Author Archive


Nov

26

Once a Terrorist, Not Always a Terrorist


Posted by at 10:34 pm on November 26, 2007
Category: General

Ahmed Idris Nasreddin
Ahmed Idris Nasreddin


On August 29, 2002, OFAC designated various entities owned by Ahmed Idris Nasreddin, thereby blocking all assets of those entities and forbidding U.S. citizens and companies from dealing with those entities. The basis for the designation was a finding that Nasreddin was a “supporter of terrorism.” The press release supporting the designation stated:

Based on information available to Italy and the United States, … Ahmed Idris Nasreddin (“Nasreddin”), through commercial holdings, operate[s] an extensive financial network providing support for terrorist related activities.

OFAC didn’t disclose what information linked Nasreddin to terrorism, but other sources suggest that Nasreddin finances a mosque in Milan, Italy, which is the major station of Al-Qaeda in Europe and that, among other things, the Al-Qaeda operatives involved in the 1998 embassy bombings stayed at the Mosque

One of the blocked Nasreddin entities was Akida Bank Private Limited, about which the OFAC press release said:

Nasreddin, who serves as Akida Bank’s president, also serves on the board of directors of Akida Bank along with Youssef Nada. According to corporate documents, the Nasreddin Foundation, an entity proposed for designation, owns an overwhelming majority of shares of Akida Bank, affording Ahmed Idris Nasreddin and the Nasreddin Foundation ownership and control of Akida Bank.

That was then; this is now:

The following deletions have been made to OFAC’s SDN list:

AKIDA BANK PRIVATE LIMITED (a.k.a. AKIDA INVESTMENT CO. LTD.; a.k.a. AKIDA INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED), c/o Arthur D. Hanna & Company, 10 Deveaux Street, Nassau, Bahamas, The; P.O. Box N-4877, Nassau, Bahamas, The [SDGT]

A number of other Nasreddin entities designated in 2002 were also deleted from the SDN list.

The accompanying Federal Register notice is completely opaque as to the reasons for deletion, stating only:

The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control has determined that these individuals and entities no longer meet the criteria for designation under the Order and are appropriate
for removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons.

There isn’t an OFAC procedure for former supporters of terrorism to absolve themselves simply by claiming that they’ve renounced terrorism or seen the light. I suppose that a change in ownership of the designated entities might be grounds for removal from the SDN list, but there is no suggestion here that Nasreddin divested his control of these entities.

Instead the deletion must be a concession that the original designation was mistaken. And needless to say, OFAC isn’t particularly interested in revealing why it was mistaken in the first place, although you would think that such an explanation would be in order here, particularly where there had been allegations that Nasreddin was financing the major Al-Qaeda station in Europe.

Permalink Comments Off on Once a Terrorist, Not Always a Terrorist

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

20

OFAC Excludes Three Iranian Banks From Medical and Agricultural Exports


Posted by at 7:14 pm on November 20, 2007
Category: Iran SanctionsOFAC

Bank Sepah Branch in TehranThe Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) today released a document entitled “Notice for TSRA License Holders and Applicants.” In that document, OFAC notes that Bank Sepah, Bank Saderat, Bank Mellat and their branches and certain subsidiaries were designated pursuant to Executive Order 13382 and Executive Order 13224 and that all property of those banks was therefore blocked and U.S. persons were forbidden to deal with those banks. The Notice then stated:

Even if you are holding a valid OFAC license authorizing the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine or medical devices to Iran …, as of October 25, 2007, you are no longer permitted to engage in any transactions, directly or indirectly, with any of the above-listed banks.

The need for the notice was probably prompted by an ambiguity that may have been created by section 516 of the Iranian Transactions Regulations which deals with payment for transactions involving Iran. Section 516(a)(3) permits U.S. banks to process transfers of funds to or from Iran where:

The transfer arises from an underlying transaction that has been authorized by a specific or general license issued pursuant to this part ….

The Notice now makes clear that this doesn’t apply to transactions with the three designated banks.

Permalink Comments Off on OFAC Excludes Three Iranian Banks From Medical and Agricultural Exports

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

20

Possible Sanctuary for Sanctuary


Posted by at 10:18 am on
Category: General

SanctuaryA battle is being waged over the planned, but allegedly illegal, export of a former U.S. Navy hospital ship M/V Sanctuary. Decommissioned in 1989, the battle certainly isn’t over whether a license should have been obtained from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”).

No, it’s all being waged around the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), yet another federal statute that may have an impact on exports. Section 12 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2611, requires prior notice to the EPA of exports of certain substances and section 6(e), 15 U.S.C. § 2605(e), through its prohibition on introduction of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) into commerce, forbids the export of PCBs. And, according to opponents of the export, Sanctuary likely contains PCBs.

In 2003, a federal district court, relying on section 6(e) of TSCA entered a temporary restraining order forbidding the export of WWII-era decommissioned ships to the United Kingdom. The EPA had issued in May 2003 “enforcement discretion” letter saying that it would not enforce section 6(e) to prevent the export of naval vessels if certain conditions were met. The district court provisionally accepted the plaintiff’s argument that the EPA was required to engage in a formal rulemaking proceeding to adopt this exemption. Since then, no WWII-era naval ships have been exported.

