As to physical means: The Defendant has an extensive international network
of contacts, which is not available to the average person. Besides a sister
organization in Canada and an office in New Jersey, Benevolence International
Foundation (“BIF”)! had about twelve offices overseas; namely, in Pakistan, Bosnia,
Yemen, Sudan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Dagestan, Soviet
Georgia, China and Ingueshita (moved from Chechnya). BIF also had charitable
projects in a number of these countries plus Afghanistan. As stated, Defendant has
family in Saudi Arabia and he was born and raised in Syria. And Defendant used to
reside in Florida.

The Court thus perceives that Defendant has the requisite mental state and the
available physical means to create a risk of flight.

It also bears noting that electronic monitoring can’t stop a person from fleeing.
It can be noted, too, that all the property previously proposed to be posted as bond
security is either owned by BIF or members of the community. There thus would be
no financial harm incurred by Defendant’s family if he flees, which therefore creates
significantly less incentive for the Defendant to stay than if Defendant or his family

was to post substantial security.

! Somewhat recently, BIF has been rendered defunct, initiated by virtue of certain

United States government civil action.


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

ai

22

23

24

25

I

34

Rather, and essentially, the purpose of this
preliminary hearing is to determine from the evidence
presented by the United States Attorney's Qffice if there is
probable cause to believe that the offense of perjury as
charged in the criminal complaint here has been committed by
the defendants.

Specifically, the complaint charge herein is that the
defendants knowingly submitted false material declarations
under oath in a federal district court proceeding here in
Chicago and in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1623.

As is pertinent here, the portion of the sworn
declarations signed by defendant Arnaout on behalf of the
defendant Benevolence International Foundation -- hereafter
called BIF -- in issue states that Benevolence International
Foundation, "has never provided aid or support tao people or
organizations known to be engaged in violence, terrorist
activities or military operations of any nature."

At the hearing before the Court, the United States
Attorney's Office presented evidence that in 1995, relative to
military operations and violence, Benevolence International
Foundation representatives delivered an X-ray machine and
$3225 to Chechnyan guerillas or freedom fighters for military
operations in Azerbaijan.

The U.S. Attorney's Office also presented evidence



1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
2 EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Docket No. 02 CR 414

Plaintife,
vs.

BENEVOLENCE INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION,
7 |INC., and ENAAM M. ARNAOUT, a/k/a
“Abu Mahmoud", a/k/a "Abdel Samia", Chicago, Illinois

May 13, 2002

8
Defendants. 1:30 o'clock p.m.
9
10 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE IAN H. LEVIN =
11

12 | APPEARANCES:

13
For the Plaintiff: HON. PATRICK J. FITZGERALD

14 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
BY: MR. PATRICK J. FITZGERALD

15 MR. JOHN C. KOCORAS
219 S$. Dearborn St., Ste 500

16 Chicago, Illinois 60604

17

For Benevolence Int'l: GESSLER, HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS,

18 - RESNICK & DYM
BY: MR. MATTHEW J. PIERS

19 MS. MARY M. ROWLAND
Three First National Plaza

20 70 West Madison Street, Ste 2200
Chicago, Illinois 60602

21

22 |For Enaam Arnaout: STEPHEN LEVY & ASSOCIATES
BY: MR. STEPHEN LEVY

23 33 N. LaSalle St., Suite 3350
Chicago, Illinois 60602

24



CONCLUSION

In view of the foregoing, considering the totality of the factors and
circumstances, the Court determines that the Government has met its burden that the
Defendant is a risk of flight. And the Court finds that no condition or combination
of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required.
Therefore, the Defendant is ordered detained pending trial.’

In light of the Court’s ruling, the Court deems it unnecessary to consider
whether the Government has established by clear and convincing evidence that the
Defendant is a danger to the community.

In closing, the Court directs that Enaam M. Arnaout be afforded reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with counsel. 18 U.S.C. §1342(i)(3).
Date: November 22, 2002 ENTER:

Tan H. Levin
United States Magistrate Judge

2 Pretrial Services has recommended detention of the Defendant, based on a risk of

flight and as a danger to the community.


10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
a1
22
23
24

25

My ruling is as follows as to this. matter:
In preface, it bears noting that this is not a trial
and that the nature of the proceeding presently before the

Court is such that the defendants do not mount a defense.


Minité Onder Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

‘Name of Assigned Jud Sitting Judge if Other ‘
vor Magistrate Judge Suzanne B. Conlon than Assigned Judge Jan H. Levin
CASE NUMBER 02 CR 892 -2 DATE 11/22/2002
CASE USA vs. Enaam M. Aranout
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢¢., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

@) oO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue__

(4) o Ruling/Hearingon____ssetfor____att

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor____att

(6) oOo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at
mM a Trial[set for/re-set for]on____—at_—__

(8) oO [Bench/Sury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

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

OFRcP4(m) CO Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) CI FRCP41(a)(2).

ao of [Other docket entry] Enter memorandum opinion and order. Hearing on detention held. The
court finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance
of the defendant as required. Order defendant detained pending trial.
gy a [For further detail see order (on reverse side offattached to) the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court. :
No notices required.
number of notices.
Notices mailed by judge’s staff. "
Nov 2 5 be
Notified counsel by telephone. “ate dosrated
oY | Docketing to mail notices.
: \
Mail AO 450 form. eons rise
Y | Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
euneon 15S Md 22 AON ZO deer
SM deputy’s
initials A

Dhichimt rickided lr

central Clerk's Office ‘ailing deputy initials



10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

clearly and inherently a material declaration in that civil
suit.

