NEW YORK, Feb. 16, 2007

NY Man Charged With Trying To Fund Terror

Prosecutors Allege Suburban NYC Businessman Tried To Send $152K For Afghan Terrorist Training Camp

  • Court sketch of Abdul Tawala Alishtari at his initial appearance in Manhattan federal court. He was denied bail.

    Court sketch of Abdul Tawala Alishtari at his initial appearance in Manhattan federal court. He was denied bail.  (Jane Rosenberg/CBS)

  • Timeline In Terror's Wake

    A look at the major developments following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

  • Special Report War On Terror

    Complete coverage of the military's battle against terrorism.

(CBS/AP)  Terrorism charges brought Friday against the administrator of a loan investment program claimed that he secretly tried to send $152,000 to the Middle East to buy equipment such as night vision goggles for a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari, 53, of Ardsley, N.Y., pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court in Manhattan to an indictment accusing him of terrorism financing, material support of terrorism and other charges. The charges carried a potential penalty of 95 years in prison.

Alishtari, also known as Michael Mixon, was detained pending a court appearance next week after Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan S. Kolodner said Alishtari was a danger to the community and a risk to flee. He was arrested on Thursday in Manhattan, prosecutors said.

Alishtari's court-appointed lawyer, Richard Greenfield, said he was not familiar enough with the case to present a bail package. Outside court, Greenfield declined to comment.

The indictment said Alishtari tried to support terrorists between June and December by accepting an unspecified amount of money to transfer $152,000 that he believed was being sent to Pakistan and Afghanistan to support an Afghanistan terrorist training camp.

He believed the money would be used to fund the purchase of night vision goggles and other equipment, the indictment said.

He was also charged with money laundering for allegedly causing the transfer on Aug. 17 of about $25,000 from a bank account in New York to a bank account in Montreal, Canada. The money was to be used to provide material support to terrorist, prosecutors said.

The indictment also charged him with wire fraud conspiracy and wire fraud. It said he devised a scheme to administer and promote a fraudulent loan investment program known as "Flat Eletronic Data Interchange" through which Alishtari and others fraudulently obtained millions of dollars from investors by promising high guaranteed rates of return.

CBS News has confirmed that Alishtari is a donor to the Republican Party, as he claims on his curriculum vitae. Alishtari gave $15,500 to the National Republican Campaign Committee between 2002 and 2004, according to Federal Election Commission records. That amount includes $13,000 in 2003, a year when he claims to have been named NRCC New York State Businessman of the Year.

Alishtari also claims to be a lifetime member of the National Republican Senate Committee's Inner Circle, which the NRCC describes as "an impressive cross-section of American society – community leaders, business executives, entrepreneurs, retirees, and sports and entertainment celebrities – all of whom hold a deep interest in our nation's prosperity and security."



© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 57 Comments
by recon1955 October 1, 2009 11:30 PM EDT
I read all of the comments and I have kept up with this story, I feel sorry for all of the people he took STOLE money from, this guy is worse than Madoff because he hides behind religion. I read his "Resume" but as he called it his "Curriculum Vitae" written by he himself and with money you can get any award and with money you can be all the big shot you want and open all of the corps you want, but NONE of it was his money he took it from innocent people and this is a tragedy, and as I understand it from all of the articles I have read he used the money to live very large.

This man does not even have a college degree and created him self at the expense of others and I believe some how justice should be served to all of the people he stole money from. This is another part of American Greed and I am sorry this man had to do it behing a religion that already has a hard time in America. His name is Michael Mixon and he is from Harlem, he used religion as a front to get people to believe him while living off of others.
Reply to this comment
by dailykos1 February 19, 2007 3:09 PM EST
So Al Qaeda was in Iraq -- arriving with the GOP henchmen and profiteers the moment our boots hit the sand!
Reply to this comment
by onit2day February 19, 2007 1:48 PM EST
To notproperly. comment: If the shoe fits. The amount of *** the GOP has put out there, the corruption, the lies, the hypocrisy is just overwhelming. "Always whipping the nazi party. If the social democrats did something like this you wouldn't hardly mention it". Get it. You can't just shut your eyes and ears because you don't want it to be that way. If you care about your party then do things to straighten it out not justify it or ignore it's ***. Can't ignore the relationship Bush family has with the Saudis who are Sunni...the list goes on and on and on and needs sunshine.
Reply to this comment
by onit2day February 19, 2007 1:46 PM EST
To formrusmcsgt. comment: If the shoe fits. The amount of *** the GOP has put out there, the corruption, the lies, the hypocrisy is just overwhelming. "Always whipping the nazi party. If the social democrats did something like this you wouldn't hardly mention it". Get it. You can't just shut your eyes and ears because you don't want it to be that way. If you care about your party then do things to straighten it out not justify it or ignore it's ***. Can't ignore the relationship Bush family has with the Saudis who are Sunni...the list goes on and on and on and needs sunshine.
Reply to this comment
by jennperry1 February 19, 2007 12:40 PM EST
The importance of his party affiliation is that the NY Post and other right wing sympathetic news papers were identifying this terrorist as a "peace activist" to give the impression that he was against the republican party and the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.. thereby lending credulity to the administrations claims that taking a stand against the war encourages terrorists.

