Connect with us

New York

Gold Bullion and Halal Meat: Inside the Menendez Investigation

Published

on

Gold Bullion and Halal Meat: Inside the Menendez Investigation

It was January 2018, and Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey had just won a huge legal victory. His trial on federal bribery charges had ended in a hung jury, and the U.S. Justice Department had announced that it would not seek a new trial. He was free to walk with no criminal conviction, ready to take on another campaign for re-election.

Weeks later, he started dating Nadine Arslanian.

Ms. Arslanian, who would eventually marry Mr. Menendez, quickly introduced him to one of her longtime friends: Wael Hana, an Egyptian American businessman in New Jersey. The future Ms. Menendez was eager to connect her influential new boyfriend with Mr. Hana’s high-level connections in the Egyptian government.

What unfolded in the next four years is what prosecutors described on Friday as a sprawling corruption scheme that would ensnare the halal meat industry, American military aid to Egypt and the appointment of a top New Jersey law enforcement official. Prosecutors accused Mr. Menendez, 69, of abusing his power to influence arms sales to Egypt and to attempt to interfere with criminal investigations into Mr. Hana’s web of business associates.

An F.B.I. search last year of the couple’s New Jersey home revealed some of the fruits of their scheme, prosecutors said. Federal agents found more than $480,000 in cash stuffed throughout the house in envelopes and in the pockets of jackets that were embroidered with the senator’s name. Inside the home were more than $100,000 worth of gold bars, some of which had unique serial numbers that traced back to Mr. Hana. A shiny Mercedes-Benz convertible sat in the garage.

Advertisement

The 39-page indictment — which laid out in painstaking detail a series of deleted text messages, encrypted phone calls and shell company payments — painted a portrait of a couple motivated by relentless greed.

Ms. Menendez, 56, often pestered her associates for more bribe payments, prosecutors said, and did not hesitate to peacock her husband’s influence, once sending a news article to Mr. Hana about $2.5 billion of military sales to Egypt and writing, “Bob had to sign off on this.” The business associates around Mr. Hana seemed to find more and more ways to extract what they needed from Mr. Menendez, as long as they could deliver the cash.

The bribes even included two exercise machines and an air purifier that were delivered to the Menendez home, prosecutors said.

Mr. Menendez maintained his innocence on Friday, accusing the Manhattan federal prosecutors who brought the case of misrepresenting routine congressional work. Lawyers for Ms. Menendez and Mr. Hana, 40, also denied the charges.

When Ms. Menendez started dating Mr. Menendez in early 2018, she was unemployed. But her new relationship offered a solution.

Advertisement

Mr. Hana would agree to put Ms. Menendez on the payroll of his halal meat company if Mr. Menendez could promise to help facilitate more sales of military equipment to Egypt, prosecutors said.

At the time, the issue was a high priority for the Egyptian government because the U.S. State Department had been withholding some military aid until the country could show improvements on human rights. As the ranking member — and soon-to-be chairman — of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Menendez exerted significant influence over how much military aid the United States supplied to Egypt and other countries.

Mr. Menendez shared sensitive information from the State Department about the number and nationalities of people working at the U.S. embassy in Cairo with his girlfriend, who passed it to Mr. Hana, who forwarded it to an Egyptian government official, prosecutors said. Mr. Menendez also agreed to ghostwrite a letter from an Egyptian official who wished to urge the U.S. Senate for more military aid to Egypt.

In July 2018, after meetings between Mr. Menendez and Egyptian officials, he texted Ms. Menendez to tell Mr. Hana that he was going to sign off on a multimillion-dollar weapons sale to Egypt. Ms. Menendez forwarded the text to Mr. Hana, who sent it to two Egyptian officials, one of whom replied with a thumbs up emoji.

Mr. Hana and his business associate, Jose Uribe, then saw another opening to use Mr. Menendez, prosecutors said. They knew that Ms. Menendez had recently gotten into a car accident and needed a car, so they offered to buy the couple a new Mercedes-Benz C-300 convertible, worth more than $60,000.

