Author Archive


Aug

5

In Cyberspace You Could Be Anywhere


Posted by at 7:52 pm on August 5, 2008
Category: Iran Sanctions

Lost in CyberspaceApplication of country-based sanctions in cyberspace may pose some interesting problems and pitfalls as two cases recently reported by the Office of Foreign Assets Control illustrate:

One individual has agreed to a settlement totaling $840 for alleged violation of the prohibitions in the Iranian Transactions Regulations: OFAC alleged that in August 2006, the individual attempted to transfer funds to Me-Gold Kish, Co. in Iran in an apparent attempt to purchase electronic gold without an OFAC license. The individual did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC.

One individual has agreed to a settlement totaling $400 for alleged violation of the prohibitions in the Iranian Transactions Regulations: OFAC alleged that in June 2006, the individual attempted to purchase electronic gold from Me-Gold Kish Co. in Iran in apparent violation of §§ 560.201, 560.203 and 560.204 of the Iranian Transactions Regulations. The individual did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC.

Although it is possible that the two individuals here knew that they were dealing with a business located in Iran, it is also quite possible that they did not. Me-Gold is an on-line e-currency exchange business. Its current website claims that it is incorporated in Singapore. A company affiliate site states that Me-Gold has offices in Internet City, Dubai. Apparently, however, an earlier version of Me-Gold’s website stated that the company was located on Kish Island, Iran, although there’s no evidence that the fined individuals read that part of the website.

Even though the references to Iran have been scrubbed from Me-Gold’s site, this is a business that the owners could run from their computers in Iran using banks in, and a fake address in, Dubai. If a U.S. citizen does business with the company, he or she will be violating the Iran sanctions without having the faintest idea that, on the other side of his computer screen, are a bunch of people in Iran.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Aug

1

A Dubious Hook To Hang A Scienter Hat On


Posted by at 4:37 pm on August 1, 2008
Category: GeneralSanctions

Certified LetterDonald Wayne Hatch, the owner of Rigel Optics, an online distributor of Russian night vision equipment, entered into a plea agreement yesterday in connection with an indictment that alleged that he had illegally exported night vision equipment without a license. Hatch had been the subject of a 14-count indictment accusing him, inter alia, of violations of the Arms Export Control Act. Under the plea agreement, the government would drop 13 of the 14 counts in the indictment and Hatch would plead guilty to the one remaining count, which alleged that he made misrepresentations to the government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). At the same time, Rigel Optics entered into a plea agreement under which, in exchange for the government dropping the remaining counts in the indictment against Rigel, Rigel would plead guilty to one count of violation of the Arms Export Control Act.

The plea agreement for Hatch sets forth the factual predicate for his plea and describes two exports of generation 2 night vision rifle scopes by Hatch. At his instruction, a shipping employee entered the notation “NLR” — or “No License Required” — on the Shipper’s Export Declaration (“SED”) filed in connection with the exports, even though a license from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) was required.

To support a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the misrepresentation must have been with knowledge that it was false. The only factual predicate for knowledge by Hatch that the NLR notation was false is an allegation that the Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”) of the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) sent Hatch a letter:

In November, 2002, the Department of Commerce, BIS, OEE, sent a letter via U.S. certified mail to the attention of Mike Hatch c/o Rigel Optics at 1510 Ninth Street, DeWitt, Iowa. The letter advised that the night vision scopes sold by Rigel Optics were subject to the export licensing authority of the Department of State, Office of Defense and Trade Control (DTC). The letter further instructed Rigel Optics to cease exporting all night vision rifle scopes until the rifle scopes were properly classified by the Department of State, and any applicable export licenses had been received.

Oddly, there is no allegation that Hatch signed for or read the letter or even that the certified mail receipt was returned to OEE. Nor does the plea agreement allege that Hatch mislabeled the exported scopes — an oft-cited and usually reliable indicium of knowledge and criminal intent. Instead, all we have is a letter mailed to him saying that the rifle scopes required DDTC licenses. It’s not clear why no agents visited Mr. Hatch and directly informed him of the export requirement, a more common practice used to establish criminal intent by defendants for exports after the visit.

UPDATE: The Associated Press report on Hatch’s and Rigel’s plea agreements can’t seem to get things right, referring to the “Arms Exportation Control Act” and, better yet, the “U.S. Missions List.” Don’t reporters at the AP have access to Google?

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jul

31

Employee Hit With Significant Fine For Lying To BIS


Posted by at 8:33 pm on July 31, 2008
Category: BISIran Sanctions

ECGThe Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) recently announced settlement agreements with Massachusetts-based Select Engineering, Inc., and with David Rainville, its Vice-President of Administration. Select Engineering agreed to settle charges that it exported medical electrode sensor elements and stainless steel snap connectors used in medical devices to Iran without a license. The items were alleged to have been exported to Iran by means of a transshipment through the UAE. As part of its settlement with BIS, Select agreed to pay a civil penalty of $52,800.

David Rainville was accused by BIS of violating 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(g) by making false representations to the BIS agent during the course of BIS’s investigation of the unlicensed exports. Specifically, it was alleged that Rainville told the investigator that he had spoken with an international trade specialist at the Department of Commerce after the unlicensed export when, in fact, he spoke with the specialist before the export. The specialist was alleged to have told Rainville before the export that an OFAC license would be required. Rainville agreed to a civil penalty of $35,200. (Ouch!)

