Archive for June, 2009


Jun

16

Seventh Circuit Reverses Export Conviction In Rifle Scope Case


Posted by at 5:12 pm on June 16, 2009
Category: Criminal PenaltiesDDTC

Ouch!Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed* a federal district court conviction of Doli Syarief Pulungan for attempted unlicensed exports of rifles copes to Indonesia in violation of the Arms Export Control Act. I previously reported on Mr. Pulungan’s case here and here.

The decision can only be characterized as a complete smack-down of the theory, advanced in most recent prosecutions by the DOJ and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”), the State Department’s export licensing agency, that decisions that a particular defense item falls within a particularl USML category are unreviewable under section 2778(h) of the Arms Export Control Act. The Seventh Circuit’s decision also provides an interesting elucidation of how the “willfulness” requirement for an AECA prosecution and conviction should be construed.

In the Pulungan case, in order to prove that the Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T rifle scope was listed on the United States Munitions List (“USML”), the prosecution introduced the testimony of Anthony Dearth, a Division Chief at DDTC. According to the appeals court, Mr. Dearth:

testified that the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls has concluded that the Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T is “manufactured to military specifications” but he would not say what those specifications are or why the Directorate believes that the Mark 4 CQ/T is “manufactured to” them. The decision itself was not produced.

The prosecution then claimed that this determination was not reviewable under section 2778(h) and asked for, and received from the district court, a jury instruction, stating that the rifle scope was, as a matter of law, a USML item and taking that question out of the jury’s hands.

The court disagreed, adopting the interpretation of section 2778(h) that this blog has advanced — namely that the decision of DDTC to put a category of items on the USML is non-reviewable but that the decision as to whether a particular item falls within a USML category is not shielded from judicial review:

Section 2778(h) provides: “The designation by the President (or by an official to whom the President’s functions . . . have been duly delegated), in regulations issued under this section, of items as defense articles or defense services for purposes of this section shall not be subject to judicial review.” (Emphasis added.) So if 22 C.F.R. §121.1 Category 1(f) read “any Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T riflescope”, that designation would be incontestable (even though made by the Directorate rather than the President), and the question for the jury would be whether the item that Pulungan tried to export was indeed a Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T riflescope.

And now for the smack-down and language which can only be characterized as unusually harsh for an appellate opinion:

A designation by an unnamed official, using unspecified criteria, that is put in a desk drawer, taken out only for use at a criminal trial, and immune from any evaluation by the judiciary, is the sort of tactic usually associated with totalitarian régimes. Government must operate through public laws and regulations.

On the willfulness issue, the Seventh Circuit made clear that because DDTC had not made a public determination that the rifle scope was a USML item, it would be difficult to prove that the defendant here knew that it was a USML item and required a license. The court dismissed all of the evidence that the prosecution had proffered as proof of willfulness and criminal intent.

First, the prosecution introduced evidence that Pulungan had printouts of web pages from sellers of the Leupold rifle scope that stated that the rifle scope could not be exported outside the United States. The Court noted that the web pages didn’t say why the items couldn’t be exported. Territorial restrictions imposed on distributors could be one reason. That the pages said that the items couldn’t be exported even with a license further suggests that these restrictions may have been unrelated to U.S. export laws. And the court noted that other web sites advertised these rifle scopes without any mention of export restrictions.

The prosecution also pointed to Pulungan’s efforts to conceal the actual destination of the rifles by claiming that they were going to Saudi Arabia rather than Indonesia and to an email from Pulungan indicating a belief that exports of defense articles to Indonesia violated a U.S. arms embargo. The concealment of the destination and the emails were based on his mistaken belief that Indonesia was subject to a U.S. arms embargo at the time of the proposed exports. The court held that an intent to break a non-existent arms embargo is not sufficient proof of an intent to break the specific licensing requirements of the AECA.

