Letter from Charles M. Kruly to Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo, July 31, 2025 — United States v. Fares (Dkt. 80, W.D.N.Y.)

Summary

A letter dated July 31, 2025 from Assistant United States Attorney Charles M. Kruly to Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo in United States v. Hassan Fares, 22-CR-76-LJV, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, filed as Document 80. The government responds to the defendant's letter about returning to the United States (Dkt. 78): the Court had allowed travel to Lebanon and extended the stay, so the defendant was required to leave Lebanon by June 25, 2025, and has not complied. The letter says flights out of Beirut have remained available and that the defendant's family offered to pay the outstanding restitution judgment of more than $20,000. It notes that the term of supervised release is scheduled to end on January 8, 2026, and asks the Court to authorize the violation petition submitted by Probation or, alternatively, to direct the defendant to return by a date certain.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 1:22-cr-00076-LJV-HKS                 Document 80           Filed 07/31/25         Page 1 of 3

                                                           U.S. Department of Justice
                                                           United States Attorney
                                                           Western District of New York

                                                            Federal Center                                  716/843-5700
                                                            138 Delaware Avenue                         fax 716/551-3052
                                                            Buffalo, New York 14202   Writer's Telephone: 716/843-5838
                                                                                                Charles.Kruly@usdoj.gov




                                                            July 31, 2025


Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo
United States District Judge
2 Niagara Square
Buffalo, New York 14202

        Re:      United States v. Hassan Fares, 22-CR-76-LJV

Dear Judge Vilardo:

        The government submits this letter in response to the defendant’s letter addressing his
return to the United States. See Dkt. 78.

       In May 2025, the Court granted the defendant’s request to “travel . . . to Lebanon from
May 2025 to June 2025 for a period of 41 days.” Dkt. 73 at 6 (motion); Dkt. 74 (order granting
motion). Because of travel complications, the defendant arrived in Lebanon on May 22, 2025.
Dkt. 76 at 1. The Court then granted the defendant’s request to extend his trip, ordering that
the defendant could remain in Lebanon “for a period of 35 days on the ground . . . not
including travel days reasonably necessary to travel to and from Lebanon.” Dkt. 77. Thus,
the defendant was required to leave Lebanon by June 25, 2025. The defendant has yet to
comply with the Court’s order. He blames his failure to do so on his finances and travel
complications stemming from the conflict between Israel and Iran. Neither explanation,
however, withstands scrutiny.

        Flights out of Lebanon are, and have been, available since current hostilities between
Israel and Iran began in June 2025. Some airlines temporarily suspended flights to and from
Beirut in June, but many airlines only suspended flights to and from Israel and Iran. 1 And in
July, many airlines continued to only suspend flights to and from Israel and Iran—not
Lebanon. 2 Indeed, of the 16 airlines identified in one of the articles the defendant cites, only
one airline suspended travel to and from Beirut. Id. The same is true today. A search of a

1
  See Which airlines paused or cancelled flights after Israel’s attack on Iran,
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/13/which-airlines-paused-or-cancelled-flights-after-israels-attack-
on-iran (June 13, 2025).
2
 See Airlines suspend Middle East flights, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/airlines-suspend-flights-
after-israeli-strikes-2025-06-13/ (July 15, 2025).

     Case 1:22-cr-00076-LJV-HKS           Document 80        Filed 07/31/25     Page 2 of 3




common travel booking website shows more than 20 options for traveling from Beirut to Rio
de Jannero on August 7, 2025. There have, then, been multiple options for the defendant to
comply with the Court’s order.

         The Court should likewise be skeptical that financial constraints are truly preventing
the defendant from traveling. In a June 24, 2025, text message to Officer Payne, the defendant
stated that he had booked a return flight for June 15, 2025. See July 30, 2025, Petition for
Offender Under Supervision. If the defendant could afford a return flight in June, he can
surely afford one now. But even if the defendant does not personally have the ability to pay
for his flight, his family surely does; after all, just four months ago, the defendant’s family
offered to pay his entire outstanding restitution judgment of more than $20,000. See Dkt. 66-
1 at 6. In other words, like his claimed inability to find a flight out of Lebanon, the defendant’s
claim that travel is too expensive does not withstand scrutiny.

        It therefore appears that defendant is attempting to run out the clock on his supervised
release by using conflict in the Middle East as a reason why he cannot comply with the Court’s
order. The defendant’s motion requests permission to stay in Lebanon until September. See
Dkt. 78. But his text message to Officer Payne states that his intent is to “extend [his] return
at least until the war is over.” There is little reason to believe that conflict between Israel and
Iran will end in the next month. Thus, come September, the defendant will surely identify yet
another reason why he is unable to return to the United States.

        Conflict between Israel and Iran has been ongoing for years. Indeed, that conflict
directly affected Lebanon in September 2024, when Israel killed Hizballah’s Secretary
General, Hassan Nasrallah, in the Dahieh suburb of Beirut, where the defendant’s family
lives. What is more, the government understands that those airstrikes hit buildings on the same
street where the defendant’s family lives. Yet three months later, the defendant filed a motion
asking for early termination of his supervision so that he could travel to Lebanon. See Dkt.
66. The defendant does not explain why it was safe to travel to Lebanon last year—just
months after an attack on the neighborhood where his family lives—but travel is now too
dangerous because of a conflict that has been ongoing for years.

        The defendant’s term of supervised release is scheduled to end on January 8, 2026. If
the defendant waits until after that date to return to the United States, and if the Court does
not authorize a violation petition before then, the Court will have no authority to sanction the
defendant’s violation of the Court’s order. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i) (authorizing courts to
revoke supervision after term of supervised release expires “if, before [the] expiration [of
supervision], a warrant or summons has been issued on the basis of an allegation of such a
violation”). Thus, to protect the Court’s authority, the government requests that the Court
authorize the violation petition submitted by Probation. In the alternative, the government
requests that the Court direct the defendant to return to the United States by a date-certain in
the near future so that, if the defendant fails to comply with the Court’s order, Probation may
file an Amended Petition for Offender Under Supervision before the defendant’s term of
supervised release expires.



                                                2

Case 1:22-cr-00076-LJV-HKS   Document 80    Filed 07/31/25    Page 3 of 3




                                     Very truly yours,

                                     MICHAEL DIGIACOMO
                                     United States Attorney

                                     /s/ CHARLES M. KRULY

                               BY:   CHARLES M. KRULY
                                     Assistant United States Attorney




                                 3

File and source

File

80.pdf

Size

130,597 bytes

SHA-256

3683fe7c6a457a9549fcfbf2dfcc3a1a1c25d7bc2d97f744e4e78d7cc6552612

Our copy

80.pdf