Archive for the ‘Iran Sanctions’ Category


Sep

3

Wednesday Export Law Grab Bag


Posted by at 8:52 pm on September 3, 2008
Category: Arms ExportCriminal PenaltiesCuba SanctionsIran Sanctions

Grab BagWe’re back from vacation and we’re back with a grab bag of things:

  • University of Tennessee Professor J. Reece Roth was convicted on eighteen counts, including violations of the Arms Export Control Act for permitting foreign graduate students to have access to information relating to an Air Force project on the use of plasma technologies for unmanned aerial vehicles. According to the report on the Knoxville News Sentinel‘s website, a key piece of evidence proving that Roth had knowledge that his conduct was illegal was a set of notes that divided the work between an American graduate student and the Chinese graduate student in order to keep export-controlled technical data away from the graduate student. When this arrangement impeded progress on the project, the students were allowed to share data. Roth claimed that he didn’t believe the information was export-controlled until the project netted an actual military product, a claim that would appear inconsistent with his initial division of work on the project between the American and the Chinese graduate student.
  • The Denver Business Journal supplies more information on the Platte River Associates prosecution for allegedly violating the Cuba embargo. The attorney for Platte River told the Denver Business Journal that the prosecution arises from training that the company gave to an employee of a Spanish company, Repsol, that had previously purchased geological modeling software used for oil exploration. The employee arrived with seismic data that appeared to relate to the western Caribbean and possibly to Cuba. There is apparently no allegation that Platte River dealt with any Cubans or the Cuban Government, nor any allegation that Repsol actually used the software in connection with a Cuban project. Instead, it now appears that the government’s case is based not on the sale of the software but the training of the Repsol employee. It’s still a tenuous connection without proof that Repsol used the software in connection with dealings with the Cuban government.
  • Someone has made a broad-ranging Freedom of Information Act request at the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), apparently seeking copies of all applications for licenses to export agricultural and medical products to Iran. This has prompted OFAC to send letters to licensees requiring the licensees to assert in writing any claims that information in these licenses is proprietary or confidential to the licensee. Does anyone have any information on who may be seeking this information and why? Please let me know in the comments section.
Permalink Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share


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

Aug

5

In Cyberspace You Could Be Anywhere


Posted by at 7:52 pm on August 5, 2008
Category: Iran Sanctions

Lost in CyberspaceApplication of country-based sanctions in cyberspace may pose some interesting problems and pitfalls as two cases recently reported by the Office of Foreign Assets Control illustrate:

One individual has agreed to a settlement totaling $840 for alleged violation of the prohibitions in the Iranian Transactions Regulations: OFAC alleged that in August 2006, the individual attempted to transfer funds to Me-Gold Kish, Co. in Iran in an apparent attempt to purchase electronic gold without an OFAC license. The individual did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC.

One individual has agreed to a settlement totaling $400 for alleged violation of the prohibitions in the Iranian Transactions Regulations: OFAC alleged that in June 2006, the individual attempted to purchase electronic gold from Me-Gold Kish Co. in Iran in apparent violation of §§ 560.201, 560.203 and 560.204 of the Iranian Transactions Regulations. The individual did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC.

Although it is possible that the two individuals here knew that they were dealing with a business located in Iran, it is also quite possible that they did not. Me-Gold is an on-line e-currency exchange business. Its current website claims that it is incorporated in Singapore. A company affiliate site states that Me-Gold has offices in Internet City, Dubai. Apparently, however, an earlier version of Me-Gold’s website stated that the company was located on Kish Island, Iran, although there’s no evidence that the fined individuals read that part of the website.

Even though the references to Iran have been scrubbed from Me-Gold’s site, this is a business that the owners could run from their computers in Iran using banks in, and a fake address in, Dubai. If a U.S. citizen does business with the company, he or she will be violating the Iran sanctions without having the faintest idea that, on the other side of his computer screen, are a bunch of people in Iran.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


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

Jul

31

Employee Hit With Significant Fine For Lying To BIS


Posted by at 8:33 pm on July 31, 2008
Category: BISIran Sanctions

ECGThe Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) recently announced settlement agreements with Massachusetts-based Select Engineering, Inc., and with David Rainville, its Vice-President of Administration. Select Engineering agreed to settle charges that it exported medical electrode sensor elements and stainless steel snap connectors used in medical devices to Iran without a license. The items were alleged to have been exported to Iran by means of a transshipment through the UAE. As part of its settlement with BIS, Select agreed to pay a civil penalty of $52,800.

David Rainville was accused by BIS of violating 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(g) by making false representations to the BIS agent during the course of BIS’s investigation of the unlicensed exports. Specifically, it was alleged that Rainville told the investigator that he had spoken with an international trade specialist at the Department of Commerce after the unlicensed export when, in fact, he spoke with the specialist before the export. The specialist was alleged to have told Rainville before the export that an OFAC license would be required. Rainville agreed to a civil penalty of $35,200. (Ouch!)