As always, it is always difficult to parse the exact amount of intent and knowledge that is required to prove a criminal export violation. One the one hand, it seems clear that defendants need not know the name of the law or the section numbers of the provisions violated. On the other hand, it’s not enough for the defendant to have a mistaken belief that his conduct violates the law in a manner different from the charges brought by the government. Where to draw the line between those two extremes is a challenge and the Seventh Circuit’s decision doesn’t provide much guidance in this regard.

The court’s ruling, however, on the scope of section 2778(h) is clear and well-reasoned and is likely to have influence on other courts considering the matter. DOJ and DDTC would be well advised to stop trying to hide classification decisions behind a non-existent and improper shield of non-reviewability.


*Free FindLaw subscription required. I’ll update the link when the slip opinion appears on the Seventh Circuit website.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

12

BIS Claims Higher Penalties Haven’t Slowed Voluntary Disclosures


Posted by at 12:37 pm on June 12, 2009
Category: BIS

BISAccording to an article (subscription required) in today’s Inside U.S. Trade, an official of the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) told an agency advisory committee that the significant increases in penalties enacted by Congress in 2006 for export violations has not deterred exporters from filing voluntary self disclosures of export violations. Thomas Madigan, the director of BIS’s Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”) told the Rules and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (“RPTAC”) that exporters filed VSDs at roughly the same rate as last year. He based this assertion on the 167 VSDs filed this year, which is close to the 175 that would be expected at this time in the fiscal year based on the 200 VSDs that were filed during the last fiscal year. (BIS’s fiscal year ends on September 30).

Madigan also gave a partial breakdown for the disposition of the VSDs filed in 2009. Of the 167 filed, four were closed with no action and 14 with warning letters. The bad news, then, is that companies filing a VSD, can pretty much expect a fine. The good news is that none of the 167 VSDs was referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

11

State Nominee Favors Return of Satellite Issues to Commerce


Posted by at 6:20 pm on June 11, 2009
Category: DDTC

Ellen O. Tauscher
ABOVE: Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher

In connection with the Senate confirmation hearing for Ellen Tauscher on Tuesday morning, Senator Lugar, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, released a pre-hearing questionnaire completed by the proposed nominee. Representative Tauscher has been nominated by President Obama to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. In that position, she will be responsible, among other things, for the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) which licenses arms exports from the United States.

Interestingly very few of Senator Lugar’s questions in the prehearing questionnaire were directed at export control. Most revolved around the proposed nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and the proliferation concerns surrounding North Korea’s nuclear program.

However, the questions on export control revealed that the nominee appears to favor transferring jurisdiction over certain satellites and their components back to the Department of Commerce:

I support export control reform in general and would consider supporting the transfer of commercial communications satellites to the Department of Commerce provided that the transfer is consistent with our foreign policy and national security objectives. I would note that unless Congress determines otherwise, defense services related to integration and launch that might be required for exports of U.S. commercial communications satellites would continue to be licensed by the Department of State, as launch vehicles are controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

She acknowledged that this would require Congressional authorization as jurisdiction over satellites was transferred from Commerce to State by legislation enacted by Congress in 1998 by section 1513 of the 1999 Defense Authorization Act.

Although Representative Tauscher is widely thought to be sensitive to the concerns of defense exporters, she dismissed a question relating whether U.S. export controls “unduly hampered” U.S. industry:

In the past, U.S. industry had some valid concerns regarding their competitiveness in a global market. In 2006, the average space-related export authorization took 76 days from submission to the Department of State to issuance of the authorization approval. In 2008, such approvals were averaging 23 days.

It’s not at all clear why she limited her answer to space-related export authorizations, because the question was broader than that industry. And while the export community is glad to see processing times for license applications diminish, licensing delays are not the only concerns that the export community has, particularly given the perception that many items that are licensed are widely available on the world market and shouldn’t be subjected to any delays for licensing, no matter how short.

Permalink Comments Off on State Nominee Favors Return of Satellite Issues to Commerce

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

10

OFAC Action Keeps Sudan’s Embassy From Having Its Lights Shut Off


Posted by at 11:03 am on June 10, 2009
Category: Sudan

Sudanese Embassy in DC
ABOVE: Google Street View of
Protesters at Sudanese Embassy


The Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) published today in the Federal Register a Final Rule amending the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations. The amendment permits U.S. persons to provide services in the United States to Sudanese embassies and diplomatic missions.

