Jan

5

The Name Game Chinese Style


Posted by at 8:16 pm on January 5, 2010
Category: ChinaOFACSanctions

Tiananmen SquareAn interesting story in today’s Wall Street Journal details instances in which a number of U.S. companies imported items from China Precision Machinery Import Export Corporation despite the fact that CPMIEC is on the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s Specially Designated Nationals List. The reason for this, asserts the story, is that Chinese companies on the SDN list “have proved adept at creating aliases or subsidiary shell companies to mask their ownership.”

Consider this example cited in the article:

John Iliff, general manager of American Forge & Foundry, says the single shipment of oil-drainage tanks it received in 2006 from the CPMIEC unit set off no alarms. “Trading in illegal goods certainly never crossed our minds,” he says.

The shipment came from China JMM Import & Export Shanghai Pudong Corp., which didn’t appear on any sanctions list until Thursday. Records indicate the company shares an address and phone number with a CPMIEC unit that was previously banned: CPMIEC Shanghai Pudong Corp. The Treasury determined that the two companies are affiliated.

That designation of JMM Import & Export occurred just a few days ago on December 31, 2009, almost three years after the cited shipment. But there were several red flags that American companies might have picked up on before OFAC’s belated designation of the CPMIEC affiliate. Not only is there a similarity in the names of the two companies, but they shared the same street address. Standard procedure should be not only to check names on the SDN list but addresses as well.

But the larger issue here is that the obvious ease with which Chinese companies can morph into new entities effectively renders company-based sanctions almost completely ineffective. It’s obviously as easy for Chinese companies to rename themselves as it is for underage Chinese gymnasts to acquire new, earlier and eligible birth dates on official documents. I’m not so sure what the solution is here but it doesn’t appear to be imposing penalties or additional compliance obligations on U.S. companies that deal with affiliates of companies on the SDN list.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

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


5 Comments:


Clif,

Let’s be fair. It isn’t just Chinese companies that easily create new entities and change names. This happens frequently in the U.S. as well. Admittedly, this is generally a sign of playing “fast and loose” with the rules, but it does happen here, to, and elsewhere in the world

Regards,

Su

Comment by Su Ross on January 5th, 2010 @ 8:46 pm

Yes, it is possible to change names in other countries, including the U.S., but I suspect that, given that China has objected to the US’s proliferation designations of Chinese companies, the government may make such ruses easier than in many other countries.

Comment by Clif Burns on January 6th, 2010 @ 12:48 am

I understand the difficulty of this kind of screening, as I had a similar experience of screening failure when I worked in US computer company. There are some Japanese individuals who are listed on US Denied Persons or Debarred list. The call center happened to receive a call from one of these restricted individuals in Japan and provided verbal technical service. The call center of this US company had the capability to check such restricted entities by using the sophisticated online database, however the name of the caller is always recognized in Kanji (Chinese character).
The US government doesn’t provide the names of restricted entities in local languages, but provides them only in the Roman alphabet. Japanese names expressed in the Roman alphabet often lead to so many types of Kanji names, so it is really difficult to exactly find the entity with only the name in the Roman alphabet.

Comment by Tatsuya Kanemitsu on January 6th, 2010 @ 1:51 am

The Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line (IRISL) vessels, which are blocked on the SDN List under the weapons of mass destruction sanctions, change names faster than OFAC can keep up. While the International Maritime Organization’s numbers for the vessels seem to remain constant, those numbers are not on funds transfer documents, making the banks’ tasks more than formidable.

Comment by ex-OFAC on January 8th, 2010 @ 9:54 am

@ex-OFAC: You’re exactly right about IRISL changing names of the vessels. We blogged on that here.

Comment by Clif Burns on January 8th, 2010 @ 10:58 am