Comments on: New Jersey Man Arrested on ITAR Brokering Charges http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/498 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:43:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: mpc http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/498/comment-page-1#comment-22470 mpc Fri, 08 May 2009 14:53:28 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=498#comment-22470 I was at an SIA conference earlier this week. At this conference, PM/DDTC employees answered an audience question WRT brokering requirements by stating that 129.6(b)(1)(ii) means that prior approval must be obtained prior to undertaking a brokering activity in support of an FMS case. I don't have much confidence that anyone in the federal government, even DTC, knows what the regs are when it comes to brokering activities. I was at an SIA conference earlier this week. At this conference, PM/DDTC employees answered an audience question WRT brokering requirements by stating that 129.6(b)(1)(ii) means that prior approval must be obtained prior to undertaking a brokering activity in support of an FMS case.

I don’t have much confidence that anyone in the federal government, even DTC, knows what the regs are when it comes to brokering activities.

]]> By: Clif Burns http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/498/comment-page-1#comment-22454 Clif Burns Thu, 07 May 2009 17:52:32 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=498#comment-22454 The CI was clearly a broker under part 129 and unless he was employed by the USG and acting in an official capacity, he doesn't have an exemption from the registration requirement under 129.3(b). In essence the prosecution's case will be based on encouraging someone to break the same law under which they are prosecuting the defendant. The CI was clearly a broker under part 129 and unless he was employed by the USG and acting in an official capacity, he doesn’t have an exemption from the registration requirement under 129.3(b). In essence the prosecution’s case will be based on encouraging someone to break the same law under which they are prosecuting the defendant.

]]> By: ldm http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/498/comment-page-1#comment-22449 ldm Wed, 06 May 2009 22:22:52 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=498#comment-22449 Clif, this may be to your point but I don't want to put words in your mouth. It seems in this case the CI would be the broker? It's interesting to see this isn't a newby agent who might not understand the intricacis of the regulations. It is interesting that in the affidavit they mention brokering activities throughout but at the end throw in the exporting without a license. Not being an attorney and, thankfully, never in the position to learn first hand... Is the narrative of the export brokering enough to establish the other charges, or do the reasons behind those other charges have to be explicitly spelled out? Clif, this may be to your point but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. It seems in this case the CI would be the broker? It’s interesting to see this isn’t a newby agent who might not understand the intricacis of the regulations.

It is interesting that in the affidavit they mention brokering activities throughout but at the end throw in the exporting without a license. Not being an attorney and, thankfully, never in the position to learn first hand… Is the narrative of the export brokering enough to establish the other charges, or do the reasons behind those other charges have to be explicitly spelled out?

]]>