The perplexing thing about this case is trying to understand why Select went ahead and shipped the items without getting license. Licenses are routinely granted here and are easy to obtain from OFAC. The settlement documents indicate that, in 2001, Select had applied for and obtained an OFAC license to ship the same kind of medical equipment to Iran. And, apparently, an employee of the Department of Commerce had specifically advised the company of the license requirement prior to the export at issue. I suppose that the company didn’t want to wait for license, but they paid a heavy price for their haste and risked criminal prosecution as well.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jul

30

Army Captain Pleads Guilty To Arms Smuggling Charges


Posted by at 8:28 pm on July 30, 2008
Category: Criminal Penalties

EoTech 553 rifle sightLast week we reported that charges had been filed against a U.S. Army Captain for exporting EoTech holographic rifle sights to Japan without the required export license from the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. Of particular interest was that the government charged Captain Iishiba for violating the overseas smuggling provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 555, rather than under 22 U.S.C. § 2778(c), the criminal provisions of the Arms Export Control Act. We speculated that this might be because the government believed that 18 U.S.C. § 555 had a relaxed scienter requirement such that the government would only have to prove that the export was knowing but not that it was a knowing violation of law.

On Monday, a plea agreement between Iishiba and the government was entered with the court. Iishiba pleaded guilty to violation of the federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371 for conspiring to violate the overseas smuggling statute. The plea agreement, however, did not simply indicate that the exports were intentional, but also stated that Iishiba knew that the exports were in violation of law. Specifically, the plea agreement noted that Iishiba was aware that the exports were illegal because he “misidentified the contents of the packages on the export declaration forms.”

Given that the plea agreement seemingly acknowledges that 18 U.S.C. § 555 requires that the export be in knowing violation of law, the question remains as to why Iishiba wasn’t charged under the Arms Export Control Act as opposed to the anti-smuggling provision. The penalties under the two statutes appear to be the same, so that’s not the reason. Any ideas? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section.

Permalink Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jul

29

Who Needs Attorneys Anyway?


Posted by at 9:12 pm on July 29, 2008
Category: OFAC

Treasury DepartmentLast week the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued a document with the catchy title “Guidance on the Release of Limited Amounts of Blocked Funds for Payment of Legal Fees and Costs Incurred in Challenging the Blocking of U.S. Persons in Administrative or Civil Proceedings.” Although it did not purport to change current policy, it did so in significant and unstated ways.

Indeed, the guidance document is less than forthright about what it intended to accomplish. The guidance states:

This policy is aimed at enhancing the ability of a Blocked Party that lacks alternative access to funds to acquire legal representation in connection with its designation or the blocking of its property and interests in property.

In fact, the document is designed to prevent and/or burden legal representation in ways that OFAC has not previously sought to do. First, the guidance states that OFAC will only unblock funds to pay legal fees of U.S. Citizens that have been placed on the Specially Designated Nationals (“SDN”) list. Second, the guidance imposes limits on the amounts that will be unblocked with severe limits both on hourly rates and total fees reimbursed.

[T]he payment of legal fees from blocked funds may be licensed at a rate not to exceed $125 per hour, up to a cap set for each stage of the administrative proceedings or litigation. OFAC anticipates tracking the [Equal Access to Justice Act] hourly rate if it changes in the future. The policy incorporates fee caps per proceeding, as does the CJA, and limits the amount of licensable fees to $7,000 per attorney, for up to two attorneys, for administrative proceedings; $7,000 per attorney, for up to two attorneys, for district court litigation; and $5,000 per attorney, for up to two attorneys, for appellate court litigation. In extraordinary cases, such as cases involving lengthy or complex proceedings (e.g., may include cases lasting more than a year or with multiple parties whose designation or blocking resulted from a substantially similar administrative record or set of facts), the maximum fees allowed could be doubled for each stage of the litigation.

It’s probably a safe bet to assume that all the lawyers ran out of the room when they heard these figures. Suffice it to say that few persons challenging their inclusion on the SDN list will be able to find competent representation at these rates.

Prior to the guidelines, OFAC granted licenses to pay attorneys’ fees from blocked funds and assets without these limitations. Unlimited licenses were granted both to Global Relief Foundation and to Benevolence International Foundation.

Admittedly, this was not a uniform policy, and in the case involving the Islamic American Relief Agency, OFAC would only grant a license to pay attorneys’ fees from “fresh funds,” i.e., funds that came from outside the United States and had not been previously blocked. This, of course, is equivalent to licensing blocked funds since these fresh funds would also have become blocked once they entered the United States. And the guidance document leaves open the possibility that it may still permit broader reimbursement for attorneys in future cases from “fresh funds.”

What follows is admittedly rank speculation, but one has to wonder whether OFAC’s crackdown on attorneys in designation cases is the result of the bitter taste left in its mouth in the Al-Haramain case, where OFAC inadvertently disclosed to the attorneys a Top Secret document that revealed the attorneys’ phone calls were being illegally wiretapped by the U.S. government.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)