Comments on: BIS Demands Pink Slips in Export Cases

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:04:32 +0000

Just to be clear, I agree that termination is an option and is probably the best option in many cases. On the other hand, it shouldn’t be the only option since there will be other cases where some lesser discipline is more appropriate.

By: RS

RS — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:44:44 +0000

I think termination is a valid risk management venue in cases where the company knowingly violates the EAR. One of the goals behing any type of a disclosure is to remedy the situation and prevent future violations. If the person knowingly violates the law, I don’t think that any type of a compliance manual will prevent him from doing so again. From the ECO and BIS perspective both will sllep better at night knowing that that person is no longer in a position to violate the law.

By: Mike Deal

Mike Deal — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:12:34 +0000

Long long ago, in a century far, far away, when I was an investigative team leader negotiating settlement agreements, we were under strict instructions NOT to demand, request or even suggest firing an employee. The only case where we took a position involved a CEO who obviously ignored instructions from the board and the principal family shareholders and who was trying to crater the company in order to make it a cheap takeover target. We would ask for evidence of a good faith attempt to institute a compliance program. Going after employees rather than senior executives is an rather transparent attempt by BIS to shift blame away from executives and place blame on ordinary employees who labor under pressure from their executives.

By: edolescent

edolescent — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:29:01 +0000

I gotta think that any Export Compliance Officer who had prior knowledge of a VSD-able violation is in the wrong line of work anyway. Perhaps a new career in sales (or BIS) would be more appropriate.