Daniel S. Ruzumna (DR-2105) Leonard M. Braman (LB-4381) Krista D. Caner (KC-7358) Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Telephone 212-336-2000 Facsimile 212-336-2222 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : v. : ALL RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST OF ASSA : CORPORATION, ASSA COMPANY LIMITED, AND BANK MELLI IRAN IN 650 FIFTH : AVENUE COMPANY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE REAL PROPERTY AND : Civil Action No. 08 Civ. 10934 (RJH) APPURTENANCES LOCATED AT 650 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, WITH : ALL IMPROVEMENTS AND ATTACHMENTS THEREON, ET AL., : Defendants in rem. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X ALAVI FOUNDATION’S AND 650 FIFTH AVENUE COMPANY’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Attorneys for Claimants Alavi Foundation and 650 Fifth Avenue Company PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................. 1 ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ................................................................................. 4 A. The Foundation and the Building .................................................................................... 4 B. The Fifth Avenue Company............................................................................................. 5 C. The Foundation’s Other Real Properties.......................................................................... 7 D. The Foundation’s and the Fifth Avenue Company’s Accounts....................................... 8 ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................. 8 I. The Complaint’s § 981(a)(1)(C) Claim Should Be Dismissed as to Most of Claimants’ Interests Because the Interests Are Not “Proceeds” of IEEPA Violations...................... 10 A. Property Acquired Before 1995 Cannot Be “Proceeds” of an IEEPA Violation .......... 10 B. Properties Not Obtained as a Result of or Through the Allegedly Unlawful Services Are Not “Proceeds” of an IEEPA Violation......................................................................... 13 II. The Court Should Dismiss the § 981(a)(1)(A) Claim as to Most of Claimants’ Interests Because the Interests Were Not Involved in a Money Laundering Transaction ............ 18 A. The Majority of the Alleged Money Laundering Transactions Do Not Constitute Money Laundering..................................................................................................................... 18 B. Most of Claimants’ Interests Were Not “Involved In” or “Substantially Connected” to a Money Laundering Transaction..................................................................................... 21 1. The Building, the Partnership, and the Partnership Accounts ................................. 23 2. The Foundation’s Real Properties............................................................................ 27 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 29 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009)........................................................................12, 28 Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp. v. Spitzer, 715 N.Y.S.2d 575 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999) ........................................................................4 United States v. $1,399,313.74 in U.S. Currency, 591 F. Supp. 2d 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)..........................................................8, 12 n.4, 20 United States v. Anguilo, 897 F.2d 1169 (1st Cir. 1990)......................................................................................14 United States v. Approximately 250 Documents Containing the Forged Handwriting of President John F. Kennedy and Others, No. 03 Civ. 8004 (GBD), 2008 WL 4129814 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2008)................................................................13, 15, 16, 22, 25, 27 United States v. Benyo, 384 F. Supp. 2d 909 (E.D. Va. 2005) ..........................................................................14 United States v. Blumhagen, No. 03-CR-56S, 2005 WL 3059395 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2005) ..........................19, 25 United States v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2007)...................................................................................11, 22 United States v. Daccarett, 6 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1993).................................................................................................8 United States v. Hodge, 558 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................................17 United States v. Horak, 833 F.2d 1235 (7th Cir. 1987) ...............................................................................14, 16 United States v. Huber, 404 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir. 2005) .....................................................................................22 ii United States v. Iacaboni, 221 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Mass. 2002) ..............................................................22, 26, 27 United States v. Loe, 49 F. Supp. 2d 514 (E.D. Tex. 1999).......................................12, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28 United States v. McCarthy, 271 F.3d 387, 395 (2d Cir. 2001)) ...............................................................................19 United States v. Napoli, 54 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 1995).................................................................................19, 20, 25 United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172 (3d Cir. 1989).................................................................................14, 15 United States v. One 1980 Rolls Royce VIN # SRL 39955, 905 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1990) .........................................................................................28 United States v. One 1989 Jaguar XJ6, No. 92 Civ. 1491, 1993 WL 157630 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 1993) ...................................22 United States v. One 1998 Tractor, 288 F. Supp. 2d 710 (W.D. Va. 2003) .........................................................................23 United States v. Pole No. 3172, Hopkinton, 852 F.2d 636 (1st Cir. 1988)..................................................................................11, 12 United States v. Porcelli, 865 F.2d 1352 (2d Cir. 1989).................................................................................14, 16 United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507, 128 S. Ct. 2020 (2008)..........................................................................19 United States v. Schlesinger, 396 F. Supp. 2d 267 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) .........................................................................22 United States v. Van Alstyne, 584 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................20 n.6 United States v. Wittig, 333 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (D. Kan. 2004)...................................................................13, 16 Zigman v. Giacobbe, 944 F. Supp. 147 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) ..............................................................................20 iii STATUTES 18 U.S.C. § 981...................................................................................................... 1, passim 18 U.S.C. § 982............................................................................................................22, 26 18 U.S.C. § 983............................................................................................................18, 23 18 U.S.C. § 1956.......................................................................3 n.1, 18, 19, 20 n. 6, 28 n.9 18 U.S.C. § 1957.................................................................................18, 19, 20 n. 6, 25, 28 18 U.S.C. § 1960................................................................................................................18 49 U.S.C. § 80303..............................................................................................................23 50 U.S.C. § 1701-1707 (1977)............................................................................... 1, passim 146 Cong. Rec. H2040.......................................................................................................23 N.Y. Not-for-Profit Corp. Law §§ 501 (McKinney Supp. 2008) ........................................4 N.Y. Not-for-Profit Corp. Law §§ 601 (McKinney Supp. 2008) ........................................4 MISCELLANEOUS Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ........................................................................1, 8 Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions Supplemental Rule G .................................................................................................1, 8 iv Claimants Alavi Foundation (the “Foundation”) and 650 Fifth Avenue Company (the “Fifth Avenue Company” or the “Partnership” or, collectively, “Claimants”) hereby move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Rule G(8)(b) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, to dismiss the Verified Amended Complaint filed on November 12, 2009 (the “Complaint”) as to Claimants’ interests in certain Defendant Properties. For the following reasons, the Court should dismiss the claims against these interests