Comments on: Export Violation Charged Under Overseas Smuggling Law

By: Stan

Stan — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:05:35 +0000

This is the information from Eotech-inc.com site.

As you can tell for EOTech 553 classification by ECCN 0A987 by itself is not enough. If we were talking about 552 or 512 site, than from my understanding than no license is required for Japan according to Country Chart.

This Holographic Weapon Sight must be exported from the United States in accordance with Export Administration Regulations ECCN 0A987. Diversion contrary to U.S. law is prohibited. In accordance with U.S. law (Title 15 CFR part 746 and Supplement No. 1 to Part 774; and Title 31 CFR) resale/re-export or transfer of Holographic Weapon Sight Models 552, 551, 512, 511, 4X magnifier and 3X magnifier to certain designated countries is prohibited without prior written consent of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The Holographic Weapon Sight Models 553, 557 and 555 are controlled under U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and may not be exported without proper authorization by the U.S. Department of State.

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:25:47 +0000

My point is, however, that the prosecution is trying to charge the case so that it doesn’t have to prove he knew that the exports were illegal.

By: Sho Kimura

Sho Kimura — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:55:47 +0000

Every Eotech 553 box is labeled with a warning that the item cannot be exported without State Department approval. Pretty hard to claim ignorance of the export restriction when it’s on every box this product ships in from the factory.

Perhaps the defendant will claim illiteracy, and say he was unable to read the warning. Yeah, right…

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:36:10 +0000

I think that phrase that you quote only modifies “receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such merchandise” and doesn’t necessarily modify “exports.” That being said, courts are hesitant to impose criminal liability on people for doing things that they don’t know to be illegal, so I suspect that courts will read in a scienter requirement. That being said, the best explanation for charging under this statute rather than 2778(c) is to try to build precedent for the claim that they don’t have to prove that the defendant knows the export is illegal

By: Mike Deal

Mike Deal — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:36:24 +0000

A close parsing of Section 554/555 does not necessarily eliminate the requirement to prove specific intent. The full paragraph must be read together, and the last phrase modifies the preceding predicate: “knowing the same to be intended for exportation contrary to any law or regulation of the United State”, should be read to impose a specific intent requirement on the second part of the section, and be indicative of intent. That said, I’m sure that this is part of the Bush DoJ’s campaign to change the scienter requirement by judicial activism rather than by legislation.