What this terrorist is an example of, is that the Bush administration is allowing the sacrifice of our service men and women to be exploited. Just as our nation has been up for sale to the highest bidder since he took office, this war is little more than an opportunity for him to allow his cronies to bleed this country's tax dollars.
Reply to this comment
by sarekofvulca February 18, 2007 10:35 PM EST
About those Werewolves: rather than being feared warriors, they seem to have ended up as something of a joke. Anybody have hard evidence to dispute this article? http://www.slate.com/id/2087768/
Reply to this comment
by frankbowers February 18, 2007 6:46 PM EST
Why any one would think that if he had given to the Democrat Party members this would not have happened to him THE FACT IS HE DID NOT GIVE ENOUGHT TO D. CHENEY AND gwb AND NOW YOU GUYS ARE COPLAINING.Now lets us be serious.The democrats like many of us find this very sickening for you to think such garbage and the sooner you stop blaming all the RNC and gwb problems on the democrats you will be better off and can sleep better.I as a christan myself wonder about you and how many of you claim to be a christian remember the old remark turn the other cheek. The best f good byes Frnk Bowers in Austin, TX
Reply to this comment
by kba78 February 18, 2007 12:30 PM EST
just go's to show you dont now who to trust anymore !
Reply to this comment
by austin2223 February 18, 2007 12:09 PM EST
NY man charged with trying to fund terror, Muslim`s can not lie to infidels they can say black is white,with a clear conscience, its there beliefs in a court of law they can deny any thing.The only reason they can justify selling you sustenance (food)because your an infidel there get out clause with there book, conversion its the only way they can live amongst us. Or else there religion would condemn them to death
Reply to this comment
by formrusmcsgt February 18, 2007 11:24 AM EST
Answer the question, whether or not we%u2019ve lost already: would/do you want us to win?
Posted by jdweymouth at 11:44 AM : Feb 17, 2007

Of course I would wish to see our warriors not wasted as they are being now. But four years of failure give us no concrete reason to expect anything but more of the same.

Continuing bad strategy is like starting off on a trip in the wrong direction and convincing yourself that if you just drive long enough in that wrong direction, you arrive at your destination anyway.
Reply to this comment
by formrusmcsgt February 18, 2007 11:20 AM EST
I would bet the farm that
if this terrorist contributed to the DEMS,
it would be so quiet that you could hear a pin
drop.
Posted by notproperly at 07:33 PM : Feb 17, 2007

Perhaps you would prefer a state run media such as they have in China to prohibit any news that the administration doesn't care for making it into print?
Reply to this comment
by notproperly February 17, 2007 10:33 PM EST
Would someone explain to me why CBS/AP found it
necessary to mention US POLITICS in this article.
Do you guys ever pass up a chance to dig the
Republican party. I would bet the farm that
if this terrorist contributed to the DEMS,
it would be so quiet that you could hear a pin
drop.
Reply to this comment
by guav-2009 February 17, 2007 9:05 PM EST
HAMILTONGRAD:

You're a little confused. "Wolverines" is Patrick Swayze and his hish school insurgents from the movie Red Dawn.

The Nazi insurgents you think you're talking about were called "Werewolves," and the reality of what they actually did and did not do is far from what you're saying:

http://www.slate.com/id/2087768/
Reply to this comment
by bluestardad February 17, 2007 7:53 PM EST
What about the Saudis they have been funding terror for years? They are doing the killing 3 to 1 in Iraq who is calling for attacks on them?
Reply to this comment
by fizzie319 February 17, 2007 7:14 PM EST
*sigh* This is a prime example of the Patriot Act hard at work.

What many people do not know is the fact that when dealing with foreigners, whether temporary or permanent citizens, probable cause is not used in order to charge people with terrorism. Instead reasonable cause is used. Whats the difference?

