Archive for January, 2014


Jan

22

New Sentencing Hearing Scheduled for Professor Roth


Posted by at 6:27 pm on January 22, 2014
Category: General

Professor John Roth
ABOVE: Professor Reece Roth


John Reece Roth, a former professor at the University of Tennessee who was convicted of violating U.S. export laws for, among other things, transferring technical data relating to drones to foreign graduate students, is getting another sentencing hearing. Currently serving a four year sentence in a federal penitentiary, Mr. Roth can thank Jeffrey Skilling of Enron infamy, for his new sentencing hearing.

In addition to the export law violations, Roth was also convicted under the “honest services” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1346. That provision was subsequently interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal by Skilling of his conviction under that statute to apply only in cases in which a bribe or kickback had been paid, something which both the government and Roth’s counsel agree did not occur in his case. The issue at the hearing will be whether his conviction on the remaining 16 counts will be enough to justify his four-year sentence. You can, of course, guess which side of this argument each side is on. The hearing is scheduled for February 24, 2014

The only news story on the resentencing hearing is in the Knoxville News Sentinel. No link to that story is provided because, unbelievably, every single word of that newspaper is behind a paywall. The idea that the News Sentinel should charge for all of its content (unlike, say, the New York Times which provides a limited number of articles free to each reader per month) is particularly ironic when you consider that the reporter said this about the original Roth trial

His trial served as a test case nationwide for whether information itself can be a “defense article” subject to export control. Traditionally, export control violations have involved actual equipment or devices.

Er, no. Obviously the reporter neither reads this blog or knows how to work the Google or she might have stumbled on the Chi Mak trial which preceded Roth’s and where the defendant was convicted for exporting technical data about submarine engines to China.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

21

Wide World of (North Korean) Sports: Piste Off Edition


Posted by at 7:23 pm on January 21, 2014
Category: ChinaEconomic SanctionsEUForeign Export ControlsNorth Korea Sanctions

By Mark Scott Johnson from Sydney, Australia (IMG_7688) [CC-BY-2.0] (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AMount_Paektu7.jpgDennis Rodman and his coterie of NBA All-Stars recently returned to the United States from North Korea after Rodman’s birthday basketball bash for his “friend for life” Kim Jong Un.  While Rodman’s zealous zaniness has grabbed global media headlines, another sports-related development in North Korea, is more significant to sanctions and export control issues: the grand opening this month of the Masik Pass luxury ski and hotel resort.

Pictures taken of the resort show the 120-room hotel, indoor swimming pool and 11 ski runs.  Other pictures also show, however, Italian snow plows, Canadian snowmobiles and Swedish snow cannons.  Recent news reports began to shed light on the obvious sanctions issue: how did North Korea build a ski resort without someone violating sanctions.  U.N. Security Council Resolution 2094 and others prohibit members from selling “luxury goods” to North Korea and even though “luxury goods” are not defined and are not limited to the specific luxury items delineated in Annex IV of Resolution 2094, it seems hard to deny that snowmobiles, snow cannons and the other accoutrements of a “luxury” resort are not “luxury goods.”

According to SkyNews, the Italian snow plow manufacturer has predictably said, “Snow groomers are sold directly to ski resorts and distributors and it is possible that a used snow groomer is than sold to another final user by ski resorts or distributors themselves. On this kind of business we as a producer do not have any influence, no company can avoid that this happens.”

Western goods flowing into North Korea is not new.  In fact, we reported last year on the curious infiltration of an Apple iMac on Kim Jong Un’s desk and suggested it, like many Western goods in North Korea, came from China.  Plausible deniability about to whom a manufacturer’s customers sell its products becomes, of course, more attenuated when your business is selling “state-of-the-art snow cannons” that retail for 14,000 Euros each.

U.N., U.S., E.U. and Canadian sanctions policies fail if a repressive regime like North Korea’s so-called supreme leadership continues to violate human rights but opens a ski resort to sustain its control.  Like sanctions against Iran, Cuba and other countries, a principal goal is to curtail infrastructure projects that support the sanctioned governments.  While a ski resort is not the largest national infrastructure project, sanctions were designed to prohibit it being built and supported by Western goods and technology.

