Mar

28

AEY Case Involves Violations of DDTC’s Brokering Rules


Posted by at 4:00 pm on March 28, 2008
Category: Arms ExportPart 129

New York TimesOf course, you didn’t expect that this blog would let a story about an arms company run by a 22-year-old kid and a 25-year-old “professional masseur” escape without comment, did you? The story, which the New York Times broke on Thursday, revealed how AEY, Inc., the company run by 22-year-old Efraim Diveroli and his massage therapist friend, was paid hundreds of millions of dollars by the United States Government to supply sub-standard ammunition to Afghan forces. Some of the ammo supplied by AEY is alleged to have been up to 40-years-old, i.e., manufactured before the AEY executives were even born.

There is at least one export law angle to the story. It arises from the discovery that some of the ammunition delivered by AEY had been procured from China. The Times story noted:

Tens of millions of the rifle and machine-gun cartridges were manufactured in China, making their procurement a possible violation of American law.

I’d say that’s more than a “possible” violation. When AEY arranged the export of ammunition from China to Afghanistan it would have been acting as a broker under Part 129 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (the “ITAR”). Section 129.5 of the ITAR notes that “no brokering proposals involving any country referred to in § 126.1,” e.g. China, “may be carried out by any person without first obtaining the written approval of” the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. And we know that AEY would not have had such written approval because section 126.1 says that it is the policy of DDTC to deny licenses involving China.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


2 Comments:


Almost a year ago, my institution was asked to finance (through a letter of credit) the purchase of 2 million rounds of 7.62 ComBloc (not, I hasten to add AEY.) When asked about the licensing for the purchase, they replied that since the ammunition was over 30 yrs old, it qualified as a ‘relic’ and was being purchased as a ‘collectible’.

After laughing so hard I spit coffee from my nose, we declined the transaction…

Comment by Scott K. on March 31st, 2008 @ 8:35 am

Even with a DDTC license, the export of ammunition from Albania to Aghanistan by a U.S. person would violate 31 CFR 505.10 without a specific OFAC license.

On a personal note, Chinese AK rounds of that era were always poor quality even when fresh. The only fit punishment for these guys is for them to be dropped into Taliban territory with nothing but their own ammo and Pakistani knock-off AKs.

Comment by Mike Deal on March 31st, 2008 @ 11:07 am