Archive for February, 2008


Feb

19

There’s No Place Like Home


Posted by at 5:57 pm on February 19, 2008
Category: Criminal PenaltiesGeneral

Night VisionAccording to this article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, an Iranian woman and mother of two has voluntarily left Iran to face charges in South Florida that she attempted to export illegal 3,000 helmet-mounted night vision systems from the United States to the Iranian military. This is a somewhat surprising decision given that the United States and Iran understandably don’t have extradition treaties with each other.

The woman, Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan, was arrested in Vienna, Austria in 2004 when she and her ex-husband, Mahmoud Seif, traveled to Vienna Austria to pick up one night vision system that had been exported from the United States to Austria and that they planned to re-export to the Iranian military. She was convicted of violating Austrian export laws and sentenced to 50 days in prison. A grand jury in Florida thereafter indicted her on charges of money laundering and export violations.

At a bond hearing in Fort Lauderdale last Friday, Gholikan’s attorney David Markus explained Gholikhan’s remarkable decision on the basis that “she believes in her innocence.” But the defenses so far proffered by her attorney aren’t very convincing on their face:

Markus claims prosecutors have Gholikhan confused with another woman and his client at most acted as a translator. He is pushing to have the case thrown out, arguing Gholikhan’s 2005 conviction on similar charges in Austria makes the U.S. prosecution a violation of double jeopardy protections.

Saying that it wasn’t her but if it was she was only a translator is rather like arguing that your client wasn’t involved in the bank robbery but if he was he only drove the get-away car.

And the double jeopardy claim is equally fanciful. The Supreme Court stated in United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) that prosecutions

brought by separate sovereigns, they are not “for the same offence,” and the Double Jeopardy Clause thus does not bar one when the other has occurred.

So, it won’t be long before Ms. Gholikan may be tapping her heels together and chanting “There’s no place like home.” That may have gotten Dorothy back to Kansas but it’s doubtful whether it will get Ms. Gholikhan back to her home in Tehran.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


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

Feb

13

iPods to Iran: A How-To Guide


Posted by at 11:19 pm on February 13, 2008
Category: Iran Sanctions

Griffin iPod Speaker SystemA fascinating article in today’s Wall Street Journal details how Iran eludes U.S. sanctions on exports to that country. An interview with an Iranian merchant supplies an instructive example of how the merchant obtains iPod accessories from Tennessee-based Griffin Technology:

The owner of an electronics-goods store in affluent North Tehran, who asked to be identified only by his first name, Borhan, recently stopped using bank-to-bank wire transfers to pay for goods because of the restrictions. U.S. companies can’t ship most products into Iran. Borhan says he orders iPod accessories online from Griffin Technology in Nashville, Tenn., and has them shipped to a middleman — a UAE-registered company in Dubai that operates out of a post-office box.

A typical $10,000 order, packed in 10 boxes, costs as much as $800 to ship to Dubai, he says. He pays another $500 to the middleman to unpack the goods in Dubai and reship them to Tehran. To pay for the shipment, he says, he gives cash to an acquaintance in Tehran who sends the money to his brother in Dubai through an informal money-transfer service, or “hawala.” The brother then pays the middleman.

Commissions for the middlemen and for the hawala transfer come out to about $1,000. The payment system takes three days, instead of the 12 hours a bank-to-bank transfer would take. (A spokeswoman for Griffin says it is “unable to control where products end up in the marketplace.”)

The pat response from Griffin — “we can’t control where products end up” — just doesn’t cut it here. If the story of how the merchant ordered the product is true, this transaction doesn’t have red flags; it has red banners the size of a football field draped all over it. A transaction worth $10,000 shipped to a P.O. Box in Dubai is bad enough, but if Griffin checked the IP Address associated with the order it would almost certainly show that the order came from Iran. Game over.

Exporters can’t simply bury their heads, ostrich-like, in the sand and say they just have no idea where their products wind up and that they are “shocked, shocked to find that” their products were ultimately shipped to Iran or another sanctioned country.

Permalink Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share


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

Feb

12

What Goes on in Dubai Doesn’t Stay in Dubai


Posted by at 7:35 pm on February 12, 2008
Category: Iran Sanctions

U.S. Embassy in Khartoum
Satellite image of the Strait
of Hormuz


A wire story from Agence France Presse today documents the extent to which trade between Iran and the UAE may be circumventing unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran:

Thousands of Iranian firms are still doing business in the country’s top trading partner, the United Arab Emirates, despite a US drive to choke Tehran’s economy over its controversial nuclear program. But US banking sanctions are also beginning to bite, industry sources say.

The AFP reporter interviewed Nasser Hashempour, executive deputy president of the Dubai-based Iranian Business Council, who provided one of the reasons the sanctions weren’t having much impact on trade between Dubai and Iran:

Iranian businesses “have not had any problem with local banks because we are considered UAE companies” under local rules requiring at least 51 percent of a business to be owned by an Emirati national, said Nasser Hashempour. …

The same goes for fully Iranian-owned firms operating out of free zones “because they are registered in the UAE and their sponsor is the free zone,” which would pull their licenses if they flouted the rules, he told AFP.

