Archive for July, 2008


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.)

Jul

30

Army Captain Pleads Guilty To Arms Smuggling Charges


Posted by at 8:28 pm on July 30, 2008
Category: Criminal Penalties

EoTech 553 rifle sightLast week we reported that charges had been filed against a U.S. Army Captain for exporting EoTech holographic rifle sights to Japan without the required export license from the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. Of particular interest was that the government charged Captain Iishiba for violating the overseas smuggling provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 555, rather than under 22 U.S.C. § 2778(c), the criminal provisions of the Arms Export Control Act. We speculated that this might be because the government believed that 18 U.S.C. § 555 had a relaxed scienter requirement such that the government would only have to prove that the export was knowing but not that it was a knowing violation of law.

On Monday, a plea agreement between Iishiba and the government was entered with the court. Iishiba pleaded guilty to violation of the federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371 for conspiring to violate the overseas smuggling statute. The plea agreement, however, did not simply indicate that the exports were intentional, but also stated that Iishiba knew that the exports were in violation of law. Specifically, the plea agreement noted that Iishiba was aware that the exports were illegal because he “misidentified the contents of the packages on the export declaration forms.”

Given that the plea agreement seemingly acknowledges that 18 U.S.C. § 555 requires that the export be in knowing violation of law, the question remains as to why Iishiba wasn’t charged under the Arms Export Control Act as opposed to the anti-smuggling provision. The penalties under the two statutes appear to be the same, so that’s not the reason. Any ideas? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section.

Permalink Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share


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

Jul

29

Who Needs Attorneys Anyway?


Posted by at 9:12 pm on July 29, 2008
Category: OFAC

Treasury DepartmentLast week the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued a document with the catchy title “Guidance on the Release of Limited Amounts of Blocked Funds for Payment of Legal Fees and Costs Incurred in Challenging the Blocking of U.S. Persons in Administrative or Civil Proceedings.” Although it did not purport to change current policy, it did so in significant and unstated ways.

Indeed, the guidance document is less than forthright about what it intended to accomplish. The guidance states:

This policy is aimed at enhancing the ability of a Blocked Party that lacks alternative access to funds to acquire legal representation in connection with its designation or the blocking of its property and interests in property.

In fact, the document is designed to prevent and/or burden legal representation in ways that OFAC has not previously sought to do. First, the guidance states that OFAC will only unblock funds to pay legal fees of U.S. Citizens that have been placed on the Specially Designated Nationals (“SDN”) list. Second, the guidance imposes limits on the amounts that will be unblocked with severe limits both on hourly rates and total fees reimbursed.

[T]he payment of legal fees from blocked funds may be licensed at a rate not to exceed $125 per hour, up to a cap set for each stage of the administrative proceedings or litigation. OFAC anticipates tracking the [Equal Access to Justice Act] hourly rate if it changes in the future. The policy incorporates fee caps per proceeding, as does the CJA, and limits the amount of licensable fees to $7,000 per attorney, for up to two attorneys, for administrative proceedings; $7,000 per attorney, for up to two attorneys, for district court litigation; and $5,000 per attorney, for up to two attorneys, for appellate court litigation. In extraordinary cases, such as cases involving lengthy or complex proceedings (e.g., may include cases lasting more than a year or with multiple parties whose designation or blocking resulted from a substantially similar administrative record or set of facts), the maximum fees allowed could be doubled for each stage of the litigation.

It’s probably a safe bet to assume that all the lawyers ran out of the room when they heard these figures. Suffice it to say that few persons challenging their inclusion on the SDN list will be able to find competent representation at these rates.

Prior to the guidelines, OFAC granted licenses to pay attorneys’ fees from blocked funds and assets without these limitations. Unlimited licenses were granted both to Global Relief Foundation and to Benevolence International Foundation.

Admittedly, this was not a uniform policy, and in the case involving the Islamic American Relief Agency, OFAC would only grant a license to pay attorneys’ fees from “fresh funds,” i.e., funds that came from outside the United States and had not been previously blocked. This, of course, is equivalent to licensing blocked funds since these fresh funds would also have become blocked once they entered the United States. And the guidance document leaves open the possibility that it may still permit broader reimbursement for attorneys in future cases from “fresh funds.”

