Judge Orders SDNY Prosecutors to Respond to Alleged 'Brady' Violations in Money-Laundering Case Against Iranian Banker
In her ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered prosecutors to respond to Sadr's motion, and outlined alleged efforts by prosecutors to conceal the late disclosure of evidence and mislead the court about it.
June 10, 2020 at 04:45 PM
5 minute read
A federal judge has ordered the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office to respond to allegations that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from an Iranian businessman who was convicted of funneling more than $115 million through the American financial system in violation of U.S. economic sanctions.
In a four-page order, U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York said Tuesday the case raised "serious concerns about the conduct of the government" toward defendant Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad, an Iranian national who has been under criminal indictment for more than two years in an alleged money-laundering scheme he ran out of Venezuela.
A federal jury convicted Sadr on five counts in March, following a two-week trial that was complicated at the time by the burgeoning coronavirus pandemic. However, court filings, and Nathan's ruling, have revealed that the prosecution had been marred by alleged Brady violation accusations of wrongdoing by prosecutors.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman in a letter last week to the court acknowledged the spate of "discovery-related issues" before, during and after the trial, and moved to drop the charges via an order of nolle prosequi. Given the resources that it would take to address the problems, Berman said, the government had "determined that it would not be in the interests of justice to further prosecute this case."
But Sadr's Steptoe & Johnson attorneys have argued that the nolle pros motion was not the proper mechanism for finally putting the case to bed. Rather, they asked Nathan to completely set aside the verdict and dismiss the case with prejudice, a move Steptoe partner Reid Weingarten said would best protect his client from any further prosecution.
"We want a traditional ruling that declares this conviction null and void … and protects our client from any contingencies that may arise," Weingarten said Wednesday in an interview. "We want to protect our client to the best extent we can."
Sadr has maintained his innocence, and Weingarten described his client as an "adamant foe" of the Iranian government who was simply trying to keep his money out of the wrong hands.
In her ruling Tuesday, Nathan ordered prosecutors to respond to Sadr's motion, and outlined alleged efforts by prosecutors to conceal the late disclosure of evidence and mislead the court about it.
She also demanded "specific answers" to concerns that had been raised by the defense, as well as a full accounting of any material that may have been withheld. Nathan also ordered prosecutors to identify any government attorneys and supervisors responsible for supposedly not turning over evidence.
Disclosure violations can be considered a serious infringement of the rights of a criminal defendant and prosecutors can face misconduct allegations and possible sanctions for failing to meet their obligations under Brady.
A spokesman for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment on Nathan's ruling.
Sadr, meanwhile, remains free on bond following his conviction on March 16. Weingarten said that the trial at one point had to be moved to a different courtroom out of fear that the courtroom where it had previously been tried had become contaminated with the novel coronavirus.
A prosecutor and multiple members of the jury pool had also fallen ill, giving the defense the option between a mistrial or proceeding toward a verdict. The defense team, Weingarten said, had been "absolutely dismayed" when the jury returned a verdict of guilty on five counts.
Upon conviction, the government moved to detain Sadr immediately, but Nathan quickly rejected the request.
Bahram Karimi, a co-defendant charged alongside Sadr, has not yet been tried.
The case is captioned United States v. Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers for Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250