Author Archive


Aug

15

Punching BAWAG


Posted by at 9:24 pm on August 15, 2007
Category: Cuba SanctionsForeign CountermeasuresOFAC

Branch BAWAGUSA*Engage recently released a report on foreign countermeasures that have been applied to the extraterritorial application of unilateral U.S. sanctions. Most of the incidents covered in the report have been discussed here — such as the eviction of a Cuban oil delegation from an American-owned hotel in Mexico City and the eviction another Cuban delegation from a American-owned hotel in Oslo. But I missed one interesting story from April of this year. Of course, I blame Google.

The incident in question was the cancellation by BAWAG, an Austrian bank, of all accounts held by Cuban nationals at the bank in advance of the expected takeover of the bank by American-owned Cerberus Capital. Lawyers for Cerberus had evidently advised that it could not close the transaction as long as Cuban nationals had accounts at the bank. In response to the cancellations, Austria instituted proceedings under E.U. Council Regulation 2271/96 which prohibits compliance with U.S. sanctions on Cuba. BAWAG faced a 73,000 euro fine under the Austrian proceeding.

Two things are interesting about this. First, this is the first instance I am aware of where a proceeding has actually been brought by an E.U. member state under Regulation 2271/96. Second, BAWAG applied for a license from OFAC to reinstate the accounts. And the license was granted.
So companies that find themselves caught between the rock of U.S. sanctions and the hard place of foreign countermeasures should consider seeking a license based on the foreign countermeasure.

While reading some of the news accounts of the BAWAG matter, I also discovered the interesting story of Maria Cajigal-Ramirez, whose accounts at BAWAG were initially cancelled. Ms. Cajigal-Ramirez was a naturalized Austrian citizen who had been born in Cuba. Problem is that Cuba doesn’t allow renunciation of Cuban citizenship. Section 515.201 of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations prohibit transactions with Cuban “nationals.” Are banks, and other businesses, in the U.S. violating the CACR by dealing with first-generation Cuban immigrants since they are still Cuban nationals? And, in answering this question, don’t forget the application of section 515.303 of the CACR that says that dual nationals are considered nationals of both countries for purposes of the regulations.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


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

Aug

13

The Roaming Gnome Busted for 1,458 Trips to Cuba


Posted by at 6:35 pm on August 13, 2007
Category: Cuba SanctionsOFAC

The Roaming Gnome in front of the Cuban Capitol Building

The new OFAC penalty disclosure for August came out on Saturday with some embarrassing news about Travelocity’s Roaming Gnome. Seems that for for six years, between 1998 and 2004, the Travelocity site booked 1,458 reservations for travel to Cuba. The gnome, or rather his employer Travelocity, agreed to a fine of $182,750.

The report of the Travelocity fine follows the general OFAC “the less you know the better” policy and reveals no more about the violation than described above. But some educated guesses can be made. First, the violation was not voluntarily disclosed because the OFAC report almost always notes that fact if there has been a voluntary disclosure. Second, given the time frame, this violation probably involved Travelocity booking trips to Cuba through the sites of its foreign subsidiaries.

You may remember this letter which OFAC sent in 2002 to an unidentified company that operated travel websites in the United States and in foreign countries. That company (probably Travelocity, Orbitz or Expedia) had sent a letter to OFAC requesting OFAC to declare that those operations were permissible or, alternatively, to issue a license to cover them. In OFAC’s responding letter, OFAC asserted that the Cuban Assets Control Regulations apply to overseas subsidiaries and that the Berman Amendment’s exception for information didn’t apply to actually booking reservations but only to providing information about available flights. Accordingly OFAC held that the company’s overseas operations violated the CACR and declined to issue a license to permit such operations.

It’s now pretty safe to assume that the 2002 OFAC letter did not involve Travelocity. Travelocity appears not to have disclosed the violations leading to the fine, and the company involved in the 2002 letter had at least fessed up to its overseas operations. (My money is on Expedia, and not Orbitz, given the length of the whited-out references to the company in the letter.)

