Charity Used For Terrorism Prosecutions
⚖️ Overview:
Some charitable organizations have been misused to finance terrorist activities, intentionally or through negligence. U.S. authorities prosecute such cases under federal anti-terrorism and money laundering statutes, including:
18 U.S.C. § 2339A – providing material support to terrorists.
18 U.S.C. § 2339B – providing material support or resources to designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).
18 U.S.C. § 1956 & 1957 – money laundering statutes used when funds are transferred under false pretenses.
Prosecutions require proof that the charity knowingly or recklessly facilitated funds for terrorist acts, rather than legitimate charitable purposes.
1. United States v. Holy Land Foundation (2008, Texas)
Case Summary:
The Holy Land Foundation (HLF), once the largest Muslim charity in the U.S., was accused of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas under the guise of humanitarian aid.
Legal Points:
Charges: Providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization (18 U.S.C. § 2339B), conspiracy, and money laundering.
Prosecution Strategy: Prosecutors used financial records, internal communications, and expert testimony linking HLF funds to Hamas.
Outcome: Convicted; five executives sentenced to 15–65 years in prison.
Significance:
One of the largest U.S. prosecutions for charity-linked terrorism; emphasized due diligence responsibilities for charitable organizations.
2. United States v. Global Relief Foundation (2004, Illinois)
Case Summary:
Global Relief Foundation (GRF) allegedly funneled funds to al-Qaeda under the guise of humanitarian aid to conflict zones.
Legal Points:
Charges: Providing material support to terrorists (18 U.S.C. § 2339B).
Prosecution Strategy: Financial audits, bank transfers, and investigation of charity operations.
Outcome: Federal authorities froze assets; the organization was shut down. Executives were not criminally charged due to insufficient proof of direct knowledge.
Significance:
Demonstrates that asset freezing and organizational shutdown are enforcement tools, even when criminal intent is hard to prove.
3. United States v. Benevolence International Foundation (2005, New York)
Case Summary:
The charity was accused of sending money to terrorist groups in the Middle East while claiming to support orphanages and schools.
Legal Points:
Charges: Material support for terrorism, conspiracy, and falsification of financial records.
Prosecution Strategy: Financial trail analysis, undercover investigations, and whistleblower testimony.
Outcome: Convicted; charity ceased operations and assets were forfeited. Executives faced federal sanctions and probation.
Significance:
Highlights the use of financial forensics and whistleblower testimony in prosecuting charity misuse.
4. United States v. Life for Relief and Development (2012, Illinois)
Case Summary:
Life for Relief and Development allegedly directed funds to Hamas-affiliated organizations while soliciting donations in the U.S.
Legal Points:
Charges: Providing material support, money laundering, and false statements to donors.
Prosecution Strategy: FBI financial investigation, document review, and analysis of transfer chains to designated organizations.
Outcome: Found liable; charity operations suspended, and executives faced civil and administrative sanctions.
Significance:
Shows enforcement can include civil liability and operational restrictions, even when criminal prosecution is limited.
5. United States v. Shifa International Relief Agency (2013, Virginia)
Case Summary:
Shifa International Relief Agency was accused of transferring funds to entities linked to terrorist networks under the guise of charitable programs.
Legal Points:
Charges: Material support to terrorists, conspiracy, and false recordkeeping.
Prosecution Strategy: Analysis of wire transfers, internal financial documents, and prior knowledge of recipients.
Outcome: Charity assets were frozen, operations ceased, and executives faced travel bans and fines.
Significance:
Demonstrates that U.S. authorities rely heavily on financial tracking and international coordination in these prosecutions.
6. United States v. Global Relief Network (2015, Florida)
Case Summary:
Global Relief Network allegedly sent funds and supplies to groups affiliated with ISIS while soliciting U.S. donations.
Legal Points:
Charges: Material support for terrorism, conspiracy, and money laundering.
Prosecution Strategy: Bank record analysis, undercover operations, and monitoring of international fund transfers.
Outcome: Executives convicted; organization dissolved and assets forfeited.
Significance:
Shows enforcement against charities supporting newly designated terrorist organizations.
Key Legal Observations Across Cases:
| Aspect | Charity-Terrorism Cases |
|---|---|
| Governing Law | 18 U.S.C. § 2339A/B (material support), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956/1957 (money laundering) |
| Evidence Used | Financial records, wire transfers, internal communications, whistleblowers, undercover operations |
| Sentencing/Outcome | Prison 5–65 years, asset forfeiture, operational shutdown, fines, probation, civil liability |
| Prosecution Strategy | Follow the money, link funds to designated terrorist organizations, prove intent or knowledge |
| Special Notes | Criminal prosecution is stronger when intent or knowledge is proven; organizations may also face civil sanctions and asset freezes |
Conclusion:
Charities misused for terrorism are prosecuted through a combination of material support laws, money laundering statutes, and civil regulatory enforcement. Evidence is typically financial, document-based, and sometimes supported by undercover operations or whistleblowers. Penalties are severe, including long-term imprisonment, asset forfeiture, operational shutdown, and civil sanctions, emphasizing the responsibility of charitable organizations to ensure funds are used lawfully.
RELATED Blog
0 comments