United States v. Charles O. Finch, et al.
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
2010 WL 3938176 (2010)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
In 2010, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging United States military officials Charles Finch and Gary Canteen, brothers Assad John Ramin and Tahir Ramin (the Ramins), and AZ Corporation (AZ) (defendants) with conspiring to bribe a public official, conspiring to launder money, money laundering, and related criminal offenses. Finch and Canteen were roommates at Bagram Airfield, a United States military base in Afghanistan. Finch’s responsibilities included recommending line-haul services for transporting military supplies between bases in Afghanistan. Canteen owned a store in Hawaii. The Ramins owned AZ, a military contractor that provided line-haul transportation. The Ramins gave Finch $50,000 in exchange for Finch’s award of a line-haul-service agreement to AZ by depositing money in Canteen’s Hawaiian business bank account. Canteen transferred about half of that money to Finch. Finch, Canteen, and the Ramins created a false story to cover up the true nature of the transaction. Finch filed a motion to dismiss that the other four defendants joined, arguing in part that because the alleged conduct largely occurred in Afghanistan, it could not be prosecuted in the United States.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mollway, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.