Opinion ID: 3032277
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: The issue here is the constitutionality of the crime charged in the indictment, that from 1997 to 2001, Rahmani and others knowingly and willfully conspired to provide material support to the Mujahedin-e Khalq (“MEK”),1 a designated terrorist organization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1).2 1 The MEK is also known as the People’s Mojahedin Organization for Iran, or PMOI, and has a variety of other aliases. 2 In 1997, the Secretary of State designated the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization under 8 U.S.C. § 1189. UNITED STATES v. AFSHARI 7227 According to the indictment, the defendants solicited charitable contributions at the Los Angeles International Airport for the “Committee for Human Rights,” gave money and credit cards to the MEK, and wired money from the “Committee for Human Rights” to an MEK bank account in Turkey. They did all this after participating in a conference call with an MEK leader, in which they learned that the State Department had designated the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization. The MEK leader told them to continue to provide material support despite the designation. According to the indictment in this case, the money they sent to the MEK amounted to at least several hundred thousand dollars. The MEK was founded in the 1960’s as an Iranian Marxist group seeking to overthrow the regime then ruling Iran. It participated in various terrorist activities against the Iranian regime and against the United States, including the taking of American embassy personnel as hostages in 1979. After the Iranian regime fell and was replaced by a clerical, rather than a Marxist, regime, MEK members fled to France. They later settled in Iraq, along the Iranian border. There they carried out terrorist activities with the support of Saddam Hussein’s regime,3 as well as, if the indictment is correct, the money that the defendants sent them. For purposes of reviewing a motion to dismiss an indictment, we assume the truth of what the indictment alleges.4 Thus, we take it as true that the defendants knew that they were furnishing assistance to a designated “terrorist” organization, having been informed of the designation in a conference call with an MEK leader. The district court dismissed the indictment on the ground 3 The 1997-2001 period of the conspiracy charged in the indictment was during Saddam Hussein’s regime. 4 United States v. Jensen, 93 F.3d 667, 669 (9th Cir. 1996). 7228 UNITED STATES v. AFSHARI that the terrorist designation statute5 was unconstitutional. We review de novo,6 and reverse.