Author Archive


Feb

20

From The Department of Questions That Should Have Been Answered Already


Posted by at 8:36 pm on February 20, 2008
Category: OFAC

Department of TreasuryLast week the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control issued a guidance document that answered a question that has probably prompted legions of law firm associates and export compliance officers to call OFAC. The question: what if a company is not on the SDN list, but one of its partners/shareholders/members is? Can we do business with the company?

And the answer, given out by countless on the Hotline team and other OFAC employees is what you might think: only if the SDN does not control, directly or indirectly, a “50% or greater” interest in the company. Note that’s 50 percent or greater, not greater than 50%, although this distinction may not have been carefully observed by folks at the OFAC Hotline.

OFAC promises to start putting this into new regulations and to amend existing regulations to reflect this guidance. Be very careful, however, and don’t assume that this guidance applies to all sanctions programs. Some programs — such as the Cuba and Sudan sanctions — cover entities where persons of interest might hold less than 50 percent. Under section 515.201(a) of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, transactions are prohibited in connection with property in which a Cuban national has any interest.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


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

Feb

19

There’s No Place Like Home


Posted by at 5:57 pm on February 19, 2008
Category: Criminal PenaltiesGeneral

Night VisionAccording to this article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, an Iranian woman and mother of two has voluntarily left Iran to face charges in South Florida that she attempted to export illegal 3,000 helmet-mounted night vision systems from the United States to the Iranian military. This is a somewhat surprising decision given that the United States and Iran understandably don’t have extradition treaties with each other.

The woman, Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan, was arrested in Vienna, Austria in 2004 when she and her ex-husband, Mahmoud Seif, traveled to Vienna Austria to pick up one night vision system that had been exported from the United States to Austria and that they planned to re-export to the Iranian military. She was convicted of violating Austrian export laws and sentenced to 50 days in prison. A grand jury in Florida thereafter indicted her on charges of money laundering and export violations.

At a bond hearing in Fort Lauderdale last Friday, Gholikan’s attorney David Markus explained Gholikhan’s remarkable decision on the basis that “she believes in her innocence.” But the defenses so far proffered by her attorney aren’t very convincing on their face:

Markus claims prosecutors have Gholikhan confused with another woman and his client at most acted as a translator. He is pushing to have the case thrown out, arguing Gholikhan’s 2005 conviction on similar charges in Austria makes the U.S. prosecution a violation of double jeopardy protections.

Saying that it wasn’t her but if it was she was only a translator is rather like arguing that your client wasn’t involved in the bank robbery but if he was he only drove the get-away car.

And the double jeopardy claim is equally fanciful. The Supreme Court stated in United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) that prosecutions

brought by separate sovereigns, they are not “for the same offence,” and the Double Jeopardy Clause thus does not bar one when the other has occurred.

So, it won’t be long before Ms. Gholikan may be tapping her heels together and chanting “There’s no place like home.” That may have gotten Dorothy back to Kansas but it’s doubtful whether it will get Ms. Gholikhan back to her home in Tehran.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


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

Feb

13

iPods to Iran: A How-To Guide


Posted by at 11:19 pm on February 13, 2008
Category: Iran Sanctions

Griffin iPod Speaker SystemA fascinating article in today’s Wall Street Journal details how Iran eludes U.S. sanctions on exports to that country. An interview with an Iranian merchant supplies an instructive example of how the merchant obtains iPod accessories from Tennessee-based Griffin Technology:

The owner of an electronics-goods store in affluent North Tehran, who asked to be identified only by his first name, Borhan, recently stopped using bank-to-bank wire transfers to pay for goods because of the restrictions. U.S. companies can’t ship most products into Iran. Borhan says he orders iPod accessories online from Griffin Technology in Nashville, Tenn., and has them shipped to a middleman — a UAE-registered company in Dubai that operates out of a post-office box.

A typical $10,000 order, packed in 10 boxes, costs as much as $800 to ship to Dubai, he says. He pays another $500 to the middleman to unpack the goods in Dubai and reship them to Tehran. To pay for the shipment, he says, he gives cash to an acquaintance in Tehran who sends the money to his brother in Dubai through an informal money-transfer service, or “hawala.” The brother then pays the middleman.

Commissions for the middlemen and for the hawala transfer come out to about $1,000. The payment system takes three days, instead of the 12 hours a bank-to-bank transfer would take. (A spokeswoman for Griffin says it is “unable to control where products end up in the marketplace.”)

