Zarrab is charged with obstructing the administration of global sanctions regulations promulgated under the IEEPA. It simply turns the notion of jurisdiction on its head to say that Congress has expressly authorized government action to Case 1:15-cr-00867-RMB Document 75 Filed 08/08/16 Page 52 of 63 45 address conduct based in “whole or in substantial part outside the United States,” 50 U.S.C. § 1701(a), but that Congress has failed to authorize the Government to prosecute those like Zarrab who conspire with others to obstruct that lawful action through their deceit and fraud. Accordingly, no presumption against extraterritoriality ought to be applied, and Zarrab’s motion to dismiss should be denied.

L. No. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1625 (codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1701). IEEPA, exactly like the Trading with the Enemy Act discussed in Hausler, permits the President to issue Executive Orders against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and its subdivisions and agencies, such as the See Citibank-JPMorgan Response at 7-10.

Defense counsel on appeal was ineffective in not raising this very meritorious issue on appeal. Joint Memorandum in Support of Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody - Page 41 Case 3:13-cv-04301-P Document 2 Filed 10/25/13 Page 45 of 62 PageID 69 b. Vagueness of Statutes 18 U.S.C. §2339B and 50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 prohibits giving aid to designated terrorist organizations. However, in this case, the Zakat Committees that received the aid were not designated.

2 See, e.g., Designation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, 62 Fed. Reg. 52650 (Oct. 8, 1997) (designation of Hezbollah as an FTO by U.S. Secretary of State); International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-07 (authorizing the President to issue terrorist designations); Executive Order 12947 (Jan. 23, 1995) (naming certain SDTs); Executive Order 13224 (Sept. 23, 2001) (designation of certain SDGTs). Case 1:10-cv-05795-AKH Document 22 Filed 02/16/11 Page 13 of 58 5 (Compl.

¶ 21 (noting that Chiquita’s payments to the AUC began after the AUC “instructed” Chiquita’s subsidiary that it “had to” make payments or else). Instead, the United States charged Chiquita with a single-count violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., essentially a strict-liability offense that 19 Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 333 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2010 Page 25 of 40 paucity of non-conclusory facts to support their claims. This Court cannot allow any plaintiff’s claims to proceed in the absence of specific facts supporting a link between Banadex or Chiquita and the specific death or injury for which he or she seeks redress.

315. Thus, according to UBS, these sanctions regulations would not apply to it, even though they block the property of, among others, Al Qaida, Hamas, and Hezbollah and subject violators to the criminal penalties specified in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.§ 1701 et seq.) (“IEEPA”). 12 Even though the court in Chalmers relied on it, neither the government’s brief nor the defendant’s brief in that case addressed the Supreme Court’s decision in Crosby.

L. No. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626 et seq., codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.; Wald, 468 U.S. at 227–28. The authorities granted to the President by section 203 of IEEPA are substantially similar to those in section 5(b) of TWEA.

Pursuant to authority delegated by the President to the Secretary of the Treasury, OFAC acts under Presidential wartime and peacetime national emergency powers. In performing its function, OFAC relies primarily on its broad delegated powers under the Trading with the Enemy Act ("TWEA"), 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 1-44, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1706. As Director of OFAC, I am responsible for the implementation, administration, and enforcement of such economic sanctions programs.

2 The TRIA defines ‘blocked asset’ as “any asset seized or frozen by the United States under Section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C.App § 5(b)) or under sections 202 and 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C. §§ 1701; 1702).” 15 U.S.C. § 1610 Note, TRIA § 201(d)(2), 116 Stat. at 2340. The funds the Plaintiffs seek were frozen under § 5(b) of the International Emergency Powers Act.

nt was obtained pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7), which has been superseded by 28 U.S.C. 1605A. In both section 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 and section 1610(f)(l)(A) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Congress specifically 104937 Case 1:12-cv-01596-AKH Document 166 Filed 04/04/13 Page 1 of 12 authorized a plaintiff to execute on the blocked assets ofthat terrorist state, including its agencies and instrumentalities. Section 161 O(f)(1 )(A) provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not limited to section 208(f) of the Foreign Missions Act (22 U.S.C. 4308(f)), and except as provided in subparagraph (B), any property with respect to which financial transactions are prohibited or regulated pursuant to section S(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. S(b)), section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2370(a)), sections 202 and 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1702), or any other proclamation, order, regulation, or license issued pursuant thereto, shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution of any judgment relating to a claim for which a foreign state (including any agency or instrumentality or such state) claiming such property is not immune under section 1605(a)(7) (as in effect before the enactment of section 1605A) or section 1605A. Section 161 O(f)(2)(A) provides that: the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State should make every effort to fully, promptly, and effectively assist any judgment creditor or any court that has issued any such judgment in identifying, locating, and executing against the property of that foreign state or any agency or instrumentality of such state.