Today, OFAC is amending section 538.515 of the SSR. Before its amendment, section 538.515 authorized all transactions ordinarily incident to the importation of any goods or services into the United States destined for official or personal use by the diplomatic missions of the Government of Sudan to the United States and to international organizations located in the United States, subject to certain conditions. OFAC is amending this section to expand the scope of the authorization to include the provision of goods or services in the United States to the diplomatic missions of the Government of Sudan to the United States and the United Nations, and to the employees of the diplomatic missions of the Government of Sudan to the United States and the United Nations, subject to certain conditions.

To fully understand the impact of this amendment, you need to read section 538.406 of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations which states that the prohibition on providing services to the Government of Sudan under section 538.206 applies when “such services are performed … [i]n the United States.” As a result, before today’s amendment, the provision of electricity, water, trash removal, Internet service to, or even selling office supplies to, the Sudanese Embassy in the United States would have required a license. How many people want to bet that these services were being provided without any licenses?

The lesson here is that although companies engaged in exports from the United States may have in place OFAC compliance procedures, those engaged in basically domestic businesses — like power companies and trash haulers — are often blissfully unaware that OFAC’s regulations may affect their domestic activities. In this instance, some vendor must have called the OFAC hotline and asked about selling things to the Sudanese Embassy, which led to an “oops” moment and a hasty amendment given that OFAC probably never intended to prevent the operation of the Sudanese Embassy on U.S. soil.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

9

If Wishes Were Horses, Then Borhani Would Ride


Posted by at 12:27 pm on June 9, 2009
Category: Iran Sanctions

Hamid Borhani
ABOVE: Hamid Borhani
Chairmain, Bank Saderat


Back in March, I reported that Ali Divandari, Chairman of Iran’s Bank Mellat, suggested that the privatization of that bank might lead to the end of U.S. sanctions against it. Now Divandari’s colleague, Hamid Borhani, Chariman of Iran’s Bank Saderat, another sanctioned bank, takes this wishful thinking one step further. In an interview this weekend with Dow Jones Newswires, Borhani said that once the privatization of Bank Saderat is complete, he’s coming to the United States to meet with OFAC. Not so fast, Kemosabe!

Even in the alternate universe where Borhani would be given a visa and where he would have unblocked funds to finance his trip, privatization won’t erase the reasons that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) sanctioned Bank Saderat. When OFAC announced its imposition of sanctions on Bank Saderat, it stated:

Bank Saderat … is used by the Government of Iran to transfer money to terrorist organizations, including Hizballah, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A notable example of this is a Hizballah-controlled organization that has received $50 million directly from Iran through Bank Saderat since 2001.

Privatization won’t erase that.

In the interview, Borhani said that he had written three letters to OFAC, none of which (not surprisingly) had been answered, and that this is why he wanted to travel to DC to parley with OFAC. Although Borhani didn’t reveal the contents of these letters in the interview, their contents can be easily determined through earlier news stories, such as this one:

US claims that Saderat funded radical groups were baseless, he said. The London-based Bank Saderat, which holds strategic investments, and the bank’s five branches in Lebanon had never transferred money to militant groups, as the US alleges.

He challenged Washington to reveal its documents and reply to the three letters he had sent to the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control along with documents, in one case exceeding 1,000 pages.

It wouldn’t be idle speculation for me to suggest that Borhani wants to see the documents relied on by OFAC to see who exactly dropped the dime on him. And sending 1,000 pages of documents, that was a nice touch. “Here, OFAC, look at this one. It’s another document on which there is no evidence that our London branch made that transfer. And, look, 999 more without such evidence.” Sending the Tehran phone book to OFAC would have been equally persuasive since none of its pages has any evidence of the transfer either.

I have to think that Borhani is not being serious here and that this is all just political theater for the benefit of the bank’s remaining customers.

Permalink Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)