Archive for January, 2014


Jan

31

Russian Export Defendant Slapped on Wrist, Told to Leave U.S.


Posted by at 5:35 pm on January 31, 2014
Category: Arms ExportCriminal Penalties

By  Sgt. Scott M. Biscuiti [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ADefense.gov_photo_essay_090329-M-7747B-015.jpgBack in November, this blog reported on the indictment of a Russian citizen, Roman Kvinikadze, on charges that he attempted to export military thermal imaging sights without the required State Department license. As we noted then, the indictment created a bit of a diplomatic row between the United States and Russia, with Russia claiming that federal agents knowingly provoked Kvinikadze to violate the law and then lured him into the United States to arrest him. The Russian pique was directed at statements by the undercover U.S. agent to Kvinikadze that the sights required an export license but that if the license was unavailable there were other ways he could ship the sights to Kvinikadze. Although these facts might not support the narrowly construed entrapment defense, they can easily been seen as grounds for a diplomatic contretemps.

Well, the Russian irritation seems to have been heard loud and clear in Washington. Last week, a federal judge sentenced Kvinikadze, who had entered a guilty plea, to time served and a $7500 fine. He also ordered Kvinikadze to leave the United States, something that Kvinikadze was no doubt happy to do with or without a judicial order requiring him to do so. Kvinikadze had been in custody for 147 days so time served was significantly less than would have been required under federal sentencing guidelines which would have specified a minimum sentence of 33 to 41 months. News reports stated that the prosecutor requested the reduced sentence, and the judge justified it by stating that “Kvinikadze may not have fully appreciated the potential damage to relations between the U.S. and Russia if the sights had fallen into wrong hands.”

When I reviewed the docket to see if I could find anything else to justify this lenient sentence, I discovered that the Presentence Report, the Presentence Report Recommendation and an Addendum to the Presentence Report were all sealed and unavailable for review. Although there are a number of reasons that this could be the case, including the possibility of the discussion of some extremely private matters involving Kvinikadze, my money is that these were sealed because they have a discussion of the diplomatic ramifications of the sentence, something that prosecutors and courts are loathe to reveal. So when Kvinikadze is safely back in Russia, I’m going to bet he sends an effusive thank you note to his BFF Vladimir Putin.

Permalink Comments Off on Russian Export Defendant Slapped on Wrist, Told to Leave U.S.

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

29

OFAC Likely Meets Tough Sell on Iran Sanctions Road Show to the Middle East


Posted by at 6:14 pm on January 29, 2014
Category: Economic SanctionsIran SanctionsOFACSanctions

By Jean-Pierre Bazard Jpbazard (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ALe_navire_cargo_%E2%80%98%E2%80%99Iran_Sadr%E2%80%98%E2%80%99_(6).jpg

The Treasury Department announced on Monday that Under Secretary David Cohen is traveling to Turkey and the UAE this week to discuss the implementation of the U.S. sanctions relief under the Iranian nuclear pact.  As important as the trip itself, the message to be delivered, according to the Treasury Department, will include a focus on “the limited and temporary sanctions relief provided under the [pact] and continued enforcement of existing international economic sanctions against Iran.”

Both Turkey and the UAE are critical to Iran’s foreign trade.  Turkey is Iran’s third-largest export and import partner, and Iran imports more from the UAE than anywhere else, accounting for approximately a third of Iran’s total imports.  Almost six years ago, we reported on Iran’s reliance on trade with the UAE and, respectively, the UAE’s apparent complicity to trade with Iran in ways that would be in violation of U.S. law.  In fact, Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid al-Maktoum, crown prince of Dubai and prime minister of the UAE, told the BBC earlier this month, that international sanctions against Iran should be lifted.  He added that “Iran is our neighbor and we don’t want any problem” and, if international sanctions are lifted, “everybody will benefit.”  Not exactly on point with U.S. sanctions policy.

As the Treasury Department appropriately describes, the U.S. sanctions relief under the nuclear pact is “limited” and is rather more of a U.S. pledge that sanctions will not be imposed against non-U.S. persons engaging in certain activities vis-à-vis Iran.  The emphasis to Turkey and the UAE, therefore, must be that U.S. sanctions are, in effect, at status quo in order to stem off any impression in the Middle East that U.S. sanctions against Iran are softening.

The challenge remains as it always has been: getting Turkish, UAE and other Middle Eastern buy-in to U.S. sanctions policy against Iran.  While Under Secretary Cohen may present some carrots on his trip, the stick to wield was announced along with his trip in highlighting “continued enforcement of existing international sanctions.”  The message, of course, would be that U.S. sanctions enforcement of Iran-related activities taking place in Turkey and the UAE will be bad for business in both countries.

