Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 1 of 14

JOHN W. HUBER, United States Attorney (#7226)

CARLOS A. ESQUEDA, Assistant United States Attorney (#5386)
Attorneys for the United States of America
Office of the United States Attorney
111 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-2176
Telephone: (801)524-5682
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:16-cr-00034 DAK

Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO
vs. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS COUNTS 4 AND 5
OLEG MIKHAYLOVICH
TISHCHENKO,
Judge Dale A. Kimball

Defendant.

The United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney,

Carlos A. Esqueda, respectfully request that this Court deny defendant’s motion to dismiss

counts four and five of the Indictment on the grounds that (1) the indictment meets all

constitutional standards of notice pleading, providing the defendant notice of the charges

and what to prepare as a defense, (2) a “substantial step” is a question of fact for the trier

of fact rendering his motion premature, and (3) the evidence supports that the defendant

took a substantial step toward the completion of his crimes.

 Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 2 of 14

ARGUMENT

A. The Indictment is Sufficient.

The indictment sets forth all the elements required for attempted Arms Control Act

and Smuggling violations, provides the defendant fair notice of the charges he faces and

what he must defend. “An indictment need only meet minimal constitutional standards,

and we determine the sufficiency of an indictment by practical rather than technical

considerations.” 1 “An indictment is sufficient if it sets forth the elements of the offense

charged, puts the defendant on fair notice of the charges against which he must defend, and

enables the defendant to assert a double jeopardy defense.” 2 A court determines “the

sufficiency of an indictment by practical rather than technical considerations.” 3 “The test

of the validity of the indictment is not whether the indictment could have been framed in a

more satisfactory manner, but whether it conforms to minimal constitutional standards.” 4

The sufficiency of an indictment rests upon whether the indictment provides the

elements of the offense and enables the accused to plead an acquittal or conviction as a bar

to subsequent prosecution, sufficiency requires an indictment to “fairly inform [] the

defendant of the charge against which he must defend.” 5

1
United States v. Dashney, 117 F.3d 1197, 1205 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing United States v. Dahlman, 13 F.3d 1391,
1400 (10th Cir.1993)). See also, Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 2907, 41 L.Ed.2d 590
(1974) (“To meet the demands of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, an indictment must (1) contain the elements of
the charged offense and fairly inform a defendant of the charges against him, and (2) enable him to plead double
jeopardy in defense of future prosecutions for the same offense.”), Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (1932);
United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374 (1953).
2
United States v. Poole, 929 F.2d 1476, 1478 (10th Cir.1991).
3
United States v. Gama-Bastidas, 222 F. 3d 779, 785 (10th Cir. 2000).
4
Id. (quoting, United States v. Fitzgerald, 89 F.3d 218, 222 (5th Cir.1996).
5
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 107 (2007) (emphasis added) (upholding the test established in
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974).

2
 Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 3 of 14

Challenging an indictment for sufficiency prior to verdict requires a court to review

the indictment liberally while post-verdict requires the maximum liberality. 6

Counts four and five mirror the statutes. Counts four and five state the scienter,

knowingly and willfully for count four and fraudulently and willfully for count five. Each

count informs the defendant that the charges are attempts to commit the specified crimes.

Counts four and five also specifically identifies the technical data that the defendant seeks

to export from the United States to Moscow, Russia. Confusingly, the defendant does not

challenge Counts two and three that use the exact same language, except for the attempt

language, as counts four and five. If the defendant does not challenge counts two and three,

he cannot challenge counts four and five.

Specifically relevant to this case, in Resendiz-Ponce, the Court held an indictment,

“need not specifically allege a particular overt act or any other ‘component part’ of the

offense.” 7 The Court added that alleging an “attempt,” and specifying the time and place

of the defendant’s alleged conduct is enough to satisfy both prongs of the Hamling test. 8

The Tishchenko indictment alleges “attempt” in the caption and the body of counts four

and five; it also lists specific dates of conduct. The Tishchenko indictment does exactly

what is required by United States Supreme Court decisions.