In summary, in view of the-described evidence
presented by the government regarding the X-ray machine, $350,
in cash for use by the Chechen mujahideen {or guerillas or
freedom fighters) in their war activities in Chechnya, plus
the evidence surrounding the $685,000 in money transfers
discussed, the Court finds that probable cause exists that the
defendants knowingly submitted false material declarations
under oath that BIF has never provided aid or support to
people or organizations known to be engaged in, inter alia,
"violence" or "military operations of any nature."

Accordingly, the Court finds from the evidence that
there is probable cause to believe that the offense charged in
the complaint has been committed and that the defendants have
committed such offense. The defendants, thus, are held to
| answer for further proceedings in the district court.

That is the finding of the Court on that issue.



10
id
12
13
14
415
16
17
18
19
20
ai
22
23
24

25

that during or after February, 2000, a website dedicated to
the cause of the Chechen freedom fighters in the military
fight or jihad in Chechnya posted donation links on the
website for Benevolence International Foundation (and only one
ether charity) as a trustworthy aid organization to donate
money to the Chechnyan mujahideen (holy warriors) or freedom
fighters for the military operations in Chechnya.

The U.S. Attorney's Office presented related evidence
that during or around the same February, 2000, period, BIF

wired $685,000 to its account in that vicinity or region.

When the described website and $685,000 in money

| transfers are compared as to time and considered with other

circumstantial evidence presented by the government, for
purposes of this probable cause hearing, a reasonable
inference is that the subject $685,000 or some significant
portion thereof went for military operations and violence in
Chechnya.

Regarding the issue of materiality raised by
Mr. Piers in the closing argument, the Court respectfully
finds that the declaration at issue is "material." The civil
district court suit filed by BIF is wholly premised on the
premise that BIF is solely a charitable organization. The
declaration by BIF therein that it has never provided aid or
support to any people or organization known, to be engaged in

military operations of any nature or violence is, therefore,



10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
al
22
23
24

25

APPEARANCES (Cont'd):

Court Reporter: MR. JOSEPH RICKHOFF
Official Court Reporter
219 S. Dearborn St., Ste 1432
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 435-5562

kk kk kk Kk Kk wk wk kK Rk kK kk

PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY
MECHANICAL STENOGRAPHY
TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY COMPUTER


Defendant has the physical means to flee.

As to mental state: Mr. Arnaout is charged with racketeering conspiracy,
providing material support to organizations engaged in violent activities, money
laundering, mail fraud and wire fraud. Mr. Arnaout faces a possible 90 year sentence
if convicted of these charges. The Government also states that upon conviction it will
seek sentencing enhancements that would result in Mr. Arnaout being sentenced to
life in prison. In these circumstances, and given the post 9/11 climate in this country,
regardless of Mr. Arnaout’s actual guilt or innocence of all this, the natural human
tendency has to be for Mr. Arnaout to apprehensively feel he’s in a difficult and
opprobrious situation, from which flows an incentive and risk for flight. In addition,
the evidence offered by the Government was that even several months prior to Mr.
Arnaout ever being formally charged in a criminal complaint, Mr. Arnaout discussed
with another individual whether he should leave for Saudi Arabia (where Mr.
Amaout’s Mother and siblings live) and not return to the United States. Further
government evidence was that a month or two before being formally charged
criminally, Mr. Arnaout advised the Benevolence International Foundation
representative in Pakistan to leave and relocate to Afghanistan with all the money, to
avoid the Pakistani intelligence authorities who were looking for that Pakistan

representative.


including al Qaeda camps.

The indictment continues: In 1993, Mr. Arnaout assumed formal management
of Benevolence International Foundation (“BIF”) and Mr. Araout remained in that
position until, at least, his arrest this year. BIF was a charitable organization whose
ostensible purpose was to use donated funds solely for humanitarian purposes, with
a strong overseas focus. The focus of BIF’s appeal for donated funds was principally
to Muslim donors. However, Arnaout has always secretly used a portion of the
money raised by BIF to support Mujahideen, including al Qaeda, engaged in armed
confrontations and violence overseas, such as in Chechnya and Bosnia-Herzegovina
(a fact concealed from many donors to BIF).

ANALYSIS

The Government’s principal argument herein is that the Defendant is a risk of
flight, which, under uniform case law, the Government must establish by a
preponderance of the evidence.

The Court has taken into account the available information and arguments on
both sides concerning the factors delineated at 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

The Court finds, however, that there are several overriding factors in this case.
In considering the risks of flight herein, implicitly, the Court must assess (A) the

Defendant’s mental state (including his motivation to flee) and (B) whether the


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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICRACYETED

v. NOV 35 zoo Case No. 02 CR 892
)
ENAAM M.ARNAOUT, ) Magistrate Judge Ian H. Levin
a/k/a “Abu Mahmoud”, )
a/k/a “Abu Mahmoud al Suri”, )
a/k/a “Abu Mahmoud al Hamawi”, )
a/k/a “Abdel Samia” )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The issue before the Court is whether the Defendant, Mr. Arnaout, should be
detained pending trial or whether he should be placed on bond, with the type of
conditions proposed by the Defense.

The Court takes judicial notice of the record in prior case number 02 CR 414,
in which Mr. Arnaout was a defendant. The ruling of the Court at the probable cause
hearing in case number 02 CR 414 is attached hereto for reference purposes.

BACKGROUND

As is pertinent here, and in abbreviated form, the indictment charges as

follows: Mr. Arnaout became associated with Osama Bin Laden in the late 1980's.
In about 1991, Arnaout worked with members of al Qaeda to purchase large

quantities of weapons and to distribute them to various Mujahideen (fighter) camps,

J


10

a1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the
i gabove-entitled matter.