Our advice to exporters remains the same as it was almost six years ago: know your customers especially well in Turkey and the UAE to ensure as best as possible that your business does not involve dealings with Iran.

Permalink Comments Off on OFAC Likely Meets Tough Sell on Iran Sanctions Road Show to the Middle East

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

28

Fun BIS Fact: Companies May Actually Know What They Don’t Know


Posted by at 3:41 pm on January 28, 2014
Category: BISCriminal Penalties

Amplifier Research HQ Street View from Google http://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html [By Permission]
ABOVE: Amplifier Research HQ


There seems to be a recent plague of rogue export control managers with a penchant for forging licenses, making up authorizations, fudging exemptions and exceptions and engaging in other nefarious practices in order to avoid having to do any actual work while on the job they are being paid for. First it was LeAnne Lesmeister who specialized in photoshopping fake export licenses. Now we have Timothy Gormley at Amplifier Research Corporation who among other things falsified paperwork to conceal correct export classifications, listed fake license numbers on export documentation, authorized exports before license applications were granted and lied to other employees at the company about the existence of required export licenses.

The BIS settlement documents assert that Amplifier Research never conducted any compliance audits during the time that Gormley was running the export show. BIS imposed a $500,000 suspended fine on Amplifier Research to settle the violations and required the company to conduct a complete export compliance audit. A federal judge awarded Gormley a 42-month vacation in a federal correctional facility.

This all seems pretty routine until you get to the last count against the Company in which BIS charges Amplifier Research with “acting with knowledge” of the illegal exports at issue. The Export Administration Regulations define knowledge as follows:

Knowledge of a circumstance (the term may be a variant, such as “know,” “reason to know,” or “reason to believe”) includes not only positive knowledge that the circumstance exists or is substantially certain to occur, but also an awareness of a high probability of its existence or future occurrence. Such awareness is inferred from evidence of the conscious disregard of facts known to a person and is also inferred from a person’s willful avoidance of facts.

Neither this definition of knowledge, nor section 764.2 of the EAR, addresses when a company knows something. Additionally, neither addresses the issue as to whether the knowledge of each and every employee can be imputed to the company for purposes of “acting with knowledge” violations under section 764.2. Certainly, Gormley can be said to have acted with knowledge, but should the company also be said to have acted with knowledge unless senior management had “knowledge” as defined above of Gormley’s actions? Certainly those standards of knowledge would not be met simply because the company failed to conduct a compliance audit on Gormley and the export program. Rather, it seems to me, there would need to some red flags that senior management ignored and there is no evidence or assertion by BIS that there were any such ignored red flags.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

24

DTrade Vulnerability Could Allow Foreign Spies to Hack Your Network


Posted by at 2:25 pm on January 24, 2014
Category: DDTC

Chinese Army training with computers [Fair Use]Back in December, IBM issued a security alert relating to the IBM Forms Viewer 8.0.1 which must be used as part of filing licenses through DTrade. The alert says this:

A XFDL form can be created in such a way that could cause a stack buffer overflow to occur in the IBM Forms Viewer that could allow remote code execution to occur if the form is loaded.

That, of course, is geekspeak meaning that running DTrade on your network can allow a hacker to take over your system remotely and download whatever strikes his or her fancy, including ITAR-controlled technical data.

There is a fix. The security bulletin says to download IBM Forms Viewer 8.0.1.1. Sadly you can’t download that version without a Support Agreement with IBM. I know. I tried. And the only version available on DDTC’s site, even though the vulnerability is almost two months old, is version 8.0.1.

Query: since using DTrade exposes your system to data theft by foreign nationals, does everyone using DTrade have to file a voluntary disclosure with DDTC admitting that their ITAR-controlled technical data is, by virtue of the DTrade vulnerability, accessible to foreign nationals?

Seriously, DDTC needs to either make the new version available immediately or enable users to uninstall DTrade and use an alternate method for filing license applications. (Oh, and remember that DDTC selected the IBM XFDL format over PDF because it was, allegedly, more secure.)

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

23

We Get Mail


Posted by at 12:54 pm on January 23, 2014
Category: Iran Sanctions

Somebody was reading Export Law Blog but was so busy looking for an email address to spam that they forgot to, you know, read the blog and see that I might have some difficulty in using her services to ship things through the port of Bandar Abbas in Iran.  Or perhaps she just has a very wry sense of humor:

And thank you, “Ms. Pari,” for the kind offer of your services. I’m glad you were glad to take the opportunity to contact me. So sorry it didn’t work out.

Permalink Comments Off on We Get Mail

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)