6
Id.
7
Id. at note 3.
8
Id. at 107, 109-10. (The Resendiz-Ponce Court contrasts Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 764 (1962), where
the defendant was indicted for refusal to testify before Congress. There, the statute made it a crime to refuse to
answer any question “pertinent to the question under inquiry.” The Court says, when constructing an indictment in a
case such as Russell, it is important to include facts about the overt act because only a refusal to answer certain
questions constitutes a violation of the law. This stands in contrast to the statute criminalizing illegal reentry, where
any reentry without proper documentation is illegal; therefore, the case “does not depend so crucially upon such a
specific identification of fact.”

3
 Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 4 of 14

In Dashney, 9 the indictment did not contain the word “willful” but did include the

language knowingly, intentionally and unlawfully, in a structuring indictment. The Tenth

Circuit held that the indictment adequately informed the defendant of his charges and need

to mount a defense. 10 Here the indictment mirrors the statute and without question provides

notice to the defendant.

In Gama-Bastidas, 11 the defendant argued that the indictment failed to state an

element of the offense by failing to state that the defendant possessed cocaine with the

intent to distribute. Again the Tenth Circuit held that the indictment was sufficient based

upon the caption of the indictment, and the body of the indictment which one could glean

the intent to distribute. 12 The TISHCHENKO indictment does not contain such errors.

Likewise, in United States v. Sutton, 13 the defendant claimed that the indictment

was fatally defective because it failed to allege that he “knowingly or willfully” committed

a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1), Carrying and Using a Firearm During and in

Relation to a Drug Trafficking Offense. The Fourth Circuit held that the indictment tracked

the language of the indictment thus was constitutionally sufficient. 14

Unlike any of the above-cited cases, the TISHCHENKO indictment does not

9
Dashney, 117 F.3d at 1206.
10
Id. Note the Tishchenko indictment does not contain such errors.
11
Gama-Bastidas, at 786.
12
Id. at 787. See also United States v. Hernandez, 980 F.2d 868, 870 (2d Cir.1992). (The defendant challenged the
sufficiency of the indictment on the ground that the body of the indictment failed to recite that he possessed the
controlled substance with intent to distribute. Even though the Second Circuit scrutinized the indictment under the
stricter standard applicable to pre-verdict challenges, it concluded that the indictment was sufficient because the
caption expressly stated possession with intent to distribute, the body of the indictment referenced the charging
statutes, and the body of the indictment recited defendant’s possession of a large quantity of drugs.)
13
961 F.2d 476, 478 (Fourth Cir. 1992).
14
Id. at 479.

4
 Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 5 of 14

contain any of the challenges mentioned. However, even if the indictment did contain such

errors it would still pass constitutional sufficiency. Ironically, the defendant contends that

the indictment does not provide adequate notice of what he should defend against, yet

devotes considerable time arguing that he must defend against the element of a “substantial

step.” 15

The majority of defendant’s argument centers on the attempt element of a “substantial

step.” The indictment obviously and correctly provides notice that the defendant would

have to defend against the element of a “substantial step” by using the word “attempt”

which incorporates a “substantial step.” The defendant recognizes this and argues

“substantial step” within his own motion, proving that the indictment provides adequate

notice. The defendant within his own argument supports the conclusion that the indictment

is constitutionally sufficient by identifying what the defendant may need to defend.

The United States can only guess that the defendant is confusing the pleading of

Count 1, Conspiracy, which must allege certain facts to support the manner and means of

the conspiracy. However, the United States is not required to fact plead counts 2, 3, 4, and

5. 16 As observed above, the United States is only required to notice plead.

The TISHCHENKO indictment is constitutionally sufficient and provides the

defendant notice of the charges, what he must defend against, and enables him to plead an

acquittal or conviction as to bar double jeopardy.

15
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss counts 4 and 5, pp. 3-6.
16
The United States is not alleging a conspiracy related to counts 4 and 5 and would not be required to present facts
to support those counts within the indictment.

5
 Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 6 of 14

B. Attempt is a question of fact, not of law, for the Trier of fact.

In his challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment, the defendant argues that the

government cannot meet its burden of proof regarding attempted Arms Control Act and

attempted Smuggling violations without having a single piece of evidence presented by

the United States. The defendant is merely challenging the sufficiency of the evidence

under the guise of sufficiency of the indictment. As noted in the defendant’s motion,

there are times when the district court can decide questions of fact. United States v.

