United States authorities have arrested Iranian-American businessman Jamshid Ghomi, the founder and chief executive officer of Tehran-based technology company Faraz Pardaz Rayaneh Co. (FPR), on allegations that he orchestrated a long-running scheme to illegally export controlled American technology to Iran.
Federal prosecutors allege that Ghomi violated U.S. sanctions laws by procuring sophisticated networking, cybersecurity, and encryption equipment from the United States and transferring it to customers in Iran, including organizations connected to the country’s nuclear and defense sectors.
The case represents one of the most significant sanctions enforcement actions involving technology exports to Iran in recent years. According to court filings and statements from U.S. authorities, the alleged scheme operated for more than a decade and involved procurement networks, intermediary companies in the United Arab Emirates, freight forwarding arrangements, and concealment measures designed to evade export controls.
Authorities further allege that some of the equipment ultimately reached highly sensitive Iranian government organizations, including entities associated with Iran’s nuclear program and military infrastructure.
Who is Jamshid Ghomi?
Jamshid Ghomi, 63, is a dual U.S.-Iranian national residing in Newport Coast, California.
According to federal authorities, Ghomi is the founder, owner, and chief executive officer of Faraz Pardaz Rayaneh Co. (FPR), a Tehran-based company specializing in computer networking solutions and technology products.
Prosecutors allege that Ghomi personally directed procurement operations involving American-origin technology and coordinated international shipments through intermediary jurisdictions to reach customers in Iran.
The criminal complaint accuses him of conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), one of the principal legal authorities used by the United States to enforce sanctions programs and national security restrictions.
Iranian national charged for smuggling illegal aliens into united states — DOJ
Why the Arrest is Significant
The case is notable because it involves allegations that American technology was supplied to some of Iran’s most sensitive institutions.
Federal investigators claim that equipment acquired through the alleged procurement network reached organizations connected to:
- Iran’s nuclear activities.
- Uranium enrichment operations.
- Defense production programs.
- Military communications infrastructure.
- Government agencies subject to U.S. sanctions.
According to the allegations, the transactions generated millions of dollars in revenue while bypassing export control requirements and sanctions regulations.
The arrest highlights the increasing focus of U.S. authorities on preventing advanced technologies from reaching foreign entities considered national security concerns.
Charges Filed Against Ghomi
The criminal complaint centers on allegations that Ghomi conspired to violate sanctions imposed on Iran under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The complaint alleges that:
- Controlled American technology was exported without authorization.
- Procurement channels were intentionally concealed.
- Front companies were used to disguise end users.
- Documentation was altered or omitted.
- Third-country intermediaries facilitated shipments.
- Financial transactions were structured to avoid detection.
Federal authorities assert that these actions were undertaken knowingly and deliberately in order to circumvent U.S. restrictions.
The case remains at the complaint stage, and the allegations must ultimately be proven in court.
Understanding the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act serves as one of the most powerful tools available to the U.S. government for enforcing sanctions and national security measures.
Under IEEPA, the President can restrict transactions involving foreign countries, entities, or individuals determined to pose threats to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.
In relation to Iran, IEEPA works alongside the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR), which prohibit many forms of trade and technology transfers without prior authorization.
The regulations generally prohibit:
- Exporting goods to Iran.
- Re-exporting U.S.-origin products.
- Supplying technology to sanctioned entities.
- Providing services to prohibited organizations.
- Facilitating transactions involving restricted parties.
Any exception typically requires a specific license from the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
Alleged Procurement Network Spanning More Than a Decade
According to the affidavit supporting the complaint, Ghomi allegedly operated a procurement network for more than ten years.
Authorities claim that Faraz Pardaz Rayaneh acquired large quantities of U.S.-origin networking and communications equipment during this period.
Investigators allege that the company systematically sourced products from American suppliers and arranged their transfer through intermediary jurisdictions before ultimately reaching Iran.
The complaint describes a sophisticated operation involving multiple participants and logistical arrangements intended to conceal the true destination of the goods.
Federal investigators contend that neither Ghomi nor FPR obtained the required authorization from OFAC for these transactions.
Role of the United Arab Emirates in the Alleged Scheme
A significant component of the allegations involves intermediary operations in the United Arab Emirates. According to prosecutors, goods were frequently routed through the UAE before entering Iran. Authorities allege that front companies based in the UAE served several purposes:
- Receiving shipments from the United States.
- Repackaging equipment.
- Preparing new documentation.
- Concealing Iranian end users.
- Facilitating onward transportation.
The use of intermediary jurisdictions is a common enforcement concern in sanctions investigations because it can obscure the ultimate destination of controlled products.
Investigators allege that UAE-based participants knowingly assisted in moving restricted technology toward Iran.
Use of eBay and PayPal for Equipment Purchases
One of the more unusual allegations involves the use of consumer online platforms. According to the complaint, between 2011 and 2015, Ghomi allegedly used personal eBay and PayPal accounts to conduct more than 400 purchases of networking equipment.
Authorities claim these purchases included products sourced from U.S. suppliers and shipped to intermediaries in the UAE.
Investigators allege that the transactions formed part of a broader procurement strategy designed to obtain American-origin technology for eventual delivery to Iran.
The allegations demonstrate how modern sanctions investigations increasingly examine online marketplaces, payment processors, and digital procurement channels.
Procurement from US Suppliers
The affidavit also references direct procurement efforts involving American suppliers.
