The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in California yesterday overturned the conviction of Qing Chang Jiang, who had been convicted of making false statements to a BIS investigator in connection with an export investigation. In unusually harsh language, the Court criticized the investigator and the prosecution for seeking to prosecute Mr. Jiang based on ambiguous answers to poorly-phrased questions. “The consequences of imprecision,” said the appeals court, “in the language used to question a witness must be laid at the table of the questioner, not the questioned.”

Mr. Jiang entered into a contract with a Chinese company to ship them nine microwave amplifiers and applied for a BIS export license for them. Because the Chinese company shared the same address with a Chinese military organization, BIS opened an investigation to obtain further information concerning the proposed export. Before the license was granted, the manufacturer of the microwave amplifiers advised Jiang that no license was necessary for these exports, and Jiang exported four of the nine amplifiers to the Chinese end-user.

Thereafter, the Chinese company determined that the amplifiers did not meet specifications. It retained three of the amplifiers for another use, canceled its order for the nine amplifiers, and returned the fourth to Jiang. Jiang then sent back to the manufacturer the returned amplifier along with the other five amplifiers which Jiang had received in the interim but not yet exported.

Ultimately Jiang’s export license application was denied by BIS and a criminal action was instituted against Mr. Jiang for illegal export of the amplifiers. Almost two years later, a count was added to the indictment by alleging that Mr. Jiang had violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) when he told the BIS investigator that “that the product was returned to Narda [the manufacturer].” Jiang was acquitted by the trial court of the export violation but convicted of the false statement charge.

In overturning the trial court, the Ninth Circuit noted that Jiang’s response that “the product” was returned to the manufacturer could well have been a reference to his return of two-thirds of the amplifiers to the manufacturer. Further support was found for this interpretation from Jiang’s statement, in a second interview, that three amplifiers were shipped to China when he was asked whether any amplifiers had been shipped to China. The court also noted that Jiang’s command of the English language was limited.

As a result of these factors, the Court concluded as follows:

It does not escape our attention that the ambiguity could have been resolved easily had Spelce [the BIS investigator] simply asked whether any of the amplifiers had been shipped to China. In this vein, requiring agents to use a minimum “level of clarity and specificity is the appropriate remedy for imprecise questioning, not a [criminal] prosecution.

Although Jiang was ultimately acquitted, it was, no doubt, only after great personal expense, both financial and emotional. The lesson for exporters here is to remember that statements to BIS investigators, even if not “under oath,” can lead to criminal prosecution and possibly conviction. Worse, a prosecution can occur even where there is a significant dispute between BIS and the exporter over exactly what was said in the interview. Accordingly, when BIS knocks at your door, for any reason, you will certainly want your lawyer to participate in all meetings with BIS investigators.

On Monday we complained about a broken link at the BIS website to its report of a settlement agreement entered into by Olympiad Line LLC, a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier (“NVOCC”). The link had been broken for almost a month. Today the link was at last fixed, so we want to thank the diligent BIS employee who dropped by the site, saw our report, and fixed the link. In fact, we want to thank BIS for fixing the link even if we had nothing to do with it.

According to the fixed link, Olympiad was charged with exporting canning machinery to Iran without a license. As an NVOCC, Olympiad consolidated the shipment with cargo from other shippers and arranged for the consolidated shipment to be shipped by another carrier’s vessel. As a result of the shipment of the canning machinery to Iran, the Company agreed to a fine of $14,000.

The Company’s explanation for the illegal export was, well, a bit lame:

One of Olympiad’s co-owners informed BIS that he was aware of the embargo against Iran but that he forwarded the items anyway because the shipping company accepted the shipment.

I suppose this was a candid admission by the company of its erroneous assumption that if the ultimate shipping company accepted the cargo, the legality of the cargo’s destination was the other company’s problem.

Although only one export was involved, BIS claimed two separate violations, which explains why the agency sought a fine in excess of the $11,000 statutory limit. The first violation alleged was a violation of section 764.2(b) of the EAR by aiding and abetting the shipper in the illegal violation. The second violation alleged was a violation of section 764.2(e) by exporting with knowledge of the violation.

This piling on of violations on one export is somewhat arbitrary since BIS could also have charged, but did not charge, Olympiad with an illegal export in violation of 764.2(a), conspiracy in violation of section 764.2(c) and possession with intent to export in violation of 764.2(f), all from this one export. Call us literal-minded, but it seems to us that one export should simply be one violation.