Advertisement

In exchange, they asked Mr. Menendez to interfere in an ongoing prosecution and criminal investigation involving Mr. Uribe’s business associates. Mr. Uribe, 56, who worked in the trucking and insurance industries, had been previously convicted of fraud.

In early 2019, Mr. Menendez contacted a senior prosecutor at the New Jersey attorney general’s office who was supervising the cases and pressured him to resolve them favorably for the defendants, the indictment said. The prosecutor did not agree to intervene, but one of the cases ultimately resulted in a plea deal with no jail time. In the other, no charges were ever brought.

A few days after Mr. Menendez called the prosecutor, Ms. Menendez texted Mr. Hana: “All is GREAT! I’m so excited to get a car next week.”

She met Mr. Uribe in a parking lot of a restaurant, where he gave her about $15,000 in cash, and made the down payment on her new Mercedes the next day. “You are a miracle worker who makes dreams come true I will always remember that,” she texted Mr. Uribe.

But around this time, a problem arose. Mr. Hana’s halal meat company, IS EG Halal Certified Inc., had little to no revenue. Ms. Menendez, who prosecutors said had been given a “low-or-no-show job” there, started to complain to Mr. Hana’s business associates that she wasn’t getting paid. She texted Mr. Menendez about how upset she was about Mr. Hana’s broken promises.

Advertisement

A major break came in the spring of 2019. The Egyptian government gave Mr. Hana’s company a monopoly over certifying American food exports to Egypt as compliant with halal standards, in adherence with Islamic law. Mr. Hana’s company, despite its name, had no experience with halal certification.

A huge financial windfall was coming.

The day after an Egyptian official informed Mr. Hana that his company was most likely going to become the sole halal certifier for U.S. imports, Ms. Menendez texted the senator: “Seems like halal went through. It might be a fantastic 2019 all the way around.” The indictment did not say if Mr. Menendez used his position to influence Egypt’s decision.

Soon afterward, Ms. Menendez created a consulting company, Strategic International Business Consultants LLC, which prosecutors said was used to receive tens of thousands of dollars in bribe payments.

Mr. Hana’s monopoly, however, increased costs for some U.S. meat suppliers, which did not escape the notice of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In the spring of 2019, U.S.D.A. officials asked Egypt to reconsider the monopoly rights for halal certification, which had previously been granted to a handful of companies.

Advertisement

At Mr. Hana’s request, Mr. Menendez called a high-level U.S.D.A. official and asked them to stop opposing the monopoly, prosecutors said. The official did not acquiesce to Mr. Menendez’s demands, but Mr. Hana still kept sole control over the Egyptian certification.

Two months later, prosecutors said, Mr. Hana used his halal company to pay about $23,000 to Ms. Menendez to help her stay current on her mortgage while she was in foreclosure proceedings.

Still, prosecutors suggested, Ms. Menendez felt she deserved more money for all the help that her boyfriend was giving Mr. Hana, especially after the senator had agreed to meet with some senior Egyptian officials. She texted Mr. Menendez: “I am soooooo upset.”

She wanted to complain to one of Mr. Hana’s business associates, but Mr. Menendez warned her: “No, you should not text or email.” She placed a call instead. The next day, Mr. Hana’s halal company wired $10,000 to her consulting firm.

As their scheme expanded, prosecutors said, they deleted more and more texts and emails.

Advertisement

A few months after the couple married in October 2020, Mr. Menendez met with Philip Sellinger, a potential candidate to be nominated for U.S. attorney in New Jersey, the top federal prosecutor in the state.

This time, the indictment said, Mr. Menendez was carrying out his end of another corrupt bargain. In the meeting, Mr. Menendez criticized the ongoing case against Fred Daibes, who was indicted in 2018 by federal prosecutors in New Jersey. He also happened to be a business associate of Mr. Hana and a longtime fund-raiser for Mr. Menendez.

When Mr. Sellinger said that he might have to recuse himself from the investigation anyway because of a prior conflict of interest, Mr. Menendez said he would not be recommending him for U.S. attorney, according to the indictment.

Ultimately, Mr. Menendez did recommend Mr. Sellinger for the nomination, believing that he could influence the investigation if Mr. Sellinger held that post, prosecutors said. The indictment did not say why Mr. Menendez believed that.