What follows is admittedly rank speculation, but one has to wonder whether OFAC’s crackdown on attorneys in designation cases is the result of the bitter taste left in its mouth in the Al-Haramain case, where OFAC inadvertently disclosed to the attorneys a Top Secret document that revealed the attorneys’ phone calls were being illegally wiretapped by the U.S. government.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


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

Jul

25

Cancel That Safari!


Posted by at 3:05 pm on July 25, 2008
Category: SanctionsZimbabwe Sanctions

Dead Hippo and Live HunterIn addition to the general stupidity of killing animals that you don’t even eat, there may be another reason to cancel any upcoming safaris in Zimbabwe that you may have planned. President Bush today signed new sanctions against 1 individual and seventeen companies with connections to the discredited Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe, including a company called Famba Safaris.

According to a press release from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Famba Safaris is a “registered Zimbabwean safari operator, whose Director and major shareholder is SDN Webster Shamu, Mugabe’s Minister of State for Policy Implementation.” Webster Shamu was put on the Specially Designated Nationals List on November 23, 2005.

The reason for adding Famba Safaris now to the SDN goes back to a brouhaha that erupted when Shamu was first placed on the SDN list. You see, HHK Safaris, one of the largest operators of safaris in Zimbabwe, has a somewhat ambiguous relationship with Famba Safaris, claiming that it “incorporates” Famba Safaris. After the initial designation of Shamu, the influential newsletter The Hunting Report raised questions as to whether this would make it impossible for Americans to do business with HHK due to its affiliation with Shamu. A spokesperson for HHK subsequently told Hunting Report that Shamu had no further affiliation with Famba and that Americans could feel free to come on down to Zimbabwe and kill a few hippos.

Well, not anymore, at least until HHK explains away its affiliation with Famba Safaris.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


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

Jul

24

Export Controls Proposed To Address Internet Censorship


Posted by at 8:56 pm on July 24, 2008
Category: Export Control Proposals

Shenzen Network PoliceAt a recent event in Washington, D.C., a U.S. legislator and an E.U. legislator announced a joint effort to adopt legislation to address the participation of U.S. and European technology companies in activities of repressive foreign regimes designed to limit access of their citizens to the Internet. The effort targets countries such as China that limit Internet access and which require the providers of Internet services to cooperate in prosecutions of citizens that engage in prohibited Internet conduct.

European Parliament Member Jules Maaten announced that he had drafted the European Online Global Freedom Act for consideration by the European Parliament. The draft legislation would, among other things, prohibit European companies from locating servers or other computer hardware used to provide Internet services in countries that restrict Internet freedom. The law also directed relevant regulatory bodies to promulgate regulations that would prohibit export of items that would be used by foreign countries to restrict Internet freedom and access. It would also prohibit filtering search engine requests at the request of foreign officials of such countries.

On the U.S. side, U.S. Representative Chris Smith (R – N.J.) has introduced the Global Online Freedom Act which roughly parallels the draft European legislation, but is somewhat less restrictive on the activities of U.S. companies. Smith’s legislation, which has been passed out of committee and is on the House’s Union Calendar, requires disclosure of any search engine filtering done at the behest of foreign officials in a country restricting Internet freedom but doesn’t prohibit the company from performing such filtering. It also directs the Department of Commerce to conduct a feasibility study addressing possible export controls on items used to restrict Internet freedom.

Whether or not these proposals will get any traction in their respective legislative bodies, it is safe to say that there is heightened awareness of these issues by legislators and that some export restrictions may ultimately be adopted to counter the worst instances of cooperation by U.S. and European Internet companies with repressive and authoritarian regimes. Of course, whether that will lead to more or less Internet freedom in such countries is an open question — repressive regimes are probably more likely to respond to such sanctions by further limiting access to the Internet rather than by simply eliminating all Internet restrictions.

Permalink Comments Off on Export Controls Proposed To Address Internet Censorship

Bookmark and Share


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