According to prosecutors, in 2023 Ghomi personally negotiated purchases of networking equipment from suppliers located in Minnesota and Nebraska.
Authorities allege that the equipment was routed through a UAE-based intermediary before being transferred to Iran.
Federal officials state that these products required authorization before export and could not legally be supplied to Iran without an OFAC license.
Investigators contend that no such authorization existed.
Alleged Smuggling of Networking Equipment
One of the most substantial allegations concerns the movement of large quantities of technology equipment into Iran.
According to federal investigators, from 2014 through 2018, more than 250 metric tons of networking equipment were transported into Iran through freight forwarding networks and intermediary companies.
Authorities allege that logistics providers and shipping intermediaries were used to disguise Iran as the true destination.
The complaint suggests that shipments were structured in ways intended to reduce scrutiny and avoid export-control enforcement mechanisms.
Concealment Methods Described by Investigators
Federal authorities allege that Ghomi and his associates used several methods to conceal their activities.
According to the complaint, these methods included:
- Use of Front Companies – Intermediary entities allegedly obscured the identity of end users.
- Removal of Names from Documentation – Authorities claim co-conspirators were instructed to exclude Ghomi’s name from shipping records.
- Omission of Invoices -Investigators allege that invoices were intentionally withheld from certain shipments.
- Concealed Equipment – On at least two occasions, authorities claim technology products were hidden within larger shipments.
Alternative Descriptions- Documentation allegedly minimized references to Iran as the ultimate destination.
Prosecutors argue that these actions demonstrate awareness that the transactions violated sanctions restrictions.
Alleged Internal Communications
According to the affidavit, Ghomi and his associates referred to Iran as “Motherland” during internal communications concerning procurement activities.
Federal investigators cite these communications as evidence that participants understood the ultimate destination of the equipment.
Authorities argue that the language supports allegations that the network knowingly facilitated transfers to Iran despite sanctions restrictions.
Faraz Pardaz Rayaneh and Its Customer Base
The complaint states that Faraz Pardaz Rayaneh generated annual sales exceeding $10 million.
According to investigators, the company supplied networking and information technology equipment to hundreds of organizations throughout Iran.
Authorities allege that some customers were already subject to U.S. sanctions while others operated in sensitive sectors connected to government activities.
Although many customers were reportedly commercial organizations, investigators claim a smaller but strategically important portion of business involved entities connected to Iran’s defense and nuclear establishments.
Alleged Sales to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran
One of the most significant allegations concerns transactions involving the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI).
Federal authorities allege that between 2017 and 2023, Faraz Pardaz Rayaneh supplied U.S.-origin networking equipment to AEOI.
The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran is responsible for managing major components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
According to the complaint, AEOI required FPR to register as an approved vendor, which investigators allege occurred during 2021 and 2022.
The alleged relationship between FPR and AEOI forms a central element of the government’s case because of the organization’s strategic role within Iran’s nuclear program.
Alleged Connections to Iran’s Defense Sector
Investigators also allege that Faraz Pardaz Rayaneh supplied equipment to organizations connected to Iran’s defense establishment.
According to the affidavit, from 2014 through 2022, networking, security, and encryption technologies were provided to:
- Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics.
- Military-related electronics entities.
- Defense manufacturing organizations.
- Government-affiliated technology institutions.
Authorities claim that one 2017 contract explicitly identified a defense-related entity as the purchaser.
Federal prosecutors argue that these transactions demonstrate the strategic significance of the equipment involved.
Asset Seizure and Financial Consequences
In addition to criminal penalties, authorities have indicated that asset forfeiture proceedings may follow.
Federal officials specifically referenced a Newport Beach mansion reportedly valued at approximately $35 million.
Asset seizure is a common component of sanctions enforcement cases when authorities believe assets are connected to unlawful activity or derived from proceeds of alleged offenses.
If successful, forfeiture actions can significantly increase the financial consequences beyond criminal penalties.
Statements from US Officials
Senior U.S. officials characterized the case as a major national security enforcement action.
Government statements emphasized concerns regarding:
- Technology transfers to Iran.
- Support for Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
- Evasion of export controls.
- Misuse of American financial systems.
- National security risks posed by unauthorized technology exports.
Officials also highlighted cooperation among prosecutors, financial investigators, and law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation.
Broader National Security Implications
The case underscores the importance of export controls in modern national security policy.
Advanced networking, cybersecurity, and encryption technologies can support critical infrastructure, military communications, industrial systems, and government operations.
As a result, many technology products are subject to licensing requirements and export restrictions when destined for certain jurisdictions or organizations.
The allegations against Ghomi illustrate how authorities view sanctions enforcement as part of broader efforts to prevent strategic technologies from reaching restricted end users.
Conclusion
The arrest of Jamshid Ghomi represents a major U.S. sanctions enforcement action involving alleged exports of American networking, security, and encryption technologies to Iran. Federal prosecutors claim that Ghomi used a network of intermediaries, front companies, freight forwarding arrangements, and concealed documentation to acquire and transfer controlled equipment to Iranian customers, including organizations associated with the country’s nuclear and defense sectors.
Authorities further allege that the operation continued for more than a decade and generated substantial revenue through Faraz Pardaz Rayaneh, a Tehran-based technology company. The case highlights the growing emphasis placed on export control enforcement, sanctions compliance, and national security protections in an increasingly interconnected global technology marketplace.
As legal proceedings move forward, the allegations will be examined through the federal court system, where prosecutors will be required to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.