Hall, 17 holds that a district court may make predicate findings of fact under certain

limited circumstances. The Tenth Circuit importantly acknowledges “the preferred

approach in testing the sufficiency of an indictment cautions against consideration of the

strengths and weaknesses of the government's case through fact-finding pretrial

hearings,” 18 and warns that, “[A] pretrial dismissal is essentially a determination that, as

a matter of law, the government is incapable of proving its case beyond a reasonable

doubt. We note, however, that such a scenario is not likely to recur and we caution both

the trial courts and counsel that the procedure here employed is indeed the rare

exception.” 19

The Hall court emphasizes that, “[A] district court [may] dismiss charges at the

pretrial stage under the limited circumstances where the operative facts are undisputed

and the government fails to object to the district court's consideration of those undisputed

17
20 F.3d 1084, 1088 (10th Cir. 1994)
18
Id.
19
Id.

6
 Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 7 of 14

facts in making the determination regarding a submissible case.” 20 Here the facts are in

dispute and the United States objects to the court making a determination of facts when

they are in dispute and without the ability to present evidence before the trier of fact.

United States v. Irving held that, “[a] highly fact-specific inquiry is necessary to

properly assess whether a defendant’s actions amount to an “attempt,” and, in particular,

whether his actions qualify as a “substantial step.” 21 Likewise, in United States v.

Fleming, the Tenth Circuit reiterated, “Whether a defendant’s actions amount to an

attempt, and, in particular, whether his actions qualify as a substantial step, is a highly

fact-specific inquiry.” 22 In United States v. Smith, the court further declared that “[There

is no] bright-line rule as to what constitutes a substantial step.... Whether the defendant

has taken a substantial step is a heavily fact-specific question.” 23

As Resendiz-Ponce implies, and defendant’s own motion demonstrates, the

question of what conduct constitutes a “substantial step” is one to be made by the trier of

fact. As previously discussed, the holding in Resendiz-Ponce allows an indictment to

include nothing more than the elements of the offense and the time and place the alleged

conduct occurred. 24 Logically this leaves the relationship between case-specific conduct

20
Id.
21
665 F.3d 1184, 1195 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. DeSantiago–Flores, 107 F.3d 1472, 1479 (10th
Cir.1997) (“The dividing line between preparation and attempt is not clear and depends to a high degree on the
surrounding factual circumstances.”), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Holland, 116 F.3d 1353, 1359
n. 4 (10th Cir.1997); see also United States v. Neal, 78 F.3d 901, 906 (4th Cir.1996) (“Whether conduct represents a
substantial step depends on the ‘surrounding factual circumstances’ and, therefore, such determinations are
necessarily fact specific.”); United States v. Rivera–Sola, 713 F.2d 866, 869 (1st Cir.1983) (noting “the supreme
importance of the facts in any attempt case”)).
22
United States v. Fleming, 667 F.3d 1098, 1107 (10th Cir. 2011) (Citing United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d
1251, 1264 (10th Cir. 2011).
23
United States v. Smith, 264 F. F.3d 1012, 1017 (10th Cir. 2011).
24
Resendiz-Ponce, at 107, 109-10.

7
 Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 8 of 14

and the “substantial step" element as one to be carried out by the trier of fact. The

defendant by pointing to Tenth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions to define the elements of

“attempt” and “substantial step,” acknowledges the “substantial step” question is one for

the jury.

1. Even assuming the Court may make a pretrial predicate finding of fact, there
exists sufficient evidence of the attempted commission of the offenses in Counts 4 and
5 of the Indictment.