In early 2022, Mr. Menendez placed two phone calls to the federal prosecutor overseeing Mr. Daibes’s case. Minutes after the second call, Mr. Menendez called Mr. Daibes directly.

Advertisement

Two months later, Ms. Menendez ate lunch with Mr. Daibes and texted him afterward: “THANK YOU Fred,” with a slew of emojis. The next day, Ms. Menendez met with a jeweler who was friends with Mr. Daibes and sold the jeweler two gold bars that prosecutors believe were previously owned by Mr. Daibes, worth about $120,000 at the time.

The New Jersey U.S. attorney’s office did not bend to the pressure campaign, the indictment said. Mr. Daibes pleaded guilty in April 2022.

But the unraveling for the Menendez couple would soon begin.

In June 2022, federal agents raided their home. Some of the envelopes containing the wads of cash had the fingerprints and D.N.A. of Mr. Daibes and his driver — marked with Mr. Daibes’s return address, prosecutors said.

After the search, Mr. Uribe stopped making the monthly payments on the Mercedes convertible. Mr. Menendez wrote his wife a check for $23,000, part of which she gave to Mr. Uribe with the memo line: “personal loan.” The indictment did not make clear what the purpose of the payment was.

Advertisement

It was too late. On Friday, Mr. Menendez was indicted on three federal charges and temporarily stepped down from his chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The indictment also charged his wife, Mr. Hana, Mr. Uribe and Mr. Daibes.

A lawyer for Mr. Daibes said he was confident his client would be exonerated of the charges. A lawyer for Mr. Uribe could not immediately be identified.

In response to growing calls for his resignation, Mr. Menendez issued a new statement late Friday.

“It is not lost on me how quickly some are rushing to judge a Latino and push him out of his seat,” he said. “I am not going anywhere.”

Tracey Tully contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

New York

Map: 2.3-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes Connecticut

Published

on

Map: 2.3-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes Connecticut

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times

A minor, 2.3-magnitude earthquake struck in Connecticut on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:33 p.m. Eastern about 1 mile northwest of Moodus, Conn., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Aftershocks in the region

An aftershock is usually a smaller earthquake that follows a larger one in the same general area. Aftershocks are typically minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Eastern. Shake data is as of Wednesday, Nov. 20 at 7:41 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Wednesday, Nov. 20 at 11:34 p.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

New York

Two Affordable Housing Buildings Were Planned. Only One Went Up. What Happened?

Published

on

Two Affordable Housing Buildings Were Planned. Only One Went Up. What Happened?

It is an idea that many point to as a solution for New York City’s worst housing shortage in over 50 years: Build more homes.

More people keep deciding they want to live in the city — and the number of new homes hasn’t kept pace. Residents compete over the limited number of apartments, which pushes rents up to stratospheric levels. Many people then choose to leave instead of pay those prices.

So why is it so hard to build more housing?

The answer involves a tangled set of financial challenges and bitter political fights.

We looked at two developments that provided a unique window into the crisis across the city, and the United States, where there aren’t enough homes people can actually afford.

Advertisement

Both developments — 962 Pacific Street in Crown Heights in Brooklyn, and 145 West 108th Street on the Upper West Side in Manhattan — might have appeared similar. Both were more than eight stories, with plans for dozens of units of affordable housing. And each had a viable chance of being built.

But only one was.

Here’s how their fates diverged, from the zoning to the money and the politics.

The Neighborhood

Advertisement

The lack of housing options across the region makes high-demand areas particularly expensive.

Homes are built in Westchester County and the Long Island suburbs, for example, at some of the slowest rates in the country. In New York City, only 1.4 percent of apartments were available to rent in 2023, according to a key city survey.

And median rent in the city has risen significantly over the past few decades.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Advertisement

That leaves neighborhoods like the Upper West Side and Crown Heights sought after by people of all income levels. Both neighborhoods have good access to parks, subways and job centers in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

The pressures are immense, even as each neighborhood has added some new housing to try to match the demand, though at different rates.

Crown Heights has become one of the most striking emblems of gentrification in the city, with new residents, who tend to be white and wealthy, pushing out people who can no longer afford to live there. Low-rise rowhouses line many streets, just blocks from Prospect Park. But there are also shiny new high-rises.

