Author Archive


Jan

31

Russian Export Defendant Slapped on Wrist, Told to Leave U.S.


Posted by at 5:35 pm on January 31, 2014
Category: Arms ExportCriminal Penalties

By  Sgt. Scott M. Biscuiti [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ADefense.gov_photo_essay_090329-M-7747B-015.jpgBack in November, this blog reported on the indictment of a Russian citizen, Roman Kvinikadze, on charges that he attempted to export military thermal imaging sights without the required State Department license. As we noted then, the indictment created a bit of a diplomatic row between the United States and Russia, with Russia claiming that federal agents knowingly provoked Kvinikadze to violate the law and then lured him into the United States to arrest him. The Russian pique was directed at statements by the undercover U.S. agent to Kvinikadze that the sights required an export license but that if the license was unavailable there were other ways he could ship the sights to Kvinikadze. Although these facts might not support the narrowly construed entrapment defense, they can easily been seen as grounds for a diplomatic contretemps.

Well, the Russian irritation seems to have been heard loud and clear in Washington. Last week, a federal judge sentenced Kvinikadze, who had entered a guilty plea, to time served and a $7500 fine. He also ordered Kvinikadze to leave the United States, something that Kvinikadze was no doubt happy to do with or without a judicial order requiring him to do so. Kvinikadze had been in custody for 147 days so time served was significantly less than would have been required under federal sentencing guidelines which would have specified a minimum sentence of 33 to 41 months. News reports stated that the prosecutor requested the reduced sentence, and the judge justified it by stating that “Kvinikadze may not have fully appreciated the potential damage to relations between the U.S. and Russia if the sights had fallen into wrong hands.”

When I reviewed the docket to see if I could find anything else to justify this lenient sentence, I discovered that the Presentence Report, the Presentence Report Recommendation and an Addendum to the Presentence Report were all sealed and unavailable for review. Although there are a number of reasons that this could be the case, including the possibility of the discussion of some extremely private matters involving Kvinikadze, my money is that these were sealed because they have a discussion of the diplomatic ramifications of the sentence, something that prosecutors and courts are loathe to reveal. So when Kvinikadze is safely back in Russia, I’m going to bet he sends an effusive thank you note to his BFF Vladimir Putin.

Permalink Comments Off on Russian Export Defendant Slapped on Wrist, Told to Leave U.S.

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

28

Fun BIS Fact: Companies May Actually Know What They Don’t Know


Posted by at 3:41 pm on January 28, 2014
Category: BISCriminal Penalties

Amplifier Research HQ Street View from Google http://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html [By Permission]
ABOVE: Amplifier Research HQ


There seems to be a recent plague of rogue export control managers with a penchant for forging licenses, making up authorizations, fudging exemptions and exceptions and engaging in other nefarious practices in order to avoid having to do any actual work while on the job they are being paid for. First it was LeAnne Lesmeister who specialized in photoshopping fake export licenses. Now we have Timothy Gormley at Amplifier Research Corporation who among other things falsified paperwork to conceal correct export classifications, listed fake license numbers on export documentation, authorized exports before license applications were granted and lied to other employees at the company about the existence of required export licenses.

The BIS settlement documents assert that Amplifier Research never conducted any compliance audits during the time that Gormley was running the export show. BIS imposed a $500,000 suspended fine on Amplifier Research to settle the violations and required the company to conduct a complete export compliance audit. A federal judge awarded Gormley a 42-month vacation in a federal correctional facility.

This all seems pretty routine until you get to the last count against the Company in which BIS charges Amplifier Research with “acting with knowledge” of the illegal exports at issue. The Export Administration Regulations define knowledge as follows:

Knowledge of a circumstance (the term may be a variant, such as “know,” “reason to know,” or “reason to believe”) includes not only positive knowledge that the circumstance exists or is substantially certain to occur, but also an awareness of a high probability of its existence or future occurrence. Such awareness is inferred from evidence of the conscious disregard of facts known to a person and is also inferred from a person’s willful avoidance of facts.

