Trafficking in Military Equipment—Sentencing

A man holding dual Canadian and Lebanese citizenship has been sentenced to 60 months in prison for “attempting to provide material support to Hizballah,” for “attempting to contribute goods in the form of military night-vision equipment and infrared aiming devices to Hizballah,” and for “conspiring to export sensitive military equipment from the United States without first obtaining the necessary licenses from the State Department and the Commerce Department.”^[1]

In August, Naji Antoine Abi Khalil pleaded guilty to these charges, as well as money laundering charges, in the Eastern District of Arkansas.^[2] According to court documents, Mr. Khalil, who was the Chairman of an import/export company in Montreal, “flew from Canada to New York to meet with a cooperating witness” who was working with the FBI.^[3] The meeting concerned a shipment of stolen electronics to be shipped out of the country, and the meetings with the cooperating witness were held at a hotel where agents monitored the discussions “from an adjoining hotel room on a video and audio monitor.”^[4] During these meetings, the cooperating witness told Mr. Khalil that “he had a customer who wanted to ship night-vision goggles to Hizballah in Athens, Greece,” to which Mr. Khalil responded that it was not a problem, and that he had “friends.”^[5]

At a subsequent meeting, the cooperating witness brought along an undercover FBI agent posing as the customer, and details of the scheme were hammered out.^[6] Shortly thereafter, Mr. Khalil met with Tomer Grinberg, an Israeli citizen who has also pleaded guilty, and the undercover agent at a Manhattan Mini Storage location.^[7] The night-vision goggles and infrared devices were presented, money exchanged hands, and Mssrs. Khalil and Grinberg found themselves arrested.^[8]

This type of sting operation always brings up questions of entrapment. There are two prongs to entrapment: the government must induce the crime, and there must be a lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in the criminal conduct.^[9] In other words, “the fact that officers of employees of the Government merely afford opportunities of facilities for the commission of the offense does not defeat the prosecution. … Nor will the mere fact of deceit defeat a prosecution … for there are circumstances when the use of deceit is the only practicable law enforcement technique available. It is only when the Government’s deception actually implants the criminal design in the mind of the defendant that the defense of entrapment comes into play.”^[10]

---

[1] US Attorney’s Office, Naji Antoine Abi Khalil Sentenced to 60 Months’ Imprisonment for Attempting to Export Military Night-Vision Equipment to Hizballah, Feb. 2, 2006. (PDF)
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 62-63 (1988).
[10] United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 435-36 (1976).