There were more than 50,000 housing units in the Crown Heights area, according to a 2022 U.S. Census Bureau estimate, a roughly 13 percent jump over the past decade.

The Upper West Side has long been one of the city’s more exclusive enclaves with many brownstone homes. Next to Central Park and Riverside Park, with easy access to downtown, the neighborhood is home to many of the city’s affluent residents.

Advertisement

There were 129,000 housing units on the Upper West Side according to the 2022 Census Bureau data, an increase of roughly 5 percent over the same time period.

The Lot

There isn’t as much empty land left in New York City compared with places like Phoenix or Atlanta, which can expand outward. City developers have to look hard to find properties with potential, and then they have to acquire the money to buy them.

The empty lot in May 2021.

Advertisement

Google Street View

Between the two proposals, the Crown Heights site seemed to be more promising at first glance. Until 2018, it was just vacant land that local businesses sometimes used as a parking lot. The developer, Nadine Oelsner, already owned it, removing a potential roadblock that can often tie up projects or make them financially unworkable.

One of three aging parking garages in September 2015.

Google Street View

Advertisement

On the Upper West Side, though, the site was already occupied by three aging parking garages with a shelter and a playground in between. The garages would need to be demolished if the developer, a nonprofit known as the West Side Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing that operated the shelter, succeeded in its plan to build apartments on either side of the playground.

The new development, which was floated to the community in 2015, would also include a renovated and expanded shelter. And the nonprofit did not own the garages or the land — the city did.

One thing working in the group’s favor, though, was that the city had wanted to build housing on the site since at least the mid-2000s, according to planning documents.

Source: West Side Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing

Advertisement

The Zoning

But something invisible can matter more than a plot’s physical characteristics: zoning.

That governs how every piece of land in New York City can be used. Zoning determines, for example, whether homes or warehouses are allowed in a particular area, how much parking is needed and how tall a building can be.

It also aims to prevent growth in haphazard ways, with schools next to factories next to office buildings.

Advertisement

The city’s modern zoning code does not leave much room for growth, which means that a bigger building often requires a zoning change. One 2020 study by the nonprofit Citizens Budget Commission found that only about one residentially zoned plot in five would allow for that kind of additional housing. A zoning change triggers a lengthy, unpredictable bureaucratic process.

The site Ms. Oelsner owned was zoned for industrial, not residential use, a throwback to a time when that part of Brooklyn was dominated by businesses supported by the nearby railroad line.

Community leaders were frustrated by one-off changes to individual lots — there had been at least five zoning changes within a two-block radius of Ms. Oelsner’s site in recent years. To counter the trend, the community decided to come up with a bigger rezoning plan for the area. Ms. Oelsner saw an opportunity for her lot in that idea.

But she would need a zoning change, too.

Sources: OpenStreetMap, New York City Department of City Planning

Advertisement

The site on the Upper West Side had a slight edge: It was zoned for residential use.

As the project began to move forward, the city also sought a slight zoning change to allow for a bigger structure with more homes.

Sources: OpenStreetMap, New York City Department of City Planning

Advertisement

The Proposal

U.S. housing is mostly built and run by the private sector. If developers and owners can’t cover their costs with income from rents and sales — and make a profit — they most likely won’t build.

This can make it hard to keep rents affordable to potential tenants without big subsidies from the government, such as money a developer receives directly or tax breaks in exchange for making some units affordable for people at specified income levels.

Here are more details of what the two developers planned.

The proposal for the Crown Heights lot was by Ms. Oelsner and her company, HSN Realty, who were private developers working without city support.

Advertisement

Ms. Oelsner also made the case that her family had been part of the community for years, operating a Pontiac dealership.

Most of the apartments she proposed would rent at market rates, meaning the rents could be set as high as the landlord thought tenants could pay. This was similar to other new buildings in the area.

In Ms. Oelsner’s case, a government subsidy would likely come in the form of a decades-long property tax exemption.

In exchange, several apartments would be made “affordable” — in this case, rents would be capped at a certain percentage of gross household income for particular groups.