An attempt requires both (1) an “intent to commit the substantive offense,” and (2)

the “commission of an act which constitutes a substantial step towards commission of the

substantive offense.” 25

“A substantial step must be something more than mere preparation,” “yet may be

less than the last act necessary before the actual commission of the substantive crime,” 26

The fact that further, major steps remain “before the crime can be completed does not

preclude a finding that the steps already undertaken are substantial.” 27

25
United States v. Vigil, 523 F.3d 1258, 1267 (10th Cir. 2008)(quoting United States v. Smith, 264 F.3d 1012, 1015
(10th Cir.2001)); Most jurisdictions in the United States have adopted the Model Penal Code definition of attempt,
which requires demonstration of (1) an intent to engage in criminal conduct, and (2) conduct constituting a
substantial step toward commission of the intended offense which strongly corroborates the actor’s criminal intent
Model Penal Code § 5.01(1); See generally CHARLES DOYLE, CONG. RESEARCH SERV. , R42001,
ATTEMPT: AN OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW 1 (2015). .
26
Irving, at 1196. (citing United States v. Vigil, 523 F.3d 1258, 1267 (10th Cir.2008); United States v. Manley, 632
F.2d 978, 987 (2d Cir.1980)
27
United States v. Savaiano, 843 F.2d 1280, 1297 (10th Cir. 1988); United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127, 147-48
(2nd Cir. 2011) (“While the parameters of the substantial step requirement are simply stated, they do not always
provide bright lines for application. This is not surprising; the identification of a substantial step, like the
identification of attempt itself, is necessarily a matter of degree that can vary depending on the particular facts of
each case viewed in light of the crime charged. An act that may constitute a substantial step towards the commission
of one crime may not constitute such a step with respect to a different crime. Thus, substantial-step analysis
necessarily begins with a proper understanding of the crime being attempted…. Further important to a substantial-
step assessment is an understanding of the underlying conduct proscribed by the crime being attempted. The conduct
here at issue, material support to a foreign terrorist organization, is different from drug trafficking and any number
of activities (e.g., murder, robbery, fraud) that are criminally proscribed because they are inherently harmful. The
material support statute criminalizes a range of conduct that may not be harmful in itself but that may assist, even
indirectly, organizations committed to pursuing acts of devastating harm…. Accordingly, while a substantial step to
commit a robbery must be conduct planned clearly to culminate in that particular harm, a substantial step towards

8
 Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 9 of 14

Courts have consistently found creating a broad definition of “substantial step” to

be an insurmountable task, and they have made it clear the question is one meant to be

analyzed on a case-by-case basis. “This line between mere preparation and a substantial

step is inherently fact specific; conduct that would appear to be mere preparation in one

case might qualify as a substantial step in another.” 28

In the present case, there is no occasion where the defendant, without the

appropriate export license, could lawfully request designated defense articles from the

United States Munitions List (USML) be exported from the United States to Russia.

Similarly, the defendant could not lawfully facilitate the transportation, and sale of those

articles, knowing that exportation from the United States to Russia was in violation of the

laws and regulations of the United States. Likewise, the defendant could not ship similar

materials in his possess from Russia to other countries.

The facts must be reviewed in the entire context of the case. As presented in the

indictment, on June 22, 2011, the defendant sought assistance from U.S. citizens to

circumvent arms control import laws to ship F-16 technical data to Russia. 29 The

defendant was successful in convincing his co-defendant, Kenneth Sullivan

(SULLIVAN) to circumvent export laws to ship the flight manuals he obtained via an

eBay auction, to Russia. 30 The seller, and eBay, informed the defendant, that the items

were export controlled and could not be shipped outside the United States without an

the provision of material support need not be planned to culminate in actual terrorist harm, but only in support—
even benign support—for an organization committed to such harm.”)
28
United States v. Muratovic, 719 F.3d 809, 815 (7th Cir. 2013).
29
Indictment ¶¶ 7, 8, 11 a-d, and 12 a-e.
30
Id.

9
 Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 10 of 14

export license. An agreement was reached between SULLIVAN and the defendant, that

the defendant would change his shipping address to SULLIVAN’s address. Once

SULLIVAN received the flight manuals, he shipped them to the defendant in Russia.

Additionally, during the period from January 2012, through September 2015, the

defendant auctioned F-16 manuals subject to export laws to persons located in other

countries. 31 This evidence proves the defendant’s previous intent to violate arms export

laws.

In light of the defendant’s past conduct and success in obtaining flight manuals,

the defendant’s continued efforts demonstrates several “substantial steps:”

(1) The defendant needs F-16 and A-10 manuals which he cannot find through
other sources.

In March 2016, an undercover agent (UCA) contacted the defendant through an

online forum seeking flight manuals related to U.S. aircraft knowing the defendant

actively sold the flight manuals. On March 25, 2016, the UCA and TISHCHENKO spoke

via Skype. TISHCHENKO stated that, “I am collecting manuals for many years now..

