United States v. Ahmad Abouammo

Abouammo · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 4, 2024 · No. 22-10348

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Ahmad Abouammo’s criminal convictions for acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government, conspiracy and commission of wire and honest services fraud, international money laundering, and falsification of records to obstruct a federal investigation. The court rejected challenges regarding the sufficiency of evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 951, holding that Abouammo acted at the direction of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia regardless of whether his contact was a formal official. It also upheld the timeliness of the superseding indictment under the statute of limitations and affirmed proper venue for the obstruction charge. The panel vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Daniel A. Bress; Kenneth K. Lee; Yvette Kane
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
December 4, 2024
Docket number
22-10348
Procedural posture
Abouammo appealed his federal convictions and sentence following a jury trial in the Northern District of California. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 951, the timeliness of his money-laundering and wire-fraud charges, and venue for his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1519. The Ninth Circuit addressed the conviction challenges in this opinion and stated that the sentence was vacated and remanded in an accompanying memorandum disposition.
Standard of review
The court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and statutory interpretation de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and asking whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. It reviewed the statute-of-limitations and venue issues de novo.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Ahmad Abouammo v. United States of America
Disposition
other

Topics

criminal procedurestatutory interpretationappellate procedurepreservation of errorstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedurecriminal lawstatutory interpretationcriminal venueappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether sufficient evidence supported Abouammo's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 951 for acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government or official.
  2. Whether the money-laundering and wire-fraud charges were barred by the applicable statute of limitations when the government filed an information within the limitations period and obtained a superseding indictment within six months after dismissing the information.
  3. Whether venue for the 18 U.S.C. § 1519 falsification-of-records offense was proper in the Northern District of California, where the FBI investigation was being conducted and where the agents received the falsified document.

Holdings

  1. The evidence was sufficient to support Abouammo's conviction under § 951 because the statute is disjunctive and the evidence permitted a rational jury to find that he acted subject to the direction or control of the Saudi government, regardless of whether Binasaker independently qualified as a foreign official.
  2. The money-laundering and wire-fraud charges were timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3288 because the government filed an information charging felonies within the limitations period and obtained a superseding indictment within six months after dismissing that information.
  3. Venue for a § 1519 prosecution may lie either where the documents were wrongfully falsified or where the obstructed federal investigation was taking place. Because Abouammo transmitted the false invoice to FBI agents working from San Francisco, venue in the Northern District of California was proper.

Key quotations

This disjunctive provision refers to one who agrees to act as an agent of either a foreign government or a foreign official. (16)
We therefore hold that when the government secured a superseding indictment within six months of the dismissal of the April 7, 2020 information, which was filed within the limitations period, the government complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3288, so that the superseding indictment was timely. (30)
We hold that a prosecution under § 1519 may take place in the venue where documents were wrongfully falsified or in the venue in which the obstructed federal investigation was taking place. (44)

Factual background

Abouammo worked for Twitter and accessed confidential identifying information associated with Saudi dissident Twitter accounts after developing a relationship with Bader Binasaker, a close associate of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Binasaker provided Abouammo with an expensive watch and hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments, and the government presented circumstantial evidence that Abouammo accessed and provided information about dissident users to assist Saudi interests. During an FBI interview at Abouammo's Seattle home, Abouammo created and transmitted a false invoice purporting to document consulting work for Binasaker. The FBI agents were based in the San Francisco office, and the resulting prosecution occurred in the Northern District of California.

Procedural history

A grand jury returned an indictment in November 2019 charging Abouammo under 18 U.S.C. §§ 951 and 1519. After plea discussions and a tolling agreement, the government filed a superseding information on April 7, 2020, adding wire-fraud, honest-services-fraud, conspiracy, and money-laundering charges; a superseding indictment containing those charges was returned in July 2020. The district court denied motions challenging venue and the limitations period, and a jury convicted Abouammo on six counts while acquitting him on five other fraud counts. The district court denied post-trial motions and imposed a 42-month sentence, which was addressed separately in the accompanying memorandum disposition.

Remand instructions

The convictions were affirmed. The sentence was vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing in the accompanying memorandum disposition.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…