Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said Friday night six-year judiciary hearings against Iranˈs Alavi Charity Fund and recent confiscation verdict issued by a New York court lack legal credibility and politically-motivated.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said Friday night six-year judiciary hearings against Iranˈs Alavi Charity Fund and recent confiscation verdict issued by a New York court lack legal credibility and politically-motivated.

ˈThe recently issued court verdict on confiscation of properties belonging to that fund are based on documents that are contrary with the realities, devoid of legal credibility and value, and even breaching of the US commitments to respect and safeguard the religious freedom of its own citizens,ˈ said Marziyeh Afkham.

She emphasized that despite the unfounded and baseless claims made by the US prosecutor and the totally political and propagation-style decision made by the court, the New York branch of Alavi Fund is an independent charity fund in the United States which has no relation with Iran.

ˈBesides the fact that this foundation has no relation with Iran, the prosecutorˈs claim and the courtˈs decision against Iran, too, are fully devoid of any type of legal basis and documentation. Therefore, the claims on Iranˈs involvement in acts of terrorism are repetitious and old,ˈ said Afkham.

The Foreign Ministry spokesperson reiterated that Iran, itself, is a victim of terrorism and the baseless claims on Iranˈs involvement in terrorist acts are fabrications and worthless.

ˈIn some cases the US courts have even breached the fundamentals of the international laws and considered the Iranian government as an accomplice of the al-Qaeda group in creation of the 9/11 events, which is not only ridiculous, but also shows full lack of attention in US courts to the most primitive rules of justice and plain truth about which even the most illiterate individuals, too, are quite aware,ˈ she said.

The Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that the issuance of a court verdict in accordance with anti-Iranian political propagations along with confiscation order against the properties of a charity fund that has absolutely no relation with Iran raises questions on the credibility of the US judiciary system.

ˈKeeping in mind the nature of these files which have been designed merely aimed at imposing pressure and pursuing political objectives, the US court has played with the credibility of the US judiciary system, while such politically motivated judiciary verdicts are no new phenomenon,ˈ she added.

She referred to the 4th Iranian Parliamentˈs ratification in reaction to the US Congress Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, known as the Flatow Amendment, and the antagonist acts of the US courts against Iran, in which case the Iranian lawmakers have permitting the Iranian citizens to file law suits against the US criminal acts in Iranian courts of justice.

Following the September 1997 suicide bombing in the occupied Holy Qods (Jerusalem), five American students who had been wounded were awarded $251 million in compensatory and punitive damages against the government of Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, under the Flatow Amendment of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Since most Iranian assets in the United States had been withdrawn after the embassy hostage crisis, the only substantial monetary asset left was approximately $150,000 in the Bank Melliˈs account in the Bank of New York.

Before turning over the funds to the five students, however, the Bank of New York sued for a legal decision regarding its responsibilities in the case.

The United States Department of Justice, speaking as amicus curiae in support of Bank Melli, advised that the bank had no responsibility for turning the funds over to the students; in March, 2006, Judge Denise Cole ruled against them, and was upheld by the Second Circuit Court in April, 2007. Bank Melli then withdrew the funds from Bank of New York.

Afkham added that the basic difference of the law suits filed by the Iranians against the United States is that they are based on the real crimes committed by the Americans, not on baseless and undocumented claims.

According to informed sources, based on the information in world media, throughout the past 30 years several law suits have been filed against the New York Alavi Charity fund and similar centers. In this recent case, too, the accusations and the law suit were filed in the year 2008 relying on creation of a poisonous atmosphere by the media and political propagation, which led to the issuance of the initial verdict in 2013.

In the cases of previous lawsuits, too, in some files similar verdicts had been issued in the initial courts, but in the appeals courts they had been annulled.

The New York Alavi Fund which works in accordance with the US laws in charity field is engaged in religious affairs and promotion of the Persian language in addition to its charity activities.

The New York courtˈs decision to confiscate its properties, and even its mosque and cultural centers on phony pretexts equals depriving a huge population of US Muslims of their legal religious rights in accordance with the international human rights, as well as the US civil rights.

The Alavi Fundˈs 36-story tower on Manhattanˈs Fifth Avenue has well known neighbors, like Rockefeller Center and St. Patrickˈs Cathedral.

It has upscale tenants, such as a Godiva Chocolate Store.

And its ownership is linked to Iran — which could now bring the 382,500-square-foot Midtown site a for-sale sign from the US Marshals Service.

In the latest development of a years-long court battle, US officials this week announced a forfeiture settlement that could force a sale of the building and other US properties, mosques and bank accounts also linked to Iran.

Thursdayˈs settlement is aimed at distributing sale proceeds to families victimized by terrorist attacks with suspected Iran ties, including the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 US Air Force service members. The agreement between the government and the families is subject to expected court appeals, however.

Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara said his office pursued the forfeiture ˈto dismantle Iranˈs slice of Manhattan — an office tower on Fifth Avenue — is said to be aimed at providing a means of compensating victims of so called ˈstate-sponsored terrorism.ˈ

The Manhattan tower was built in the 1970s by the Pahlavi Foundation, a non-profit run by the then-shah of Iran. Federal court rulings concluded itˈs now owned by the Alavi Foundation since the 1979 revolution that ousted the shah.

The tower generated an estimated $228.2 million in rent payments between 1996 and 2008, court records show.

Manhattan federal prosecutors launched a civil forfeiture effort to take over the site in 2008. The court complaint alleged that the tower, mosques and other real estate were constituted or derived from proceeds traceable to violations of the law banning sensitive transactions with Iran.

US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest issued a Sept. 2013 ruling that approved the governmentˈs forfeiture action. But In March, she also ruled that families who had won US court judgments over alleged terrorist harm were entitled to take control of the properties. Thursdayˈs settlement gave the families priority.

Barring overturn on appeal, the settlement terms allow federal marshals to sell the properties. The government would recover legal and sales costs. The families would be compensated from the proceeds based on the varying amounts of uncompensated damages they were awarded in court judgments.