Under one plan, for example, 38 units would be restricted in this way. Of those, 15 might rent for around $1,165 for a one-bedroom apartment, or $1,398 for a two-bedroom.

Advertisement

Source: West Side Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing

The proposal from the West Side Federation had a much stronger case because of the city’s support. The group wanted to construct a building where all the apartments would rent below market rates and be targeted to some of the city’s poorest residents.

Most units would rent to people who were formerly homeless, often referred from shelters and typically relying on government-funded voucher programs to pay almost all of their rent. The remaining apartments would rent for between $865 and $1,321.

The West Side Federation said it had slowly built trust in the community over decades, in part because of the shelter it already operated on the street and was now expanding, as well as two dozen other area buildings it ran.

Advertisement

Because of that track record, and the need for affordable housing, the city decided to do several things. It essentially gave the developer the land — appraised at about $55 million — for free, a typical government practice in such a scenario.

It also chipped in $9 million to help pay for construction and another $33 million through a federal tax credit program. The West Side Federation would not have to pay property taxes on the development.

The Politics

Both projects met immediate opposition as they began to wade through a bureaucratic city process in which housing proposals often run into challenges from community members and politicians. It’s not unusual for this process to be costly and time-consuming, often taking more than two years.

Advertisement

In fact, this is where Ms. Oelsner’s project in Crown Heights met its end.



Informal project discussions

Advertisement

These discussions between the developer, the community and the government about the project can determine its fate early. They helped shape both the Crown Heights and the Upper West Side proposals.

Application filed with the city

An application is filed with the City Planning Department and is considered certified if it properly describes the proposal and any zoning change.

Advertisement

Over 60 days, the community board holds a public hearing. The Upper West Side project was recommended for approval while the Crown Heights project wasn’t. This isn’t binding so the Crown Heights proposal still moved ahead.

Over 30 days, the borough president’s office might hold another public hearing and issue its own recommendation. Both projects were recommended for approval.

Advertisement

City Planning Commission review

Over 60 days, the commission may hold another public hearing and vote on whether to allow the project to move forward. Both projects were approved.

Here’s where things ended for the Crown Heights project, which was rejected by the council member from the area. The Upper West Side project was approved.

Advertisement

The mayor has the option to veto a project, and the City Council can override that veto. In this case, the Upper West Side project was not vetoed.

Advertisement

Informal project discussions

These discussions between the developer, the community and the government about the project can determine its fate early. They helped shape both the Crown Heights and the Upper West Side proposals.

Application filed with the city

Advertisement

An application is filed with the City Planning Department and is considered certified if it properly describes the proposal and any zoning change.

Over 60 days, the community board holds a public hearing. The Upper West Side project was recommended for approval while the Crown Heights project wasn’t. This isn’t binding so the Crown Heights proposal still moved ahead.

Advertisement

Over 30 days, the borough president’s office might hold another public hearing and issue its own recommendation. Both projects were recommended for approval.

City Planning Commission review

Over 60 days, the commission may hold another public hearing and vote on whether to allow the project to move forward. Both projects were approved.

Advertisement

Here’s where things ended for the Crown Heights project, which was rejected by the council member from the area. The Upper West Side project was approved.

The mayor has the option to veto a project, and the City Council can override that veto. In this case, the Upper West Side project was not vetoed.

Advertisement

Informal project discussions

These discussions between the developer, the community and the government about the project can determine its fate early. They helped shape both the Crown Heights and the Upper West Side proposals.

Advertisement

Application filed with the city

An application is filed with the City Planning Department and is considered certified if it properly describes the proposal and any zoning change.

Advertisement

Over 60 days, the community board holds a public hearing. The Upper West Side project was recommended for approval while the Crown Heights project wasn’t. This isn’t binding so the Crown Heights proposal still moved ahead.

Over 30 days, the borough president’s office might hold another public hearing and issue its own recommendation. Both projects were recommended for approval.

City Planning Commission review

Advertisement

Over 60 days, the commission may hold another public hearing and

vote on whether to allow the project to move forward. Both projects

were approved.

Advertisement

Here’s where things ended for the Crown Heights project, which was rejected by the council member from the area. The Upper West Side project was approved.