The pat response from Griffin — “we can’t control where products end up” — just doesn’t cut it here. If the story of how the merchant ordered the product is true, this transaction doesn’t have red flags; it has red banners the size of a football field draped all over it. A transaction worth $10,000 shipped to a P.O. Box in Dubai is bad enough, but if Griffin checked the IP Address associated with the order it would almost certainly show that the order came from Iran. Game over.

Exporters can’t simply bury their heads, ostrich-like, in the sand and say they just have no idea where their products wind up and that they are “shocked, shocked to find that” their products were ultimately shipped to Iran or another sanctioned country.

Permalink Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share


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

Feb

12

What Goes on in Dubai Doesn’t Stay in Dubai


Posted by at 7:35 pm on February 12, 2008
Category: Iran Sanctions

U.S. Embassy in Khartoum
Satellite image of the Strait
of Hormuz


A wire story from Agence France Presse today documents the extent to which trade between Iran and the UAE may be circumventing unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran:

Thousands of Iranian firms are still doing business in the country’s top trading partner, the United Arab Emirates, despite a US drive to choke Tehran’s economy over its controversial nuclear program. But US banking sanctions are also beginning to bite, industry sources say.

The AFP reporter interviewed Nasser Hashempour, executive deputy president of the Dubai-based Iranian Business Council, who provided one of the reasons the sanctions weren’t having much impact on trade between Dubai and Iran:

Iranian businesses “have not had any problem with local banks because we are considered UAE companies” under local rules requiring at least 51 percent of a business to be owned by an Emirati national, said Nasser Hashempour. …

The same goes for fully Iranian-owned firms operating out of free zones “because they are registered in the UAE and their sponsor is the free zone,” which would pull their licenses if they flouted the rules, he told AFP.

The article goes on to point out that almost 10 percent of the population of Dubai is Iranian and that almost 10,000 Iranian firms are doing business in Dubai.

But the real reason that the sanctions may not have stopped trade in U.S.-origin goods between Dubai and Iran is that Dubai has no interest in making it stop according to a UAE official who, not surprisingly, requested anonymity:

As for unilateral US sanctions, these would have to be applied by private banks and companies and “it is not for the UAE government to tell private companies what to do,” the official added.

That doesn’t appear to be what officials of the UAE were telling the U.S. government when they convinced U.S. officials not to put the UAE on Schedule C to the EAR as a country of “diversionary concern.”

Bottom line for exporters: it’s probably a bad idea to export an item to the UAE unless you have a pretty good reason to believe it’s going to stay in there

Permalink Comments Off on What Goes on in Dubai Doesn’t Stay in Dubai

Bookmark and Share


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

Feb

11

Szubin Says Sudanese Sanctions Suits Starting Soon


Posted by at 5:25 pm on February 11, 2008
Category: OFACSudan

U.S. Embassy in Khartoum
US Embassy in Khartoum


Late last week Reuters reported that Adam Szubin, head of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), announced that OFAC was stepping up its enforcement actions for violations of the U.S. sanctions on Sudan. According to Szubin, agents have built up a “queue” of enforcement actions against violators that will be rolled out in as early as a month’s time.

And Szubin is hoping to go for the big bucks:

Violating companies now face fines of up to $250,000 a breach or a charge of twice the offending transaction — a penalty that in some cases could run into millions, said Szubin. …

The recent increase in penalties for sanctions violators had strengthened OFAC’s hand, he added. …

Before the penalty increase, the company would have only had to pay up to $50,000 for each illegal sale — a charge that many organisations could write off.

“We’re now able to say, if your transactions totalled $40 million, and those were violative transactions, you could be facing a maximum penalty of $80 million. And that is no longer something that people will shrug off.”

This prospective uptick in enforcement actions, corresponds with increasing diplomatic parries between the U.S. and Sudan over the sanctions. According to a story in the Sudan Tribune, last year the government of Sudan had blocked 400 containers bound for the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum for failure to pay customs fees. The U.S. premised this non-payment on the Sudan sanctions and it was not until Sudanese president Omar Hassan Al-Bashir issued a decree granting an exception to the containers from custom fees that the containers were released. The Sudanese government later reversed its position and recently blocked entry of containers bound for the U.S. Embassy for non-payment of customs fees. In response, the U.S. has threatened to halt construction of a new U.S. Embassy in Khartoum. That construction has been underway for the past two years.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


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