Even if the sales of the items found at Masik Pass were beyond detection of reasonable know-your-customer requirements, Italian, Canadian and Swedish enforcement authorities would at least have grounds to inquire further, especially company records and communications involving sales to Chinese resellers that may have been possible routes to North Korea.  While any manufacturer or retailer can’t know everything about its customers, knowing more gives a company greater support to conclude that its business does not involve impermissible activities or give law enforcement a reason to examine its business further.

Clif adds: Blame me, not George, for the terrible pun in the post title.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

14

Export Reform Brings More Red Tape for Exporters


Posted by at 6:16 pm on January 14, 2014
Category: BIS

By Daderot (Own work) [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3APatent_quote_-_United_States_Department_of_Commerce_-_DSC05103.JPGToday I have good news and bad news. Let’s take the bad news first. Starting on January 21, new rules of the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) with respect to exports to persons on the mysterious “Unverified List” will require more red tape, including extra license requirements and more paperwork. Now for the bad news. On January 21, everyone on the current Unverified List will be removed from the list. But, don’t get all excited there: BIS starts planning to add people back to the list and will announce the changes in the Federal Register so you’ll be sure to know who’s on the new Unverified List. (You read the Federal Register every day like a good exporter, don’t you?)

Prior to the adoption of the new rules, the presence of a party on the Unverified List meant that BIS had some difficulty with respect to an end-user check for that party and that you, as an exporter, were supposed to treat the presence of that party on the list as a red flag. When the rule goes into effect on January 21, you will need to file an AES statement for every export to a party on the list without regard to whether a license was required or the value of the shipment. (And for those of you who rely on your freight forwarder to file your AES entries, this is going to be fun.) Second, no license exceptions will apply for shipments that require licenses. Third, you’re going to need to get the Unverified party to sign an “Unverified List Statement” for all transactions that don’t require a license. The new rules don’t provide a form for the Unverified List Statement t but just a laundry list of things that you must include in the Statement, including a promise by the Unverified Party to be very, very good and not violate anything in the Export Administration Regulations. Good luck with that, as the kids say.

Permalink Comments Off on Export Reform Brings More Red Tape for Exporters

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

13

California Man Sentenced to Three Years for Export Violations


Posted by at 6:14 pm on January 13, 2014
Category: Criminal PenaltiesDDTCITAR

Philip He Family Photo via http://news.yahoo.com/special-report-china-39-weapon-snatchers-penetrating-u-150652962.html [Fair Use]
ABOVE: Philip Chaohui He


Last February, this blog reported on the indictment of Philip Chaohui He, who had been indicted on charges that he attempted to export to China $549,654 worth of ITAR-controlled, radiation hardened, space qualified memory chips to China without the required export license. On December 19, Mr. He, who had entered a guilty plea to the charges, was sentenced to three years in prison.

Since our original post, several interesting details have emerged with respect to Mr. He and his attempted export to China. The first relates to the potential involvement of the Chinese government in these exports. The San Francisco Chronicle tells an interesting story as to the ship on which He tried to load the memory chips. The ship was owned by ZPMC, a Chinese state-owned enterprise that was fabricating steel towers for the San Francisco Bay Bridge renovation, a project on which Mr. He was working as an engineer. Mr. He told Jim Yang an employee of ZPMC that one of their employees had left behind in San Francisco a package of personal effects and that he would like to return the package to the employee via a ZPMC ship that was soon departing from the port in Long Beach, California.

Yang said he wondered why He would want to drive seven hours to make the delivery, but he had replied, “Fine.”

“So he drove down by himself with a couple of boxes in his vehicle,” Yang said. “And we had dinner together because he was doing us a favor.”

The next morning, Yang said, He followed him in his car to the Port of Long Beach, where they entered the ZPMC dock site using Yang’s security badge.