The article goes on to point out that almost 10 percent of the population of Dubai is Iranian and that almost 10,000 Iranian firms are doing business in Dubai.

But the real reason that the sanctions may not have stopped trade in U.S.-origin goods between Dubai and Iran is that Dubai has no interest in making it stop according to a UAE official who, not surprisingly, requested anonymity:

As for unilateral US sanctions, these would have to be applied by private banks and companies and “it is not for the UAE government to tell private companies what to do,” the official added.

That doesn’t appear to be what officials of the UAE were telling the U.S. government when they convinced U.S. officials not to put the UAE on Schedule C to the EAR as a country of “diversionary concern.”

Bottom line for exporters: it’s probably a bad idea to export an item to the UAE unless you have a pretty good reason to believe it’s going to stay in there

Permalink Comments Off on What Goes on in Dubai Doesn’t Stay in Dubai

Bookmark and Share


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

Feb

11

Szubin Says Sudanese Sanctions Suits Starting Soon


Posted by at 5:25 pm on February 11, 2008
Category: OFACSudan

U.S. Embassy in Khartoum
US Embassy in Khartoum

Late last week Reuters reported that Adam Szubin, head of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), announced that OFAC was stepping up its enforcement actions for violations of the U.S. sanctions on Sudan. According to Szubin, agents have built up a “queue” of enforcement actions against violators that will be rolled out in as early as a month’s time.

And Szubin is hoping to go for the big bucks:

Violating companies now face fines of up to $250,000 a breach or a charge of twice the offending transaction — a penalty that in some cases could run into millions, said Szubin. …

The recent increase in penalties for sanctions violators had strengthened OFAC’s hand, he added. …

Before the penalty increase, the company would have only had to pay up to $50,000 for each illegal sale — a charge that many organisations could write off.

“We’re now able to say, if your transactions totalled $40 million, and those were violative transactions, you could be facing a maximum penalty of $80 million. And that is no longer something that people will shrug off.”

This prospective uptick in enforcement actions, corresponds with increasing diplomatic parries between the U.S. and Sudan over the sanctions. According to a story in the Sudan Tribune, last year the government of Sudan had blocked 400 containers bound for the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum for failure to pay customs fees. The U.S. premised this non-payment on the Sudan sanctions and it was not until Sudanese president Omar Hassan Al-Bashir issued a decree granting an exception to the containers from custom fees that the containers were released. The Sudanese government later reversed its position and recently blocked entry of containers bound for the U.S. Embassy for non-payment of customs fees. In response, the U.S. has threatened to halt construction of a new U.S. Embassy in Khartoum. That construction has been underway for the past two years.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


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

Feb

8

It Could Have Been Worse


Posted by at 4:05 pm on February 8, 2008
Category: BISIran Sanctions

Iran AirYesterday the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) released a Settlement Agreement it had entered into with Selex Sistemi Integrati, Inc. According to the charging papers, Selex had exported an instrument landing system classified under ECCN 7A994 and then re-exported it without a license to Iran. The export and re-export in question occurred in November 2002. Selex agreed to a fine of $12,300. The violation was not voluntarily disclosed by Selex to BIS.

Interestingly, this is the first reported enforcement action commenced after the effective date of Public Law 110-96 which increased the penalties for export violations (under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or “IEEPA”) to the greater of $250,000 or twice the value of the transaction. Amended section 206(b) states that the higher penalty is applicable in any enforcement action which is “pending or commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.” Because of BIS’s annoying habit of not dating much of its correspondence, it is impossible in this case to tell from the documents posted whether the enforcement action was commenced after after October 16, 2007, the date of enactment. Assuming, however, that this was the case, the $250,000 penalty would be, under the terms of the amendment, retroactively applicable.

In that light, the $12,600 fine is relatively low. There are several possible explanations for this. I do not think that one explanation was any concern about the legality of increasing the civil penalty retroactively. The black letter law is that the constitutional provision against ex post facto laws applies to criminal penalties but not to civil penalties. See Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990). Granted there is some support for the proposition that a civil penalty that is essentially punitive and not remedial might be covered under the ex post facto clause. But it can’t be easily concluded that IEEPA’s $250,000 penalty is essentially punitive rather than remedial, although that might well be the case.

Another, and more likely possibility, is that the item exported, an instrument landing system, is a key component of aviation safety. The Iranian sanctions have been severely criticized for their detrimental impact on aviation safety and have been argued to have played a role in a recent civilian air disaster in Iran.

Finally, and probably the most likely possibility, is that the increase in maximum penalty available has not altered BIS’s perception of what a fair settlement is in a particular case. With most penalties in the past being in the five-figure range and only the rare penalty in the six- or seven-figure range, it may well be that BIS is not inclined to ratchet up penalties in the average case just because of the IEEPA amendment, but will reserve the maximum penalty for the most egregious cases.

Permalink Comments Off on It Could Have Been Worse

Bookmark and Share


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