One part of the letter has an intriguing passage:

Your letter indicates that there are many U.S.-owned or controlled companies located in third countries that engage in providing travel services. OFAC has not granted a license authorizing any such companies to provide services associated with the tourism and business travel of third country nationals to Cuba. If you have specific information concerning apparent violations of the CACR by such companies, you may submit the information, preferably in writing, to the attention of OFAC’s Chief of Enforcement.

Does anybody else wonder if Expedia (or maybe Orbitz) snitched on Travelocity?

In other OFAC penalty news, the August disclosure indicates that your tax dollars are still being spent on fining individuals who bought Cuban cigars over the Internet, with one individual being fined $999.45 and another $510.00. Given what’s involved in the penalty process, it’s safe to assume that these fines won’t recoup the time spent by OFAC enforcement staff on chasing down the stogie-puffing miscreants, sending penalty notices and negotiating a settlement. Shouldn’t OFAC be chasing terrorists or something?

Permalink Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share


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

Aug

10

The Fat Man and the Imams


Posted by at 2:55 pm on August 10, 2007
Category: Iran Sanctions

Fouad Al ZayatFouad Al Zayat, a Syrian businessman and high-stakes gambler better known by London casino staff as “The Fat Man,” just lost an appeal he filed to have the U.K. to release property that the U.K. had blocked at Iran’s request. Yes, you read that correctly, property that had been blocked at Iran’s request.

Part of the reason for this post is to add a little levity to the blog on a steamy Friday afternoon in August. The other reason is because, believe it or not, there is actually a U.S. export law angle to this story, as reported today by Bloomberg.

The story begins almost five years ago when Al Zayat made a $120 million deal with Iran to buy an Airbus 340 from the Sultan of Brunei to convert it into a VIP plane for high muckety-mucks in the Iranian government. In a not-very-focused moment, the imams gave Al Zayat the $120 million before they got the plane. (Note to Iran: don’t give money to notorious high-stakes gamblers without getting the goods first).

Instead of being a good boy and actually using the proceeds from Iran to buy the Sultan’s A340, Al Zayat apparently used the funds to settle multi-million dollar gambling debts he owed to Ritz Hotel Casinos Ltd and to buy property in London. The imams were not amused, and so they enlisted an army of solicitors and the U.K. judicial system to freeze Al Zayat’s assets in Great Britain.

Al-Zayat appealed the blocking order and — alert: export law angle ahead — claimed that there was a commercial dispute between him and Iran, in large part over the cost of refitting the plane and still complying with U.S. sanctions:

Al Zayat told the court his expenses were “enormous” because even though he planned to buy the plane for $85 million, Deutsche Lufthansa AG had a $20 million interest in it and the aircraft had to be converted in a way that ensured U.S.-imposed economic sanctions against Iran were respected.

As you’ll see below, Al Zayat had a plan for complying with the Iran Sanctions law that wouldn’t have cost more than about $50,000.

Now, you may be scratching your head and thinking that you’ve heard about Fouad Al Zayat before. And you have. He has a walk-on role in the affair of Bob Ney, the Ohio Congressman now languishing in the slammer for bribery. Al Zayat was mentioned in the Ney indictment as the “foreign businessman” who flew Ney and two staffers to London for a night of gambling, with an enormous pile of free chips included courtesy of Al Zayat.

Why, you ask, was Al Zayat bribing Ney? It’s all about the imam’s VIP A340. Al Zayat wanted to get an exemption to put U.S. parts in the VIP plane. Paul Kiel at TPMmuckracker finishes the story:

Ney walked away from their night of gambling with over $50,000 … . But Ney didn’t want to declare the full amount to customs when he re-entered the U.S. So he gave $5,000 to one of his staffers … to carry through customs. And in order to save Ney the trouble of depositing the money into a bank once they returned, “Heaton stored this money in the safe of Ney’s Congressional Office,” according to the charging documents, “opening the safe as requested so that Ney could make repeated withdrawals.”

