## Facts

- In 2010, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Charles O. Finch, Gary Canteen, Assad John Ramin, Tahir Ramin, and AZ Corporation with conspiring to bribe a public official, conspiring to launder money, money laundering, and related offenses.
- Finch and Canteen were United States military officials and roommates at Bagram Airfield, a United States military base in Afghanistan.
- Finch’s responsibilities included recommending line-haul services for transporting U.S. military supplies between bases in Afghanistan.
- Canteen owned a store in Hawaii and maintained a Hawaiian business bank account.
- The Ramin brothers owned and operated AZ Corporation, a military contractor that provided line-haul transportation services.
- The government alleged that the Ramins provided Finch $50,000 in exchange for Finch’s award of a line-haul-service agreement to AZ.
- According to the indictment, the Ramins routed the alleged payment by depositing money into Canteen’s Hawaiian business bank account.
- Canteen allegedly transferred about half of the deposited money to Finch.
- Finch, Canteen, and the Ramins allegedly created a false story to conceal the true nature of the transaction.
- Finch moved to dismiss the indictment; the other defendants joined. Among other arguments, they contended that because the alleged conduct largely occurred in Afghanistan, it could not be prosecuted in the United States.

## Issues

1. Whether the charged federal offenses could be prosecuted in a U.S. district court when much of the alleged conduct occurred in Afghanistan but the alleged payment was routed through a Hawaii business bank account.
2. Whether the indictment’s allegations of deposits and transfers through a Hawaiian bank account supplied a sufficient connection to the United States for the charged money-laundering and related offenses.
3. Whether the indictment adequately supported proceeding in the District of Hawaii in light of the alleged banking activity in that district.

## Decision

- The court addressed defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment alleging bribery and money laundering connected to military contracting in Afghanistan and financial transactions through a Hawaii business bank account.
- The order resolved defendants’ argument that the prosecution was improper because the alleged conduct largely took place in Afghanistan, focusing on the alleged U.S.-based banking activity described in the indictment.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss an indictment, the court evaluates whether the indictment’s allegations are sufficient to state an offense and support the prosecution, without resolving disputed facts that are for trial.
- When charged conduct includes alleged financial transactions in the United States, those domestic transactions may be relevant to assessing whether federal criminal statutes may be applied to a scheme that also involves conduct abroad.
- Allegations that a scheme used a U.S. bank account and involved transfers within the United States may be relevant both to the scope of federal money-laundering statutes and to whether prosecution in a particular district is proper.

## Conclusion

United States v. Charles O. Finch, et al. involved an indictment alleging that a $50,000 payment connected to an Afghanistan line-haul contract was routed through a Hawaiian business bank account and partially transferred to Finch, followed by an alleged cover story; the defendants sought dismissal on the ground that the conduct largely occurred overseas, and the court’s order addressed that motion with attention to the indictment’s allegations of domestic banking activity.


United States v. Charles O. Finch, et al., 2010 WL 3938176 (2010)