Nov

23

Are Virtual Office Addresses a New Red Flag?


Posted by at 10:50 pm on November 23, 2010
Category: BIS

Anvik HQThe Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) recently imposed a temporary denial order (“TDO”) on Singapore-based Anvik Technologies, and its owner Babak Jafarpour. The TDO is based on evidence that BIS alleges that it has demonstrating that Anvik and Jafarpour exported items from the United States to Iran by transshipment through third countries.

What’s interesting here is that the transshipment points were “virtual offices” that Anvik maintained in the United States, Hong Kong and Malaysia. Virtual offices are arrangements with companies that provide an address, a telephone number, answering services and other office services to individuals and companies that don’t have actual physical space at the location and may not ever be actually present in that office.

In one of the transactions described in the TDO an order was placed by Anvik with a U.S. company to ship items to Anvik’s virtual office located at 155 North Wacker Drive, 42nd Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60606. Anvik then instructed the personnel at the Chicago location to ship the items to Anvik’s virtual office in Kuala Lumpur. Anvik instructed the Malaysia virtual office to ship the items to Iran.

Two things are worth noting here. First, should shippers and exporters consider a request to ship items to a virtual office a red flag that the items may be diverted to an impermissible location or party? If you search for “155 North Wacker Drive, 42nd Floor” in Google, this is the first returned result:

search result

So, it wouldn’t take a rocket scientist or back-breaking due diligence to discover that Anvik was using a virtual office and not a real one. This should trigger a further investigation by a shipper as to the identity of Anvik and why it was shipping merchandise to a virtual office in a Chicago high-rise.

Second, the Chicago address is soon going to be on the BIS Denied Parties list. And what is the first red flag on BIS’s list of Red Flags?

The customer or its address is similar to one of the parties found on the Commerce Department’s [BIS’s] list of denied persons.

As a result, other “tenants” at the same North Wacker Drive address may start to encounter difficulties in having packages shipped to that address as shippers and exporters encounter that red flag.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

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


2 Comments:


I would think that from a red-flag perspective, wouldn’t there be a difference between the virtual office being a headquarters address and being a shipping address? Lots of companies use virtual offices to create a presence in a market without the expense of rent, etc.

It would seem that a legitimate company would be able to “clear” the red flag pretty easily, if it’s just an expense thing. I don’t know of any reason why the virtual office would be a legitimate trans-shipment address, though.

What do you think?

Comment by Howard on November 24th, 2010 @ 3:55 pm

This is just another example of how idiots with no real world experience view the real world. What they should be asking themselves is where the heck is their statutory authority for imposing a TDO. There is no statutory authority in IEEPA (50 USC 1705) for TDOs, and the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC 558, provides that no agency may impose a sanction without statutory authority. Of course, since the EAA expired, there is no statutory authority for BIS, so maybe they just figure that since they are an imaginary agency that they can impose sanctions under imaginery authority.

Comment by Mike Deal on November 24th, 2010 @ 10:28 pm