The perplexing thing about this case is trying to understand why Select went ahead and shipped the items without getting license. Licenses are routinely granted here and are easy to obtain from OFAC. The settlement documents indicate that, in 2001, Select had applied for and obtained an OFAC license to ship the same kind of medical equipment to Iran. And, apparently, an employee of the Department of Commerce had specifically advised the company of the license requirement prior to the export at issue. I suppose that the company didn’t want to wait for license, but they paid a heavy price for their haste and risked criminal prosecution as well.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


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

Jun

10

Worst. Logo. Ever. Really.


Posted by at 8:03 pm on June 10, 2008
Category: BISIran Sanctions

Iran Air 747The Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued a non-standard 180-day denial order against various entities, including Iran Air and Ankair, in connection with what BIS believes to be the imminent sale of a Boeing 747 from Ankair to Iran Air. The non-standard denial order provides, in part, that no person may take any action to assist Iran Air in the acquisition of the aircraft in question or to service that aircraft. The denial order also prohibits Ankair from engaging in any transaction related to the aircraft.

Here’s a picture of the jet in question, which was once used by Martinair Cargo, parked at Schiphol in May 2008 prior to its delivery to ACT Airlines, a Turkish cargo airline based in Istanbul. How the 747 then wound up in the hands of Ankair, a charter passenger airline, is unclear.

But the involvement of Ankair in this transaction necessitates a completely off-topic digression into the history of Ankair and the story of its misconceived logo. Ankair was once World Focus Airways. An MD-83 which World Focus leased to and operated for AtlasJet crashed in November 2007 on its approach to an airport in Isparta, Turkey, killing all 57 people on board.

Because of the negative publicity generated by the crash, the company sought to re-brand itself as Ankair, short for Anka Air. Anka derives from the Turkish word for phoenix – anka kuÅŸu. As if the image of resurrection from the ashes wasn’t sufficiently unfortunate in light of the crash that led to the re-branding, the airline’s logo (pictured below) has been the object of mirth given the striking similarity between the phoenix that precedes Ankair and the letter “W.”

Ankair Logo

If this little bit of history piques your interest in Ankair, rest assured that the non-standard denial order wouldn’t prohibit you from flying on one of Ankair’s charter flights.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


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

May

30

I’d Like to Teach Iran to Sing


Posted by at 12:34 am on May 30, 2008
Category: Iran SanctionsSudan

Iranian Coca-ColaThis article in the International Herald Tribune explores the prevalence of American brand name products in Iran and Sudan notwithstanding sanctions that prohibit most exports to the two countries. As we’ve noted before, much of these products are re-exported from other countries, with large quantities of American products being exported from Dubai to Iran.

Two products that are ubiquitous in both countries make it through another route:

Leaving the airport at Khartoum, one of the first things you see is the ultimate symbol of American capitalism: the classic form of a Coca-Cola bottle printed on multicolored banners, next to a huge billboard for its rival, Pepsi.

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have both secured export licenses from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Treasury, using legislation that allows blacklisted states to buy U.S agricultural commodities, medicines and medical equipment.

Coca-Cola said the syrup on which the company’s beverages are based qualified as an agricultural product. Pepsi said that its brands were produced in Sudan under “an OFAC license,” but declined to comment on the Iranian arrangement.

Although Coke syrup doesn’t immediately seem to be an “agricultural product,” the list of eligible products is quite broad and includes a broad number of prepared food products, including coffee and tea extracts. Although soft-drink extracts aren’t explicitly mentioned, they probably fall under USHTS classification 2106.90 — “food preparations not elsewhere specified” — which is included on the list of agricultural products covered under the Trade Sanctions Reform Act which permits agricultural exports to sanctioned countries.

Interestingly Coca-Cola relies on an OFAC license for agricultural products rather than the exemption under OFAC regulations for Iran and Sudan which would permit activities in Iran and Sudan by foreign subsidiaries of Coca-Cola as long as no U.S. persons aren’t involved in the foreign subsidiaries activities in the sanctioned country. That is, I think, a smart move given the difficulty of proving that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies act without any involvement by U.S. persons.

Pepsi’s refusal to comment on how it dispenses Coke its soft drinks in Iran, suggests that it may be relying on the foreign subsidiary exception. As long as cola syrup is seen by OFAC as an agricultural product, it’s hard to see why Pepsi relies on the foreign subsidiary exception rather than simply getting an OFAC license to export the syrup to Iran for bottling.

Even if activities in Sudan and Iran might be legal under OFAC licenses, these activities might be magnets for public criticism, particularly in Sudan. Coke seems to have cleverly sidestepped even this issue:

A Coca-Cola spokesman, Dana Bolden, said the primary motive for operating in Sudan and Iran was “to ensure quality control and protect our trademarks with the independent bottler.”
… Bolden also said the company was reinvesting all the proceeds from its sales in Sudan into programs that benefit the country. “We have committed more than $5 million over the next three years for programs aimed at building communities in Sudan.”

This, of course, doesn’t respond to the issue that Coke products in Iran might provide just the caffeine boost that its nuclear scientists need to build the bomb. Word is, however, that the average Iranian nuclear scientist prefers Austria’s Red Bull energy drink to Coca-Cola.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


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