<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Failed Negotiations with Iranian Company Lead to Guilty Plea</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/308/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/308</link>
	<description>Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:29:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Deal</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/308#comment-8951</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Deal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/308#comment-8951</guid>
		<description>I'd like to see the indictment/information on this one.  I don't think mere negotiations, contingent upon getting a license for the actual transaction, would serve as a basis for a criminal violation.  In the this case, a criminal charge may have been supported by the fact that the defendant allegedly was supplying technology intended for use in Iran, in addition to negotiating the deal in a manner intended to either evade controls or facilitate that third country manufacture.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d like to see the indictment/information on this one.  I don&#8217;t think mere negotiations, contingent upon getting a license for the actual transaction, would serve as a basis for a criminal violation.  In the this case, a criminal charge may have been supported by the fact that the defendant allegedly was supplying technology intended for use in Iran, in addition to negotiating the deal in a manner intended to either evade controls or facilitate that third country manufacture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