The Sanctuary was sold in 1989 to a non-profit organization which turned it into a drug rehabilitation center and moored it in Baltimore. Subsequently the organization defaulted on moorage payments and the ship was auctioned off August 21, 2007 on the Baltimore Court House steps to Potomac Navigation Inc. The Basel Action Network, a group devoted to opposing toxic waste exports, is claiming that Potomac Navigation intends to export the ship to a breaking yard in India or Bangladesh where it will be demolished for scrap. The EPA has reportedly contacted the new owners to request permission to board the ship to sample for PCBs.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

15

Maybe My Dog Ate the Service Copy


Posted by at 10:43 pm on November 15, 2007
Category: BIS

Daumier LawyersThe Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) recently set aside a default judgment denying export privileges to S.P. Equipamentos de Protecao ao Trabalho Ltda (“SPE”), a Brazilian firm charged with violating U.S. export laws by re-exporting night vision equipment to Brazil’s State Secretariat of Civil Defense. The reasons given by Undersecretary Mancuso for setting aside the judgment suggest, at best, a simple mistake by BIS’s Office of Chief Counsel (“OCC”) and, at worst, a violation of BIS’s rules by the OCC. Somewhere in between is the possibility of some legal but unfair shenanigans by BIS’s lawyers.

According to Undersecretary Mancuso’s decision, a charging letter was sent to SPE on September 13, 2004, and received by SPE eleven days later. On February 7, 2005, counsel for SPE filed an appearance with BIS. On November 11, 2006, BIS filed a motion for default based on the failure of SPE to file an answer to the charging letter within 30 days as required by the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”). On January 31, 2007, the BIS Administrative Law Judge entered a default judgment which was approved by BIS on February 26, 2007.

On September 7, 2007, Counsel for SPE filed motion to set aside the default judgment for good cause, arguing that it did not receive a copy from BIS’s counsel of the motion for default. The certificate of service for the default judgment, which is addressed only to BIS’s counsel, supports this claim of failure of service. Undersecretary Mancuso’s decision further states that there is evidence that for about a year prior to BIS’s filing of the motion for default, counsel for SPE and counsel for BIS “engaged in settlement negotiations” regarding these charges. BIS filed a response which did not oppose SPE’s claim that good cause existed to set aside the default.

The question here, of course, is why on earth did counsel for BIS fail to file the motion for default on SPE’s counsel with whom it had been negotiating the matter for a considerable period of time? Section 766.5 of the EAR governs service of papers other than the charging letter. It explicitly states that service must be made on “each party in the proceeding.” If a party is represented by counsel, service on such counsel constitutes service on the party.

Section 766.7 of the EAR governs default motions and states:

Failure of the respondent to file an answer within the time provided constitutes a waiver of the respondent’s right to appear and contest the allegations in the charging letter. In such event, the administrative law judge, on BIS’s motion and without further notice to the respondent, shall find the facts to be as alleged in the charging letter.

That rule says that the default judgment can be entered “without further notice,” but it doesn’t say, in my view, that the motion for default isn’t subject to the service rules provided in Section 766.5. Even supposing that it does, isn’t it a violation of Simple Decency and Fairness 101 not to mail a copy of such a motion to opposing counsel?

Perhaps it was a simple oversight by BIS’s lawyer, but it’s hard to imagine how that happened. In all events, however, BIS did what appears to be the right thing by setting aside a default judgment that was obtained through a motion that wasn’t served on the respondent’s counsel.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

14

No Cigar!


Posted by at 11:04 pm on November 14, 2007
Category: OFAC

Treasury on the MoneyThe Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) yesterday released its monthly report on penalties imposed by the agency last month. And, for the first time since the invention of the Internet, no one got fined for buying Cohibas over the web. Instead, OFAC reports penalties relating to Sudan, Iran and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (“SDGTs”).

  • SKE Midwestern was fined $20,000 for brokering shipments between Sudan and Mexico between 2003 and 2005. The violation was not voluntarily disclosed.
  • Wachovia was fined $11,000 for rejecting, rather than blocking, one payment to a “Specifically [sic] Designated Global Terrorist” in 2004. The violation was voluntarily disclosed.
  • Rita Medical Systems was fined $2,750 for transactions between 2002 and 2003 by its predecessor company with Iran. The violation was not voluntarily disclosed.

Notice the interesting disparity between the violations that were voluntarily disclosed and those that weren’t. Wachovia voluntarily disclosed one rejected rather than blocked payment to an SDGT and got the maximum penalty for one violation, which in 2004 was $11,000. SKE and Rita made multiple shipments over a period of years and paid less than $11,000 per violation even though the violations were not voluntarily disclosed. OFAC has a good record of reducing penalties for voluntary disclosures, so it is not quite clear here why this didn’t happen for Wachovia.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)