Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-1254 U.S. v. Reyes

Minnesota Lawyer//November 12, 2001//

00-1254 U.S. v. Reyes

Minnesota Lawyer//November 12, 2001//

Listen to this article

“At trial, the prosecution submitted a mountain of evidence to establish that Reyes was aware of his legal duty not to export Munitions List articles to Iran or any foreign country without a license. This evidence included expert testimony establishing that the aircraft parts Reyes attempted to export were designed exclusively for use on a TF-30 military aircraft engine (which is used on F-111 and F-14 military aircraft), as well as many documents (several with Reyes’ handwritten notes on them) seized from Reyes’ private office, that helped to establish Reyes’ knowledge of the Munitions List and the law restricting exports of items on that list. The evidence also included the tape-recorded phone conversation between Reyes and Bembenek in which Reyes explicitly acknowledges both the illegality of shipping to Iran without a license and his awareness of the fact that Texam was shipping the parts it ordered to Iran. This combination of direct and circumstantial evidence was overwhelming and obviously more than sufficient to convict Reyes of Count 4 of the indictment.

“The government also introduced a document faxed to Siraj on March 3, 1997, from Texam’s Swiss bank, bearing the notation ‘F/A Iran Aircraft Industries, Tehran, Texam Holding Ltd., Geneva,’ and referencing Texam’s payment for a shipment to Texam. Another damaging piece of evidence introduced against the defendant was a fax from Texam to its Swiss bank (and on which Siraj was copied) dated May 19, 1997, containing a ‘re’ line reading ‘Air shipment from Geneva/ Switzerland to Tehran/Iran.’

“[C]onsidering the totality of the evidence offered by the prosecution, it was sufficient for the jury to find that Reyes attempted to export parts to Texam without a license and that he had knowledge that the aircraft parts would be forwarded to Iran, in violation of the IEEPA.”


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Clevert, J., Coffey, J.

Top News

See All Top News

Legal calendar

Click here to see upcoming Minnesota events

Expert Testimony

See All Expert Testimony