Probable Cause: A reasonable ground for belief in the existence of facts warranting the proceedings complained of (eg, probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person accused may have committed it). (State of Virginia's Definition)

Reasonable Cause: is the suspicion that a crime is being committed or is being planned to be committed. It requires a much lower standard than probable cause, which requires evidence of criminal matters. Controversially, reasonable cause is used by FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act when the FISC approves a surveillance order. (Wikipedia definition)

The differences? The time period in which a crime is committed. Probable cause indicates a crime has occurred. Reasonable cause is a suspicion that a crime is being committed or is being planned to be committed. It also doesn't require evidence of criminal behavior.

What is really going on here?
Reply to this comment
by lippett February 17, 2007 2:47 PM EST
As with Vietnam, we're proving again we simply won't allow ourselves to win a war. Any war. It's like having to fight a junkyard dog with SPCA rules. We now demand our military fight politically-correct wars and if these 18 and 19 yr. old kids don't or can't, court-martial 'em. Then put our border patrol agents in jail for doing what they were hired to do. A corrupt United Nations tells the world its always America's fault and hey; if it makes Bush look bad, we're all for it, whether the U.N. despises us or not. We've forever diminished the Oval Office globally by portaying our President as a buffoon or worse yet, Hitler...and I didn't even vote for the guy. The next 9/11 will change nothing; whatever happened will still be America's fault. Everyone will blame everyone else but nothing will change. Soon we'll make legal 20 million or so "undocumented workers"; they'll basically vote in unison for whomever promises them the most free stuff,(while our gov't tells the 6 million going about it LEGALLY to go screw themselves),and soon thereafter, we'll be staring at insolvency. Twenty years from now we'll look back and wonder how we simply allowed all this to happen.
Reply to this comment
by jdweymouth February 17, 2007 2:45 PM EST
The Russian loss in Afghanistan can largely be attributed to small arms supplies on our part. Kind of like what the Iranians may be doing now. So. Iran has taken a part in a war against us, in simpler term you%u2019ll understand: they%u2019ve committed an act of war!

Lastly, as someone already pointed out, we bombed North Vietnam into the Stone Age; in other words, we forced them to the peace table. In addition, by that time, the Viet Cong had been nearly neutralized completely by South Vietnamese, and American forces. We never lost a battle in that war.
Reply to this comment
by jdweymouth February 17, 2007 2:44 PM EST
formrusmcsgt: What do you mean we%u2019ve failed? We%u2019ve helped set up democracy that 70% of the population took part in. We ousted a dictator that DID possess WMDs. These were our objectives, so what is your definition of winning and losing? I%u2019m sick of hearing the liberal mantra that %u201Cit%u2019s not a matter of what we want, we%u2019ve lost already%u201D. It%u2019s not true, if you could possibly think it were true, it%u2019s wishful thinking. Answer the question, whether or not we%u2019ve lost already: would/do you want us to win?

I%u2019ll give plenty of examples where a %u201Ccompetent%u201D insurgency has been crushed by a standing army:

The Philippines, 1905-American forces under General Pershing crushed an Islamic insurgency by fighting them where it hurts: their religion. Find the specifics yourself.

Russia, 1941-1944-German occupational guerrilla hunters crushed Russian partisan opposition. (Note: opposition only started after the Russians realized the Germans weren%u2019t liberators, a fair epitaph of communism)

Germany, 1945-Allied occupation forces crushed the insurgency that had the support of the local population.

The Boer Wars, South Africa, 1902-1902-The British crushed a separatist guerrilla movement, that had been started by the original Dutch settlers of South Africa.
Reply to this comment
by formrusmcsgt February 17, 2007 1:11 PM EST
we where only there for a total of 10 years. The highest combat optempo was 67-70 with 75% of all combat losses during that time frame.
Posted by hillaryin08 at 09:39 AM : Feb 17, 2007

Head up your a$$ as usual, hillary. We went in under Eisenhower and came out under Nixon. You do the math. You have enough fingers and toes for that.
Reply to this comment
by hillaryin08 February 17, 2007 12:43 PM EST
The only reason the Viet-namese sat down to the peace table in the first place was because of Line-backer II / Nixon. We basically bombed them into the stone age. Otherwise, they just scoffed at out attemps to talk to them. Why should they, they where winning over there and in the United States. The same liberal congress in power today was spitting on the troops 40 years ago.
Reply to this comment
See all 57 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie." Watch Now

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: