Archive for September, 2010


Sep

22

New Details Emerge in Ardebili Sting


Posted by at 9:17 pm on September 22, 2010
Category: Criminal PenaltiesIran Sanctions

Amir Ardebili
ABOVE: Amir Ardebili captured on
surveillance video in Tbilisi, Georgia


An eight-part series has been running this week in the Philadelphia Inquirer on the U.S. sting operation conducted against Iranian national Amir Ardebili, which this blog first reported on here. Needless to say, much of the series so far contains a number of interesting details not previously reported on the sting operation and presumably will contain even more fascinating details on the prosecution and plea bargain in the upcoming installments. So far, the series has glossed over the question of the legality of the U.S. operation under international law and why the U.S. chose to engage in such questionable tactics to spear such a small fish as Ardebili.

One interesting detail in the report relates how some grandstanding by a political appointee in the Justice Department threatened the investigators’ plan to whisk Ardebili back to the United States and throw him into a black hole while they searched his laptop, continued the investigation, and waited for months of solitary confinement to soften Ardebili up to the idea of a guilty plea. The political appointee wanted to announce the apprehension of Ardebili at a press conference as soon as Ardebili was in cuffs, which would, of course, lead to inconvenient questions about where Ardebili was. The investigators headed off this plan by having a judge in the United States put all the information on the operation and planned arrest under seal.

The series also has new video of what took place in the hotel room in Tbilsi where Ardebili was apprehended. I was particularly amused by the preposterous faux-Russian accent put on by a Customs investigator called “Darius.” It sounded like “Darius” had boned up on this over-the-top accent by listening to Boris and Natasha in old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons. In the videos, Ardebili seems at best naive as the investigators ask questions that more sophisticated persons would clearly see as unrelated to the business transaction at hand and simply designed to set him up. Frankly the questioning reminded me of the legendary SNL sketch where a badly wired Linda Tripp with a flower mike tried to extract information from Monica Lewinsky at the Pentagon City Ritz Carlton.

The series continues on Thursday and Friday. Read the whole thing.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

21

Brit and Oz Arms Export Treaties Head To Senate Floor


Posted by at 8:49 pm on September 21, 2010
Category: Arms Export

FlagsThe Senate Foreign Relations Committee this afternoon approved, by a bipartisan vote, the U.K. and Australia defense trade cooperation treaties signed by President Bush in 2007 and which have been languishing in front of the Senate committee ever since. The treaties would eliminate export license requirements for certain U.S. exports to certain end users in Britain and Australia.

The treaties now head to the Senate floor, where they will require a 2/3 vote of consent by the Senate before the President can ratify the two treaties. Although many treaties signed by a U.S. president have died in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, only 21 treaties that have made it to the floor of the Senate have been rejected, the last being the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1999. Given the hyper-partisan atmosphere in the Senate these days, it wouldn’t surprise me if these two treaties with two of our most important defense allies might be numbers 22 and 23 and fail to obtain the 67 votes required. I hope I’m wrong.

Permalink Comments Off on Brit and Oz Arms Export Treaties Head To Senate Floor

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

16

Omani Sultan Pays Hiker’s Ransom


Posted by at 9:05 pm on September 16, 2010
Category: Iran Sanctions

Sultan Qaboos
ABOVE: Sultan Qaboos

According to a story appearing in London broadsheet The Daily Telegraph, the bill for the $500,000 ransom paid to Iran to enable release of imprisoned hiker Sarah Shourd was footed by Oman’s Sultan Qaboos. The question of who paid is interesting because U.S. sanctions would forbid U.S. persons from paying the ransom to the Iranian government.

State Department Philip Crowley, however, was somewhat cagey in his discussion of the ransom payment and U.S. sanctions during Wednesday’s daily press briefing:

QUESTION: Since you’ve gotten brought up to speed from the Omanis on the arrangements that were made but want to leave it to them to describe, can you at least assure us that U.S. sanctions weren’t violated in whatever the arrangements were?

MR. CROWLEY: I have nothing to suggest that there were any violations.

But in today’s press briefing Crowley side-stepped an effort to get him to confirm that Sultan Qaboos paid the ransom.

In the context of payment of ransoms to Somalia pirates, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) made clear that U.S. economic sanctions override any interest in protecting the safety and liberty of kidnapped Americans being held for ransom. This is not to say that OFAC might not license such payments, although if it did it certainly wouldn’t want that to be known. This might explain Crowley’s caginess about describing what happened. On the other hand, it is also possible that Sultan Qaboos made the payments but has his own reasons for not admitting that publicly.

Permalink Comments Off on Omani Sultan Pays Hiker’s Ransom

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

15

Do U Feel Like 1 of the Kool Kidz Yet?


Posted by at 8:54 pm on September 15, 2010
Category: Criminal Penalties

Light Interference FilterFace it, we export folks have always felt that we weren’t part of cool crowd. We work with agencies that absolutely no one else has ever heard of. Our shop talk is littered with more acronyms than your kid’s bowl of Alpha-Bits cereal. We have to advise people to comply with regulations that regularly prompt those people to say “Tell me you’re joking.”

So when an export case shows up on the über-Kool website The Smoking Gun, well, you can stand up tall, puff your chest up, and sneer at people who previously snickered at your pocket copy of the USML. We have arrived. Next thing you know, Gawker will be reporting on sightings of DDTC licensing officers at hot spots on U Street and Wonkette will put ExportLawBlog on its blogroll.

The case at issue involves a former Marine accused of selling export controlled defense items on eBay, specifically some light interference filters, night-vision parts that he claimed to have found in a dumpster at Camp Pendleton. The marine said that, although he knew that night-vision goggle themselves were export-controlled, he was unaware that these restriction also applied to night-vision parts such as light interference filters. Whether or not the Marine’s claim is true, it is undeniable that our current export system criminalizes activities that aren’t widely understood to be criminal or even illegal. Sure, everyone knows that selling dope is illegal but how many people would even imagine that selling a piece of glass on eBay to a guy in Britain might be against the law?

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

14

OFAC Issues New Iraq Regulations


Posted by at 11:14 pm on September 14, 2010
Category: OFAC

BaghdadOn Monday, the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) repealed the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, formerly found at 31 C.F.R. § 575.101 et seq. and replaced them the Iraq Stabilization and Insurgency Sanctions Regulations which will be found at 31 C.F.R. § 576.101 et seq. This, among other things, formally ends the import and export restrictions found in the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, although these had been substantially ameliorated by four general licenses issued by OFAC on May 8, 2003. Imports of Iraqi cultural property into the United States would remain prohibited under the provisions

The stabilization regulations now put in place follow the model of other targeted sanctions programs designed to prohibit transactions by U.S. persons with individuals and entities deemed a threat to Iraqi stability and to block the assets of such individuals. Interestingly, section 576.412 of the new regulations codifies guidance that OFAC has previously set forth only in informal documents issued by OFAC on its website. The section reads:

A person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 576.201(a) has an interest in all property and interests in property of an entity in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. The property and interests in property of such an entity, therefore, are blocked, and such an entity is a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 576.201(a), regardless of whether the entity itself is listed in the Annex to Executive Order 13315, as amended, or designated pursuant to § 576.201(a)(2) or (3).

As this blog has noted before, to the extent that the regulation deals with indirect ownership interests, it can be difficult to determine whether the rule applies or not. Suppose that the entity in question is 51 percent owned by a company that is, in turn, 51 percent owned by an SDN. The SDN only owns a 25.5 percent interest indirectly in the company, although the SDN may well have effective control of that entity. Or maybe OFAC means that in this case the SDN has a 51 percent interest because it controls the company with a 51 percent interest.

On the other side of this conundrum, consider this example: suppose the company in question has two shareholders, one of which has a 40 percent interest. Suppose further that an SDN has a 100 percent interest in the 40 percent shareholder and a 40 percent interest in the 60 percent shareholder. In that situation the SDN has a 64 percent indirect interest in company in question and arguably requires blocking the company in question even though the SDN wouldn’t have control over that company.

Because of these ambiguities OFAC really has an obligation to clarify the interpretation of the 50 percent rule, particularly now that it is part of the agency’s printed regulations. Don’t hold your breath.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)