Opinion ID: 584610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence/Sibte Hassan

Text: 85 Appellant Hassan asserts that there was insufficient evidence to convict him under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 because the evidence at trial failed to establish that he ever conspired to transport funds that were the proceeds of unlawful activity. Hassan was convicted of the conspiracy charged in Count 2, and for substantive transactions charged in Counts 16, 31, and 33. The government conceded at trial, R134:107, and again at oral argument, that there was little or no direct evidence showing that Hassan participated in or had knowledge of any financial transaction involving illegal proceeds. Instead, the government contends that Hassan's convictions are supported by a combination of: (1) circumstantial evidence of his membership in the charged conspiracy, and (2) the doctrine of co-conspirator liability upheld in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). 26 The sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict as to Hassan thus stands or falls on the evidence to support his conspiracy conviction under Count 2. Unless the jury could reasonably have found that Hassan joined the conspiracy alleged in Count 2, it could not properly have held him accountable for the substantive offenses of his alleged co-conspirators. 86 Sufficiency of the evidence questions are to subject de novo review. United States v. Beale, 921 F.2d 1412, 1430 (11th Cir.1991). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we must decide whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found Hassan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Gonzalez, 719 F.2d 1516, 1521 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1037, 104 S.Ct. 1312, 79 L.Ed.2d 710 (1984). The test is identical whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, and no distinction is to be made between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. We must further decide whether there was substantial evidence to support the verdict, United States v. Adames, 878 F.2d 1374, 1375 (11th Cir.1989), drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury's determination. United States v. Martin, 961 F.2d 161, 163 (11th Cir.1992). After carefully applying this standard, we reverse Hassan's conviction. 87 A conspiracy conviction cannot be sustained unless there is proof of 1) an agreement to commit an unlawful act and 2) an overt act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Parker, 839 F.2d 1473, 1477 (11th Cir.1988). The record is silent as to any express agreement between Hassan and the other defendants to launder illegal proceeds. Conspiracy, however,  'may be inferred from the actions of the actors or by the circumstantial evidence of a scheme.'  Id. at 1478 (quoting United States v. Cole, 755 F.2d 748, 755 (11th Cir.1985) ). The government contends that there is [d]irect evidence from the undercover agents as well as tape recordings of statements of Hassan's co-conspirators within BCCI [that tie] him to the conspiracy. Brief for Appellee at 152. However, a careful review of this evidence does not reveal or tend to reveal that Hassan knew that the funds involved in the transactions represented the proceeds of unlawful activity--the essential aspect of the conspiracy charge. See Parker, 839 F.2d at 1478 (Without evidence showing or tending to show a meeting of the minds to commit an unlawful act, [conspiracy] convictions cannot stand.). 88 The government's argument rests upon the following eight factual assertions: 27 89
90 This assertion is innocuous at best. Presumably numerous other people also were employed at BCCI-Paris, perhaps over 200 people worked at the site, Brief for Appellant Hassan at 2, 28 and Awan's referral made no mention of Hassan. Moreover, we find no reference in the record that Awan even knew who Hassan was at the time of the recommendation. 91 2. This referral was made with Awan's guarantee that he would only refer Agent Mazur to such people that ... [he] will be able to communicate with much easier. 92 In support of this assertion, the government cites to Government Exhibit 282B at page 40, where Awan's guarantee can be found. However, the government failed to complete Awan's remarks. He went on to say, which is why I referred you to Chinoy and Howard in Paris and Baakza in London. (GE 282B at 40). The citation makes no suggestion of Hassan's participation. 93 3. Awan and Bilgrami further repeatedly assured Agent Mazur that anyone to whom they referred Agent Mazur within BCCI was within the group knowledgeable about dealings with Agent Mazur, dealings that involved drug proceeds. 94 This assertion simply builds on the flawed premises noted above. The record does not indicate that anyone referred the undercover agents to Hassan. Indeed, Agent Abreu testified that he did not know that Hassan even worked in Paris prior to his arrival there. R52:13. 95 4. In Paris, Agent Mazur met Awan's good friend, Chinoy. When Agent Mazur told Chinoy that Agent Mazur's clients were drug dealers ... Chinoy then assigned Hassan to handle Agent Mazur's Paris account. 96 The record indicates that Hassan was one of four different people at BCCI-Paris assigned to work on Agent Mazur's accounts, (GE 283B at 5-6), and that Chinoy made these assignments before Agent Mazur revealed to Chinoy the illicit nature of the funds. See id. at 72. 97 5. Agent Abreu told Hassan directly that he and Mora were counterparts--that is, in Colombia Mora handl[d] a lot of money from proceeds from narcotics ... especially cocaine as Agent Abreu claimed to do in the United States. Hassan expressed no surprise at the revelation that Agent Mazur's right-hand man, Agent Abreu, handled drug proceeds. 98 Although Agent Abreu indeed referred to himself as Mora's counterpart in his conversation with Hassan, nowhere in the record does Agent Abreu claim that he handled drug proceeds in the United States. In fact, Agent Abreu testified that he did not on any occasion tell Hassan that any of the funds deposited in BCCI by the agents or anyone else were drug related. See R52:44, 56, 66-67; R56:45-46, 52. Nor does the government cite to any evidence that Hassan was aware that Agent Abreu was Agent Mazur's right-hand man. 99 6. Hassan later attended a meeting between co-defendant Howard, Hassan's superior at BCCI Paris, and Agent Mazur. They agreed on codes to be used to discuss financial transactions over the telephone. 100 The record clearly indicates that although such a meeting occurred at the BCCI-Paris office, Hassan left the meeting before Agent Mazur and Howard discussed the use of codes. (GE 297B at 7). Moreover, while Hassan was gone, Agent Mazur even suggested to Howard to keep the codes between them. Id. at 15 (If you had sort of a code which just the two of us know about.). Hassan later returned to the meeting but there was no further reference to any use of codes. 101 7. Hassan participated in the movement of drug proceeds between accounts as directed by Agent Mazur. 102 Through the use of a footnote, the government bases this conclusory assertion on co-conspirator liability under Pinkerton. The government cites no evidence suggesting that Hassan agreed to participate in unlawful activity. 103 8. Upon learning that Hassan was assigned to the Paris group dealing with Agent Mazur's drug proceeds, Awan did not express concern. 104 The record shows that Agent Mazur returned from Europe and told Awan he had met Chinoy and Howard in Paris, as well as a younger agent named Hassan. Awan responded, I don't know him personally, but I've spoken to him on the phone several times. (GE 351B at 2). We find nothing incriminating in this response. 105 There was simply insufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to have found Hassan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we REVERSE his conviction.