Archive for December, 2009


Dec

15

Maybe the Shoe Is on the Other Foot


Posted by at 11:18 pm on December 15, 2009
Category: Criminal PenaltiesIran Sanctions

Free The HikersOn Monday, a U.S. Federal District Court Judge in Delaware sentenced Amir Hossein Ardebili, who was the subject of this earlier post on Export Law Blog, to five years in prison, less time served and credit for good behavior, based on Ardebili’s guilty plea to U.S. charges arising out of attempted exports of military goods to Iran. During Ardebili’s statement at the sentencing hearing, he frequently burst into tears, even at one point crying so much that a break was taken.

Iran immediately denounced the sentence and announced that it would try three American hikers that wandered into Iran last summer, implicitly linking Ardebili’s fate to that of the three U.S. hikers now held in Iranian prisons According to an Iranian press agency, Iran Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Ramin Mehmanparast, said that the jail sentence handed down yesterday was “illegal.” Tehran has also argued that under international law officials in Georgia were obliged to return Ardebili to Iran rather than giving him to U.S. agents, reports Iran’s Press TV network.

Iran’s claim of a requirement to return Ardebili under international law is not quite on the mark since there really isn’t such a recognized right in extradition matters. As generally understood, international law holds that no country is obliged to extradite anyone. This understanding of international law explains why there are a hundreds of bilateral extradition treaties, although the U.S. does not have an extradition treaty with Georgia. That doesn’t mean that a country, such as Georgia, cannot voluntarily hand over someone in the absence of a treaty. However, that is normally only done after a representation of reciprocal treatment by the country requesting extradition.

U.S. law does permit, in limited circumstances, extradition from the United States in the absence of a treaty with the country requesting extradition. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3181(b) the U.S. will allow such extradition from the United States of foreign persons but only for violent crimes that are not deemed political offenses. Certainly the crime that Ardebili was alleged to have committed was not a violent crime and so an extradition of a person from the U.S. on export charges by a country without an extradition treaty would be illegal under U.S. law. This means that the U.S. couldn’t really make a commitment of reciprocal treatment to Georgia to support its request for a non-treaty extradition of Ardebili. If the situation were reversed, U.S. law would actually prohibit the extradition

The problem created here is that the shaky grounds for U.S. jurisdiction over Ardebili detract from our own country’s argument that Iran should return the hikers. After all, Iran’s claim of jurisdiction to hold the hikers is stronger than the U.S. claim of jurisdiction over Ardebili even if Iran’s substantive claim that the hikers broke the law is dubious. After all, the hikers were captured in Iran whereas Ardebili was lured into Georgia and arrested there.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Dec

10

Defense Trade Treaties Slouching Towards Ratification


Posted by at 9:49 pm on December 10, 2009
Category: Arms ExportDDTC

Andrew Shapiro
ABOVE: Andrew Shapiro testifying
today before Senate Foreign
Relations Committee


The Senate Foreign Relations Committee today held a hearing on the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties between the United States and the United Kingdom and between the United States and Australia. Both treaties, the text of which can be found here, would permit certain defense items to be exported without a license from the United States to certain users in the United Kingdom and Australia. Signed in June and September 2007, the two treaties have since languished in the Senate approval process.

Senator Kerry, the Chairman of the committee, indicated in his opening statement his intent to draft and pass a resolution of advice and consent to the ratification of both treaties, although no time frame was given. Senator Lugar, the Ranking Member, used his opening statement to whine about the Implementing Arrangements for the treaty which, he said, weren’t subject to the advice and consent of the Senate and could be changed at any time by the White House and its counterparts in the United Kingdom and Australia. So much for our special relationship with those countries. Whether Lugar’s vote will ultimately be needed for an advice and consent resolution remains to be seen.

Andrew J. Shapiro, Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs at the State Department testified in favor of ratification of the treaties signifying that the Obama administration will take the same position on the treaties as did his predecessor in the White House. Perhaps to allay the concerns of Lugar and others on the Committee, Shapiro emphasized that items exported under the treaties would be subject to stringent controls on their use and export from the United Kingdom and Australia. He also cited two examples of areas in which cooperation among the U.S, the U.K, and Australia would be useful: forensic technology to investigate IED explosions and development of “non-lethal capabilities for counter-piracy and maritime counter-terrorism.” Frankly these seem odd areas to highlight but perhaps Shapiro was responding to some specific Committee concerns

Associate Deputy Attorney General James Baker ended the hearing with testimony underlining the Department of Justice’s belief that the two treaties would not need implementing legislation. Baker argued that because the treaties were “self-executing” they could legally be put into force by the current administration through minor amendments to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (the “ITAR”).

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Dec

9

And If The Shoe Were on the Other Foot?


Posted by at 8:28 pm on December 9, 2009
Category: Criminal PenaltiesIran Sanctions

Amir Ardebili
ABOVE: Amir Ardebili captured on
surveillance video in Tbilsi, Georgia


Amir Hossein Ardebili, an Iranian national, engaged in extensive negotiations from Iran and apparently on behalf of the Iranian government to export defense items from the United States to Iran. The U.S. companies, however, were sting operations set up by U.S. undercover agents. When the agents lured Ardebili from Iran to Tbilsi, Georgia, they arrested him in October 2007 and, seemingly with the cooperation of Georgian authorities, brought him back to the United States where he was secretly imprisoned and held under a sealed indictment.