Neither this definition of knowledge, nor section 764.2 of the EAR, addresses when a company knows something. Additionally, neither addresses the issue as to whether the knowledge of each and every employee can be imputed to the company for purposes of “acting with knowledge” violations under section 764.2. Certainly, Gormley can be said to have acted with knowledge, but should the company also be said to have acted with knowledge unless senior management had “knowledge” as defined above of Gormley’s actions? Certainly those standards of knowledge would not be met simply because the company failed to conduct a compliance audit on Gormley and the export program. Rather, it seems to me, there would need to some red flags that senior management ignored and there is no evidence or assertion by BIS that there were any such ignored red flags.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

24

DTrade Vulnerability Could Allow Foreign Spies to Hack Your Network


Posted by at 2:25 pm on January 24, 2014
Category: DDTC

Chinese Army training with computers [Fair Use]Back in December, IBM issued a security alert relating to the IBM Forms Viewer 8.0.1 which must be used as part of filing licenses through DTrade. The alert says this:

A XFDL form can be created in such a way that could cause a stack buffer overflow to occur in the IBM Forms Viewer that could allow remote code execution to occur if the form is loaded.

That, of course, is geekspeak meaning that running DTrade on your network can allow a hacker to take over your system remotely and download whatever strikes his or her fancy, including ITAR-controlled technical data.

There is a fix. The security bulletin says to download IBM Forms Viewer 8.0.1.1. Sadly you can’t download that version without a Support Agreement with IBM. I know. I tried. And the only version available on DDTC’s site, even though the vulnerability is almost two months old, is version 8.0.1.

Query: since using DTrade exposes your system to data theft by foreign nationals, does everyone using DTrade have to file a voluntary disclosure with DDTC admitting that their ITAR-controlled technical data is, by virtue of the DTrade vulnerability, accessible to foreign nationals?

Seriously, DDTC needs to either make the new version available immediately or enable users to uninstall DTrade and use an alternate method for filing license applications. (Oh, and remember that DDTC selected the IBM XFDL format over PDF because it was, allegedly, more secure.)

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

23

We Get Mail


Posted by at 12:54 pm on January 23, 2014
Category: Iran Sanctions

Somebody was reading Export Law Blog but was so busy looking for an email address to spam that they forgot to, you know, read the blog and see that I might have some difficulty in using her services to ship things through the port of Bandar Abbas in Iran.  Or perhaps she just has a very wry sense of humor:

And thank you, “Ms. Pari,” for the kind offer of your services. I’m glad you were glad to take the opportunity to contact me. So sorry it didn’t work out.

Permalink Comments Off on We Get Mail

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

22

New Sentencing Hearing Scheduled for Professor Roth


Posted by at 6:27 pm on January 22, 2014
Category: General

Professor John Roth
ABOVE: Professor Reece Roth


John Reece Roth, a former professor at the University of Tennessee who was convicted of violating U.S. export laws for, among other things, transferring technical data relating to drones to foreign graduate students, is getting another sentencing hearing. Currently serving a four year sentence in a federal penitentiary, Mr. Roth can thank Jeffrey Skilling of Enron infamy, for his new sentencing hearing.

In addition to the export law violations, Roth was also convicted under the “honest services” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1346. That provision was subsequently interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal by Skilling of his conviction under that statute to apply only in cases in which a bribe or kickback had been paid, something which both the government and Roth’s counsel agree did not occur in his case. The issue at the hearing will be whether his conviction on the remaining 16 counts will be enough to justify his four-year sentence. You can, of course, guess which side of this argument each side is on. The hearing is scheduled for February 24, 2014

The only news story on the resentencing hearing is in the Knoxville News Sentinel. No link to that story is provided because, unbelievably, every single word of that newspaper is behind a paywall. The idea that the News Sentinel should charge for all of its content (unlike, say, the New York Times which provides a limited number of articles free to each reader per month) is particularly ironic when you consider that the reporter said this about the original Roth trial

His trial served as a test case nationwide for whether information itself can be a “defense article” subject to export control. Traditionally, export control violations have involved actual equipment or devices.

Er, no. Obviously the reporter neither reads this blog or knows how to work the Google or she might have stumbled on the Chi Mak trial which preceded Roth’s and where the defendant was convicted for exporting technical data about submarine engines to China.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)