## Facts

- Mohammed Sultan owned Multiple Auto Parts Industries (MAPI), a Houston auto-parts surplus business that operated as an authorized General Motors (GM) warehouse distributor and sold primarily to overseas customers.
- Beginning in 1992, Sultan’s business shared a building with Garbis Jerjerian’s separate auto-parts business; Sultan purchased significant merchandise from Jerjerian.
- In 1993, Sultan moved MAPI to a different warehouse; Jerjerian remained at the original location.
- In 1994, federal agents executed a warrant at Jerjerian’s warehouse and found large quantities of counterfeit GM parts and packaging materials, including evidence of applying counterfeit GM markings and boxing parts as GM products.
- Sultan arrived during the search because he was listed as an alarm contact; he spoke with agents at the scene. He later argued some statements were made while he was in “constructive custody.”
- Agents and GM investigators searched Sultan’s new warehouse and reviewed records but found no counterfeit products and no business records evidencing counterfeiting activity by Sultan.
- The government’s case against Sultan relied mainly on circumstantial evidence: his proximity to Jerjerian’s counterfeiting operation, his experience as a GM dealer, and claimed pricing/packaging anomalies suggesting he should have recognized counterfeits.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sultan knew he was trafficking in goods bearing counterfeit GM marks, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 2320.

## Decision

- The court reversed the conviction, vacated the sentence, and ordered Sultan’s immediate release.
- The court held the government’s proof of knowledge was legally insufficient under § 2320.
- Because the evidence was insufficient, the court did not reach Sultan’s other appellate claims (sentencing, suppression, and expert-witness exclusion/sequestration).

## Legal Principles

- A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2320 requires proof that the defendant intentionally trafficked in goods and knowingly used (or trafficked in goods bearing) a counterfeit mark; knowledge that the mark is counterfeit is an essential element.
- On sufficiency review, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether any rational juror could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Circumstantial evidence may prove knowledge, but a conviction cannot rest on speculation or on stacking inferences where the mens rea element lacks concrete support.
- Proximity to a counterfeiting operation, a shared premises arrangement, or industry experience suggesting a defendant “should have known” does not, without more, establish actual knowledge required by § 2320.
- When evidence is legally insufficient, reversal is required and retrial is barred.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit concluded the government proved, at most, grounds for suspicion based on Sultan’s relationship to a known counterfeiter and his experience in the GM parts trade, but failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually knew the parts or marks were counterfeit; the conviction was therefore reversed and Sultan was ordered released.


United States v. Sultan, 115 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 1997)