Archive for November, 2010


Nov

4

Arizona Man Indicted for Exporting Military Aircraft Engines to Venezuela


Posted by at 8:52 pm on November 4, 2010
Category: Arms ExportCriminal PenaltiesVenezuela

OV-10 BroncoAn Arizona man and his company Marsh Aviation have been indicted for conspiring to provide defense services to the Venezuelan Air Force and exporting military aircraft engine to Venezuela without the required licenses. The engines in question were Garrett T-76 turboprop engines used by the Venezuelan Air Force’s Bronco OV-10 multi-mission aircraft.

According to the indictment, Marsh Aviation was contacted on March 5, 2007, by a former officer of the Venezuelan Air Force who offered to represent the company before the Venezuelan Air Force with respect to the T-76 engines. The former officer acknowledged the U.S. arms embargo against Venezuela but stated that he knew of ways to avoid the embargo. Three days later $1.8 million dollars was wired into the personal account of the CEO of Marsh Aviation.

Thereafter in May 2007 there was further correspondence between Marsh and the former Venezuelan officer regarding the “completion” of Marsh’s contract to overhaul and to upgrade the T-76 engines. Thereafter, the engines were disassembled and exported to Venezuela as parts for the TPE331 engine, the civilian version of the T-76. A Marsh Aviation employee was then sent to Venezuela to put the engines back together.

The indictment states that the conspiracy began in November 2005 which provides some additional information as to what might have been going on here. The arms embargo against Venezuela went into place on August 17, 2006. What may have happened here was that the Venezuelan engines were shipped to Marsh in late 2005 and were still there when the embargo went into effect. Also it is likely that Marsh had finished some of the overhaul but wasn’t going to be paid until the engines were delivered to Venezuela. The arms embargo effectively confiscated from Marsh Aviation the money it was due under the contract.

When Marsh was contacted by the former Venezuelan officer, who likely was the one who cooked up the T-76/TPE331 switcheroo scheme as a means to for “completion” of the contract, Marsh jumped at the idea. Marsh might even have believed that the scheme was legal given the near identity of the two engines. Venezuela then sent Marsh $1.8 million dollars three days later. And the rest is history.

Granted this is largely speculation on my part. But it seems a reasonable speculation. And it is a reminder of one of the risks of defense exports — namely, that a U.S. exporter can be left holding the bag when an arms embargo intervenes between the beginning and end of a contract that will require the export of a defense article.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

3

OFAC Defines Revival Meetings As Services


Posted by at 9:39 pm on November 3, 2010
Category: OFACSudan

RegistrationIn the latest disclosure of civil penalty information by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the agency describes a Letter of Violation that it issued against an international evangelical group called Christ for All Nations. According to the disclosure, the ministry “exported goods and services to Sudan in support of a non-commercial event in Sudan during 2006.” Another source describes the “non-commercial event” in Sudan as a religious revival rally in Juba:

In the months of July and August 2006 the Christ for all Nations (CfaN) team traveled to Sudan … In Juba, Sudan the team conducted a crusade and fire conference. The response was amazing with over 243,532 people completing a decision card for salvation. The effort required to get to Juba by the technical team was nothing short of heroic. A 1500 kilometer journey over rough roads, and bridges barely able to hold the weight of the huge trucks.

This is probably the first time OFAC has gone after anyone for conducting a church service in a sanctioned country.

Of course, you have to scratch your head to figure out how an overland trip by a German evangelist to a remote area of Sudan to preach violates any of the necessary elements of a violation set forth in the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations. Under Section 538.507, the re-export by non-U.S. persons subject to license requirement under the EAR with less than 10 percent U.S. content and EAR99 items is not prohibited by the regulations. All the goods here came to Sudan by road from other parts of Africa which makes one wonder which of these goods, if any, met these requirements.

And regardless of one’s belief about the efficacy of the services provided at a religious rally, these hardly seem to be “services” in any traditional sense. And even if they are, what regulatory policy is furthered by defining them as such? Does a religious rally in Juba benefit the Sudan-regime in any way that is contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United States?

No fine was imposed by OFAC based on “the licensable, non-commercial nature of the conduct and the non-profit nature of the violator on the other hand.” But is anyone else troubled by the notion that OFAC should be licensing religious services in foreign countries?

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

2

Company Boasts of BIS Registration on Its Website


Posted by at 10:01 pm on November 2, 2010
Category: BIS

RegistrationRegular readers are familiar with this blog’s occasional posts on press releases where companies boast that they have registered with the Department of Defense Trade Controls. These press releases describe certain imaginary attributes of this registration, usually that it is a certification by DDTC that the company has met the exacting standards of DDTC to be eligible to export defense articles.

Sharp-eyed reader Lisa Caplinger brought to my attention a yet more lavish variation on the registration game. Now it appears that at least one company is boasting on its website that it is “registered” with the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”):

The Bureau of Industry and Security is charged with the development, implementation and interpretation of U.S. export control policy for dual-use commodities, software, and technology. Dual-use items subject to BIS regulatory jurisdiction have predominantly commercial uses, but also have military applications. CBOL is registered with BIS, which is a precondition for the issuance of any license or other approval for export.

So, all of you out there who have applied for and received licenses from BIS without registering with the agency, you’d better get those voluntary self disclosures in tout de suite.

For new readers, we are kidding about the voluntary disclosure. No registration is required with BIS, and so no voluntary disclosure is in order. Perhaps the company is referring here to the process of getting a company identification number and PIN to enable electronic filing on the SNAP-R system. Does this mean we will start seeing press releases from companies that have received their ID numbers from BIS for electronic filings?

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)