The mayor has the option to veto a project, and the City Council can override that veto. In this case, the Upper West Side project was not vetoed.

Advertisement


In Crown Heights, neighbors wanted more apartments to be available at lower rents and were concerned about parking. Ms. Oelsner worried the bigger rezoning plan of the area would take too long and, if she waited, would run up the costs of her project, which she said she had designed to be consistent with the broader efforts.

In the end, Crystal Hudson, who held the power to approve or reject the development as the local council member, voted against Ms. Oelsner’s proposal last year, effectively killing the project. Ms. Hudson said she would not back individual developments until the bigger neighborhood rezoning was finished.

On the Upper West Side, a vocal resident group had several complaints: that the loss of the parking garages could lead to an uptick in traffic, greenhouse gas emissions and accidents; that the development could disturb students at a nearby middle school; and that it could reduce the amount of sunlight in nearby parks.

The councilman who represented the neighborhood at the time, Mark Levine, initially said he would hold off on supporting the plan until he better understood the effects of more cars on the street.

Eventually, though, the project gave the community enough of what it wanted, the group behind the project said, and government officials came around. The project was split into two phases, keeping one garage running for a few years after the first two were demolished.

Advertisement

The Results

One key to successful development is buy-in from the government and local politicians. The Upper West Side plan had that, despite the opposition it faced, while the Crown Heights project did not.

That’s in part because the Upper West Side lots were owned by the city, which was ready and willing to chip in lots of money to create a deeply needed housing project in the area that would most likely not have been built otherwise. The Crown Heights lot, on the other hand, is privately owned and mostly out of the city’s control — which made the project potentially very lucrative for the owners, even if it added some benefit to the community.

Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times

Advertisement

The dirt lot in Crown Heights remains a dirt lot. The broader plan Ms. Hudson pushed is underway, set to be completed next year.

Ms. Oelsner, however, has said that she’s not sure whether it still makes financial sense to build her project, so its fate remains uncertain.

Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times

Advertisement

The Upper West Side building has been open for about two years. It is full and has a long waiting list.

And the amount tenants pay in rent remains low. That’s because the government sends the West Side Federation about $1 million annually to help cover the rent.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

New York

Read the Trump Assassination Plot Criminal Complaint

Published

on

Read the Trump Assassination Plot Criminal Complaint

and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States,
FARHAD SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the
defendants, and others known and unknown, at least one of whom is expected to be first brought
to and arrested in the Southern District of New York, knowingly and willfully did combine,
conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit murder-for-hire, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1958.
6. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD SHAKERI,
CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, and others known and
unknown, would and did knowingly travel in and cause others to travel in interstate and foreign
commerce, and would and did use and cause another to use a facility of interstate and foreign
commerce, with intent that a murder be committed in violation of the laws of the State of New
York or the United States as consideration for the receipt of and as consideration for a promise or
agreement to pay anything of pecuniary value, to wit, SHAKERI, RIVERA, and LOADHOLT
participated in an agreement whereby RIVERA and LOADHOLT would kill Victim-1 in exchange
for payment, and used cellphones and electronic messaging applications to communicate in
furtherance of the scheme.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1958 and 3238.)
COUNT FIVE
(MONEY LAUNDERING CONSPIRACY)
7. From at least in or about December 2023, up to and including the date of
this Complaint, in Iran, the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, and in an offense begun
and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States,
FARHAD SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the
defendants, and others known and unknown, at least one of whom is expected to be first brought
to and arrested in the Southern District of New York, knowingly and willfully did combine,
conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit money laundering, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956.
8. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD
SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the defendants,
and others known and unknown, in an offense involving and affecting interstate and foreign
commerce, knowing that the property involved in certain financial transactions represented the
proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, would and did conduct and attempt to conduct such
financial transactions which in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit,
the proceeds of the murder-for-hire offenses charged in Counts Three and Four of this Complaint,
knowing that the transactions were designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the
nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activity,
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).
9. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD
SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the defendants,
and others known and unknown, would and did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to
transport, transmit, and transfer, monetary instruments and funds to a place in the United States
3

Continue Reading

Trending