Comments on: Florida Man Charged With “Brokering” His Own Defense Exports

By: John

John — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:17:49 +0000

Is there a resource for guidance on what is and what is not a “defense service” under ITAR s 120.9 et seq.? there are a lot of potential borderline cases — where do you turn for guidance on whether you do or do not need a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA, under 120.22)?

By: Charles Liu

Charles Liu — Thu, 22 May 2008 01:57:56 +0000

This is while we let ex-KGB turned mob boss Victor Bout help us run guns into Iraq and Africa, out of Texas and Florida:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/sierraleone/bout.html

By: Jairo

Jairo — Sun, 18 May 2008 15:44:59 +0000

A couple of years ago we received a request from DDTC suggesting that we should have registered as brokers under 22CFR129 (We are Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders) in a very polite and scary letter. DDTC does not want or care to realize the difference between this and a Customs Broker under 19CFR111. Even 22CFR129 does not require FF to register. This is laughable but at the end is serious business. Small companies do not have the resources to hire expensive lawyers to defend against this kind of intimidation. What the Government is doing with this individual is the best example injustice. He should never have pleaded guilty. Sometimes I ask myself if this is the Land of Free.

By: Mike Deal

Mike Deal — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:38:45 +0000

I willing to bet real money that Justice will file a motion claiming that interpretation of the ITAR brokering provisions is a political question not subject to judicial review, i.e., the court is just a rubber stamp for the newly minted national export control coordinator and whatever post-facto interpretation Justice/DDTC fancies goes.

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:41:51 +0000

Even if it is non-U.S. ammunition, he still has to be acting as an agent for others. If Brooks bought the ammunition for his own account and resold it, he’s not a broker, just an exporter. This is true without regard to the origin of the ammunition. But if say he arranged a contract between a French ammunition company and Jamaica and got a commission, then he would be a broker. Nothing in the complaint suggests that he was acting on behalf of anyone other than himself. He was planning to sell the ammo himself directly to Jamaica, not arranging for someone else to sell it to them.

By: LDM

LDM — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:13:53 +0000

Is it possible that the ammunition is not of U.S. origin. In other words he was acting as a broker for a non-U.S. company? This may be what the first poster is suggesting.

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:19:11 +0000

Right, but brokering still requires that the broker is acting as an agent for a third party. And it is quite clear that it doesn’t matter whether the articles are US-origin or not; the jurisdictional hook is the broker who must be a U.S. Person, in the U.S. or “otherwise subject to U.S. jurisdiction.”

By: Kndl

Kndl — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:00:59 +0000

DDTC has informed my company that the acquisition of non-US defense articles in one country for sale in another country constitutes brokering activities. Conceptually, DDTC wants to have control over all US persons who engage in any transaction involving defense articles, whether or not the articles are of US origin or where they are located.