FirstAlerts

Chichester Man Charged with Operating Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business

Ramzi Al-Shawafi, 47, faces charges of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business; the case is pending and he is presumed innocent.

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 4, 2026, 11:26 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 4, 2026, 11:52 a.m. ET
Ramzi Al-Shawafi, 47, of Chichester, has been with operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The charge was reported by the Concord Monitor. The government alleges that Al-Shawafi operated a hawala, an unlicensed money transmitting business, transferring over $25 million between Yemen and the U.S. from 2022 to 2026. The charge carries a statutory maximum of up to five years in prison, up to three years of supervised release, and a potential $250,000 fine. is handling the case. As this matter is only at the charging stage, it has not been decided in court. Al-Shawafi is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 4, 2026, 11:26 a.m. ETFirst report

    Chichester Man Charged with Operating Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business

    Ramzi Al-Shawafi, 47, of Chichester, has been charged with operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, according to the Concord Monitor. The charge was reported by the Concord Monitor on September 4, 2026. The matter is at the charging stage and has not been resolved.

    The government alleges that Al-Shawafi operated a hawala, an informal money transfer system, transferring over $25 million between Yemen and the U.S. from 2022 to 2026. The case is being handled by U.S. Attorney Erin Creegan.

    Al-Shawafi faces up to five years in prison, up to three years of supervised release, and a potential $250,000 fine. He is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 14 Sept 2026, 15:52current

    First published.

  2. Version 14 Sept 2026, 15:26current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.