases with national security implications. After The Washington Post reported the charges, senior administration officials said late Friday that the Justice Department was barraged with calls from lawmakers and reporters and decided to unseal the criminal complaint.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Snowden flew to Hong Kong last month after leaving his job at an NSA facility in Hawaii with a collection of highly classified documents that he acquired while working at the agency as a systems analyst.

The documents, some of which have been published in The Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper, detailed some of the most-
secret surveillance operations undertaken by the United States and Britain , as well as classified legal memos and court orders underpinning the programs in the United States.

The 30-year-old intelligence analyst revealed himself June 9 as the leaker in an interview with the Guardian and said he went to Hong Kong because it provided the “cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained.”

Snowden subsequently disappeared from public view; it is thought that he is still in the Chinese territory. Hong Kong has its own legislative and legal systems but ultimately answers to Beijing, under the “one country, two systems” arrangement.

The leaks have sparked national and international debates about the secret powers of the NSA to infringe on the privacy of Americans and foreigners. Officials from President Obama on down have said they welcome the opportunity to explain the importance of the programs and the safeguards they say are built into them. Skeptics, including some in Congress, have said the NSA has assumed the power to soak up data about Americans that was never intended under the law.

There was never any doubt that the Justice Department would seek to prosecute Snowden for one of the most significant national security leaks in the country’s history. The Obama administration has shown a particular propensity to go after leakers and has launched more investigations than any previous administration. This White House is responsible for bringing six of the nine total indictments ever brought under the 1917 Espionage Act. Snowden will be the seventh individual when he is formally indicted.

Justice Department officials had already said that a criminal investigation of Snowden was underway and was being run out of the FBI’s Washington field office in conjunction with lawyers from the department’s National Security Division.

By filing a criminal complaint, prosecutors have a legal basis to make the detention request of the authorities in Hong Kong. Prosecutors now have 60 days to file an indictment, probably under seal, and can then move to have Snowden extradited from Hong Kong for trial in the United States.

Snowden, however, can fight the extradition effort in the courts in Hong Kong. Any battle is likely to reach Hong Kong’s highest court and could last many months, lawyers in the United States and Hong Kong said.

The United States has an extradition treaty with Hong Kong, and U.S. officials said cooperation with the Chinese territory, which enjoys some autonomy from Beijing, has been good in previous cases.

The treaty, however, has an exception for political offenses, and espionage has traditionally been treated as a political offense. Snowden’s defense team in Hong Kong is likely to invoke part of the extradition treaty with the United States, which states that suspects will not be turned over to face criminal trial for offenses of a “political character.”

Typically in such cases, Hong Kong’s chief executive must first decide whether to issue a warrant for the accused’s arrest. But the extradition treaty also says that in exceptional cases a provisional warrant can be issued by a Hong Kong judge without the chief executive’s approval. The judge must give the chief executive notice, however, that he has issued the warrant.

A spokesperson at the office of Hong Kong chief executive Leung Chun-ying said there was no information on Snowden’s case. The police department did not respond to calls or e-mails. At the police station for Central District in Hong Kong Island, police officers on duty said they had not heard anything about Snowden.

If Snowden is arrested, he would appear before a judge. Bail would be unlikely and, instead, Snowden would be sent to the Lai Chi Kok maximum-security facility in Kowloon, a short drive from the high-end Mira Hotel, where he is last known to have stayed in Hong Kong.

Snowden could also remain in Hong Kong if the Chinese government decides that it is not in the defense or foreign policy interests of the government in Beijing to have him sent back to the United States for trial.

Another option would be for Snowden to apply for asylum with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which handles most asylum requests in Hong Kong. The UNHCR was closed Saturday morning and did not immediately respond to requests for comment via e-mail and phone. The asylum application process can take months or even years because Hong Kong has a severe backlog. The Hong Kong government cannot formally surrender individuals until their asylum applications have been processed.

Snowden also could attempt to reach another jurisdiction and seek asylum there before the authorities in Hong Kong act.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.