Bob Ney was, apparently, the only person in the United States who ever got rich because of the U.S. sanctions against Iran. And Al-Zayat’s plan to fix his Iran Sanctions problem for the cost of a Congressman didn’t work out so well, either for him or the Congressman.

Permalink Comments Off on The Fat Man and the Imams

Bookmark and Share


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

Aug

8

There Will Always Be an England


Posted by at 9:21 pm on August 8, 2007
Category: Criminal Penalties

Periodic Table Entry for HfDevotees of the New Yorker will no doubt remember items that used to be short entries titled “There Will Always Be an England.” A typical item under that heading recounted humorous but true anecdotes of quaint English behavior. You know, the story of an eccentric don who wins the lottery and uses the proceeds to buy first-class plane tickets to Sardinia for two voles that he nursed back to health after they were run over by a lorry in Dorset.

So I couldn’t help using the same title for the story of Avocado Research Chemicals Ltd of Heysham, Lancashire and its unfortunate and unlicensed export of two chemicals from the U.K. In July 2005, the company exported to Egypt without a license small quantities of 2-diisopropylaminoethyl chloride hydrochloride, a precursor to VX nerve gas, and hafnium, a component used in producing control rods for nuclear reactors. The company was fined £600 and ordered to pay £100 in costs, or just over $1400 in fines and costs. And, no, we aren’t missing several zeros in those figures. Those are the actual fines.

But it gets better. The illegal exports were discovered by the Department of Trade and Industry after it reviewed the company’s annual export report and noted that licenses had not been obtained for the exports in question. The company then made a voluntary disclosure of the unlicensed exports. Is that great or what? The agency can discover the violation but you can still make a voluntary disclosure. That’s better than getting two mulligans on the eighteenth hole. A subsequent internal audit disclosed that the exports were “a result of human error” – or, translated from the British, inadvertent.

Wait, there’s still more. A spokesman for the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office put on a very serious face and said this:

Today’s successful result shows how important it is for companies to make sure that correct exporting procedures are in place. ARC Ltd did the right thing once they noticed their mistake and contacted the authorities. But other companies should note that, even in a case where small quantities and genuine human error are involved, some action must be taken. The unlicensed export of potentially lethal substances is too serious to be ignored at any level.

Come on, he’s kidding isn’t he? Something can be “too serious to be ignored at any level” and the appropriate result is a $1400 fine for a company that “voluntarily” discloses the export after it got caught? The great sucking noise you are hearing is the sound of U.S exporters looking for office space in Lancashire.

So, to paraphrase another famous expression, next time your company is getting, er, worked over for an export violation, just lie back and think of England.

Permalink Comments Off on There Will Always Be an England

Bookmark and Share


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

Aug

7

DDTC to Change Rules on Foreign Employees of Defense Companies


Posted by at 10:48 pm on August 7, 2007
Category: DDTC

Stephen MullStephen D. Mull, formerly the U.S. Ambassador to Lithuania and now the Acting Assistant Secretary for Political Military Affairs at the State Department, testified last week at the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee’s hearing on export control. Most of the testimony was a not very convincing effort to defend the long processing times for Technical Assistance Agreements at the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”). Mull repeatedly referred to the “complexities” of TAAs to justify these processing times.

Another part of his testimony, however, suggested a possible change in procedures relating to employment by defense contractors of foreign nationals from NATO, E.U and the “plus three” countries (i.e. Japan, Australia and New Zealand):

We are set to initiate a policy change that will permit employees of foreign companies who are nationals from NATO or EU countries, Japan, Australia and New Zealand to be considered authorized under an approved license or TAA. This will alleviate the need for companies to seek non-disclosure agreements for such nationals and recognizes the low risk to of transferring technologies to nationals of these countries under an approved license or TAA.

A welcome change to be sure, but if there is such a low risk of transferring non-classified defense technologies to such nationals, why not eliminate the requirement for a DSP-5 license application for them as well?

Permalink Comments Off on DDTC to Change Rules on Foreign Employees of Defense Companies

Bookmark and Share


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