Ardebili has pleaded guilty to charges, among other things, that he violated the United States Arms Export Control Act. In preparation for his sentencing on December 14, some of the sealed documents, including a redacted version of the indictment have been unsealed. Prior to the unsealing, the identity of the city where Ardebili was snatched had been undisclosed but it’s now clear that, as had been rumored, Ardebili had traveled to Georgia to meet with the agents.

The government’s sentencing memorandum, in an effort to obtain the maximum term of imprisonment possible, provides further details of the undercover investigation. Significantly, the memo stresses that the Ardebili was engaged in procurement activities for his sole customer, the government of Iran, which was seeking the items because it believed it was going to go to war with the United States.

Ardebili’s attorney has filed a motion for a downward variance from the sentencing guidelines, arguing that the 22 months already served in solitary confinement caused Ardebili to become clinically depressed. The motion further noted that all of Ardebili’s activities were legal in Iran, where they took place, and that he was acting “indirectly on behalf of the Government of Iran.”

What are we to make of the fact here that the defendant was acting in Iran on behalf of the Iranian government and was later taken by U.S. agents from Georgia to stand trial in the United States? After the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992), abduction of defendants from foreign countries in order to bring them to the United States to stand trial is legal. The doctrine of functional sovereign immunity from prosecution for acts taken on behalf of foreign governments is basically confined to high officials of those countries. And the U.S. takes the controversial position that it has criminal jurisdiction over anyone located in foreign countries trying to export items from the United States.

Of course, if the shoe were on the other foot, if an American businessman had been abducted by Iranian agents from a hotel in, say, Russia and then secretly held in solitary confinement for two years in Iran, you can bet your you-know-what that we would be screaming bloody murder. I am not a fan of the Government of Iran or its nuclear aspirations, but we really have to understand that if we employ extraordinary means such as were employed here then we will have no cause to complain when those same methods are used against U.S. citizens abroad.

Here is some of the surveillance video of the meeting between the U.S. agents and Ardebili in Georgia:

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Dec

8

Exporter and Former Exec At Odds Over Export Charges


Posted by at 7:39 pm on December 8, 2009
Category: BIS

WhistleblowerFor any exporters who may be thinking of ignoring prior export violations hoping that no one will find out, this SEC filing and its tale of a whistleblower might give them an occasion for pause. Law Enforcement Associates just disclosed in an 8-K filed with the SEC that a former executive that the company had dismissed had charged the company with export violations.

The charges by the former executive, Mr. Paul Feldman, are contained in a letter that Feldman filed with the Department of Labor in connection with his dismissal. According to that letter, Law Enforcement Associates appears to have sold items to a company called Safesource for export to the Dominican Republican. Thereafter, Feldman learned that John Carrington, a former owner of Law Enforcement Associates, was a 50 percent owner of Safesource. That was problematic, according to Feldman’s letter, because Carrington was subject to a BIS denial order.

Feldman, another company director and company counsel then contacted the BIS agent that had investigated Mr. Carrington to inform the agent of the exports and its discovery that Carrington was involved in the exports. A week later federal agents raided Safesource.

Three other directors at Law Enforcement Associates, who Feldman alleges were friends of Carrington, became upset about the disclosures to federal authorities. They fired the company’s general counsel who had met with the BIS agent and replaced him with the personal attorney of one of the three Board members. The three directors also sought to have Feldman tell them what he had said to the BIS agent. When Feldman refused, claiming that the three other directors were leaking information about the matter to Carrington, the newly-appointed general counsel, according to Feldman’s letter, called the BIS agent “demanding” that he reveal what Feldman had told the government. Not surprisingly, the BIS agent is said to have told the new general counsel to “tread lightly.” (Practice note to budding export lawyers: this was not a good move by the new general counsel.) Feldman was later fired by a vote of the three directors.

Notwithstanding the ill-advised board-room theatrics — it’s generally a bad idea to try to shut down a company official trying to report export violations — it’s not clear that an export violation by the Company even occurred here. Of course, as regular readers are aware, I do not believe that BIS has the authority to impose general denial orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, BIS’s current governing statute. Even if BIS did have that authority, the portion of the Denial Order that deals with actions by third parties, such as Law Enforcement Associates, would prohibit Law Enforcement Associates from assisting the Denied Person from acquiring any item to be exported from the United States. Here, the items exported were acquired by Safesource, which was not a Denied Person, and not by Carrington, who was.

Law Enforcement Associates disputes the claims made in the Feldman letter and states its belief that the allegations are simply an “attempt by a disgruntled former executive to seek retribution from the Company.”

Stay tuned. I don’t think this show is over yet.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Dec

7

New Processing Time Exception Announced by DDTC


Posted by at 7:52 pm on December 7, 2009
Category: DDTC

Stopped ClockThe Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) published today in the Federal Register a Notice indicating that it was adding a sixth exception to National Security Presidential Directive–56 which mandated a 60-day processing time for export license applications. According to the Notice, the 60-day time frame will not apply

[w]hen a related export policy is under active review and pending final determination by the Department of State.

Of course, this announcement makes me wonder whether a significant number of export policies have been under review by DDTC. Has the new administration begun a significant review of DDTC’s export polices? More importantly, is this new exception good or bad for exporters? Will the delay result in more applications being granted because the DDTC review winds up eliminating a denial policy? Or will it result in more applications being refused because DDTC’s review results in a new denial policy? Both actual experience and rampant speculation welcomed in the comments as answers to these questions.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)