has failed to establish as a matter of law that the lawful combatant privilege extends to alleged

recipients of his aid.

December 17, 2002 ENTER:

esotnec RB Gabe
Suzi B. Conlon

United States District Judge


n.16 (1951). Applying that standard, allegations that Arnaout conspired to provide material support
and resources to al Qaeda, Hezb e Islami, and others engaged in violent confrontations must be
viewed as true. The allegations of the indictment support a reasonable inference that the intended
recipients of BIF aid were terrorists who do not fall under the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

Nor has Arnaout established that al Qaeda and Hezb e Islami were lawful combatants
privileged against prosecution for conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim and injure others in Chechnya
and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Arnaout has made no showing whatsoever that al Qaeda and Hezb e
Islami meet the criteria for lawful combatant status: (1) hierarchical military structure; (2) distinctive
military uniforms or emblems recognizable at a distance; (3) combatants carry arms openly; and (4)
operations are conducted in accordance with the laws and customs of war. United States v. Lindh,
212 F.Supp.2d 541, 557 (E.D.Va. 2002) (citing, inter alia, Geneva Convention Relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, art. 4(A)(2)). “fAJIL
armed forces or militias, regular and irregular, must meet the four criteria if their members are to
receive combatant immunity.” Jd. at 557 n. 35.

CONCLUSION

Viewing the allegations of the indictment as true, Counts One and Two sufficiently allege
that Arnaout conspired to supply material support and benefits to al Qaeda and Hezb e Islami, and
others engaged in violent confrontations involving murder, kidnaping, maiming and injury in

Chechnya and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and neighboring regions, in violation of federal law. Arnaout


‘Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Suzanne B. Conlon Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 CR 892 DATE 12/17/2002
CASE UNITED STATES vs. ENAAM M, ARNAOUT
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

(3) ao Answer briefto motion due__. Reply to answer briefdue__.

(4) oO Ruling/Hearing ons setfor_— at

(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for]on__setfor at

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-setfor]on__—setfor__——sat_—
(Ca) im) Trial[set for/re-set for]on___at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued tot

(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

CIFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a\(1) COFRCP41(a)(2).

ao [Other docket entry]  Defendant’s motion to dismiss portions of Counts One and Two [42-1] is
denied. ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.
anys (>, Gils

(il) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

o | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

UY | Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
127/202
courtroom: date mailed notice
° intial ww
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, ) No. 02 CR 892
)
v. ) Suzanne B. Conlon, Judge
)
ENAAM M. ARNAOUT, )
) Where,
Defendant. ) DE fa
18 2;

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Enaam M. Arnaout, a naturalized American citizen born in Syria, has been chief executive
officer of Benevolence International Foundation (“BIF”) since 1993. BIF is purportedly an
international charitable organization with offices in Palos Hills, Illinois, as well as other locations
throughout the world. In Count One, Arnaout is charged with conducting the affairs of BIF through
a pattern of racketeering activity, under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), that included mail fraud, wire fraud,
obstruction of justice, money laundering and providing material support to organizations engaged
in violent activities, all in violation of United States law. Arnaout and his co-conspirators allegedly
attempted to provide material support and resources to groups known as al Qaeda, Hezb e Islami,'
and others engaged in violent confrontations in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chechnya, and neighboring
regions. Overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were allegedly committed within the jurisdiction

of the United States. Arnaout allegedly knew and intended that the recipients of BIF aid would use

' Osama Bin Laden allegedly used the al Qaeda organization to provide financial and
logistical support to mujahideen or fighters in different parts of the world, including Chechnya
and Bosnia-Herzegovina; he allegedly received financial support for al Qaeda operations from
charitable organizations. Count One at {J 1 C-E. Hezb e Islami is an organization engaged in
armed confrontation in Afghanistan. Jd. at § 1D.

1 \


those benefits in a conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons in a foreign country, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 956(a)(1) and 2339A.

Arnaout is charged in Count Two with conspiring to provide material support and resources
to al Qaeda, Hezb e Islami, and others engaged in violent confrontations in Bosnia~Herzegovina,
Chechnya, and neighboring regions. He allegedly conspired to conceal and disguise the nature,
location, source and ownership of material support and resources he furnished, knowing and
intending this aid would be used in a conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons in a foreign
country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 956(a)(1) and 2339A.

The foregoing portions of Count One, and Count Two in its entirety, are the subject of
Arnaout’s motion to dismiss.? Arnaout contends alleged recipients of BIF aid in Chechnya and
Bosnia-Hertzegovina were lawful combatants [or soldiers], whose actions during armed conflict with
legitimate military targets are privileged from prosecution under the Geneva Conventions.
According to Arnaout, the status of purported BIF beneficiaries as lawful combatants protects them
from prosecution for acts of war, such as killing, maiming, kidnaping and injuring the enemy.
Because BIF aid recipients’ conduct during war was not unlawful under the Geneva Conventions,
Arnaout argues their lawful conduct cannot support charges of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and
maim under 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1). He concludes that as a matter of law, the government cannot
establish that material support was provided to groups or persons engaged in violent conflicts within
the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A.

Arnaout ignores the court’s obligation to accept all well-pleaded allegations of the indictment

as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343

? In addition, Arnaout is charged with the substantive offenses of money laundering,
mail fraud and wire fraud.