Mr. He was immediately arrested on the dock. Yang denies that he knew what was in the package or that ZPMC was in cahoots with He. The red flag here is not just the one flying over Beijing. Why was He driving seven hours with a package of personal effects as a favor to a ZPMC employee he met on the Bay Bridge Project? He couldn’t figure out any other easier way to return the box? Then Yang uses his badge and let’s He on the dock with a package of completely unknown contents that could have been a dirty bomb for all Yang knew. Uh huh. Sure. And if you believe that I’ve got a Bay Bridge to sell you.

The second detail relates to the participation of the memory chip manufacturer, Aeroflex, in the apprehension of Mr. He. We speculated in the original post that He’s large order of stuff he had little demonstrated need for set off alarm bells in Aeroflex and that they set the law on him. This lengthy investigative report on the case by Reuters confirms that this was the case.

People and companies who buy these kinds of rad-chips are usually well-established, repeat customers – more multinational corporation than mom & pop. Aeroflex salesmen had never heard of “Philip Hope” or his company, “Sierra Electronic Instruments.”

Most suspicious of all, just days after placing the order, Hope sent Aeroflex a certified check for the full amount, $549,654. That was rare. Buyers were expected to make a deposit, but nobody paid up front.

Of course, being alert to red flags and lending a helping hand to the government did not result in any expression of gratitude from the Government which, not long after, fined Aeroflex $8 million for export violations that Aeroflex voluntarily disclosed to the Government. My guess is that in the future Aeroflex will simply decline to make sales like this one that are suspicious and won’t feel particularly motivated to pick up the phone and tell the feds about it.

Permalink Comments Off on California Man Sentenced to Three Years for Export Violations

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

9

Be Careful What You Post on Facebook


Posted by at 6:58 pm on January 9, 2014
Category: BISIran Sanctions

Pouya Airlines IL 76 at Antalya Airport via https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.546519808709147.135602.240207326007065&type=1 [Fair Use]We’ve all heard the story of exuberant youngsters who find their career hopes dashed because they posted on Facebook pictures of themselves half-clothed and glassy-eyed with a margarita in one hand and a bong in the other. It’s a cautionary tale, for sure, and has certainly meant that many people have realized that they perhaps should confine pictures of their latest bacchanalian orgy to a more discrete mode of distribution among friends than Facebook. If you wouldn’t send it to your grandmother, don’t post it on your Facebook page, right?

So, you’re wondering, what does this have to do with export law? Well, believe it or not, it relates to a possible explanation of a recent temporary denial order issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) on January 3 against 3K Aviation and others related to the planned export on January 7 of U.S.-origin aircraft engines by 3K from Turkey to Iran via the Iranian cargo carrier Pouya Airline. Many people have expressed surprise that a TDO would be issued that forbade all export related activity by 3K rather than an order forbidding the export of the engines at issue given that the order was issued before the export at issue had even taken place. Typically, as in the Mahan Air case, the TDO is issued after the forbidden export has occurred and prohibits all export-related activity during the effective period of the TDO.

On 3K’s Facebook page, you can (still) find a photo gallery titled “IL 76 Engine Loading” and dated December 27. 2012, long before the TDO. The IL 76 is the Ilyushin cargo aircraft operated by Pouya Airlines. Here is a screen capture of the Facebook page showing the Pouya IL 76 sitting at the Antalya Airport in Turkey. And here is a screen capture from the page of the happy pilots in the IL 76 about to carry their engines back to Iran. (You can easily find images of the IL 76 cockpit on-line if you want to verify that this is an IL 76 cockpit.) In other words, the planned January 7 shipment of U.S aircraft engines to Iran was possibly not the first time that 3K had exported U.S. items to Iran.

For its part, 3K is saying that it’s now planning to ship the engines back to the seller in Germany. Of course, under the denial order they can’t export the engines back to Germany without BIS authorization. And here’s a Catch-22: under the TDO they can’t even store the engines without violating the order.  Whatever 3K does, it will violate the order.

Permalink Comments Off on Be Careful What You Post on Facebook

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)