And still can’t reach some stuff. We need it in our work..” 32 The UCA asked what

manuals the defendant needed. TISHCHENKO responds, “I'd like to get some

maintenance manuals for F-16C related to

avionics. . . . Needed to understand how the stuff works to implement it in the DCS. . . .

31
Id. at ¶ 12e.
32
Skype Chat March 25, 2016.

10
 Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 11 of 14

Actually maintenance manuals for any of jets including A-10. . . . so-called 'General

System' manuals, where the systems are described in a good detail.” 33

(2) The defendant provides a purchase list of 26 flight manuals including 3 that he
describes as “too sensitive.”

On March 26, 2016, TISHCHENKO, sends a lists of F-16 manuals to purchase

and ship to Russia, including three classified manuals. 34 Despite previously stating that

he was not seeking F-35 and F-22 manuals because they are “too sensitive,”

TISHCHENKO goes on to request F-35 and F-22 manuals 35 TISHCHENKO states,

“Also it would be great to get F-35 and F-22 flight manuals. I can guarantee that these

manuals will be not provided to any 3rd persons, and I think even not shown to anyone in

our company (Eagle Dynamics).” Clearly, the defendant continues to request more and

more information seeking classified materials knowing that they cannot be shipped to

him in Russia. Each contact is a substantial step in the commission of the underlying

offenses of attempted arms control violations and attempted smuggling.

(3) The defendant acknowledges that the UCA is sending him sensitive information
which is dangerous.

To further demonstrate the defendant’s expectations and intent, on March 29,

2016, TISHCHENKO wrote the UCA, “Honesty, I am worrying about you a bit, as you

are going to send me 'slightly sensitive' stuff. Be careful.” 36 Again, the defendant

expects the UCA to ship the requested flight manuals.

33
Id.
34
Skype Chat March 26, 2016.
35
Skype Chat March 25, 2016.
36
Skype Chat March 29, 2016.

11
 Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 12 of 14

(4) The defendant and the UCA make plans to travel to Prague to meet and
exchange flight manuals.

Lastly, to illustrate additional substantial steps the defendant sought, in the same

March 29, 2016, conversation the UCA offers to meet the defendant in Prague.

TISHCHENKO, states, “Yes this is an option. I have Shengen visa for one year. This

helps.” 37

The fact that further steps remain or are possible does not negate the substantial

steps the defendant took to secure the flight manuals in violation of export laws. The fact

that further steps remain before the Arms Control Act and Smuggling violations are

completed does not preclude a finding that the steps TISHCHENKO took were

substantial, meet the elements of attempted Arms Control Act and attempted Smuggling

violations. The United States is not required to wait until the crimes are fully completed

before seeking an indictment before a grand jury. In fact, the grand jury heard the

evidence the government presented, considered whether it was sufficient to prove the

elements of the offenses charged, and returned a true bill.

Whether for nefarious reasons or legitimate business, the defendant continued to

take substantial steps to obtain export controlled materials and arrange for concealed

shipment of those materials in violation of the law. The United States respectfully

requests that this Court deny the defendant’s motion.

//

//

37
Id.

12
 Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 13 of 14

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the United States respectfully requests that this Court

deny the defendant’s motion on the grounds that (1) the indictment is sufficient on its

face; (2) the substantial step determination is a question of fact, reserved for the trier of

fact; and (3) the evidence is sufficient to find that the defendant took at least one

substantial step toward the completion of his crimes.

Dated this 20th day of May 2019.

JOHN W. HUBER
United States Attorney

/s/ Carlos A. Esqueda

CARLOS A. ESQUEDA
Assistant United States Attorney

13
 Case 1:16-cr-00034-DAK-BCW Document 54 Filed 05/20/19 Page 14 of 14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am an employee of the United States Attorney’s Office, and
that a copy of the foregoing UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 4 AND 5 was delivered to all parties named below,
via electronic filing this 20th day of May 2019.

Wojciech Nitecki
Robert L. Steele
Attorney for the Defendant

/s/ Cody Alleman

Cody Alleman

14