Comments on: Different Month, Same Sanctions http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/496 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:06:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: EFerrari http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/496/comment-page-1#comment-23756 EFerrari Wed, 27 May 2009 17:32:42 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=496#comment-23756 Kudos to Circles Robinson on his comment. This is something I have written on in the past and always wondered about. At what point does the Executive stop and take a look at these sanctions programs and realize they don't work. I have yet to see any hard empirical evidence to suggest that OFAC administered sanctions programs has effective in carrying out their objectives. This is not to say that I am against using sanctions as a foreign policy tool, but it seems apparent that some of these things just don't work and need to be reconsidered. Case in point is the Iranian Transactions Regulations. Iranian importers and those seeking to export to Iran have carried out business for years by finding ways to circumvent OFAC regulations. It's like we continue to build the U.S. legal equivalent of the Maginot line. Kudos to Circles Robinson on his comment. This is something I have written on in the past and always wondered about. At what point does the Executive stop and take a look at these sanctions programs and realize they don’t work. I have yet to see any hard empirical evidence to suggest that OFAC administered sanctions programs has effective in carrying out their objectives. This is not to say that I am against using sanctions as a foreign policy tool, but it seems apparent that some of these things just don’t work and need to be reconsidered.

Case in point is the Iranian Transactions Regulations. Iranian importers and those seeking to export to Iran have carried out business for years by finding ways to circumvent OFAC regulations. It’s like we continue to build the U.S. legal equivalent of the Maginot line.

]]> By: Circles Robinson http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/496/comment-page-1#comment-22459 Circles Robinson Thu, 07 May 2009 22:39:15 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=496#comment-22459 I forgot to mention if you'd like to read more about Cuba from Cuba check out this site: www.havanatimes.or I forgot to mention if you’d like to read more about Cuba from Cuba check out this site: http://www.havanatimes.or

]]> By: Circles Robinson http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/496/comment-page-1#comment-22458 Circles Robinson Thu, 07 May 2009 22:29:59 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=496#comment-22458 The US government prohits ordinary US citizens from traveling to one country in the world: Cuba. It also maintains a nearly 50-year economic stranglehold on the island. I think its time to realize that Cuba isn't going to cry uncle, and at the same time wake up to the fact that the Caribbean Island of 11.2 million people is no threat to the United States. Now it's up to the Obama Administration and Congress to show they are really for a change in this time-worn, failed policy. So far there has been some talk but nothing concrete. The US government prohits ordinary US citizens from traveling to one country in the world: Cuba. It also maintains a nearly 50-year economic stranglehold on the island. I think its time to realize that Cuba isn’t going to cry uncle, and at the same time wake up to the fact that the Caribbean Island of 11.2 million people is no threat to the United States. Now it’s up to the Obama Administration and Congress to show they are really for a change in this time-worn, failed policy. So far there has been some talk but nothing concrete.

]]> By: Clif Burns http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/496/comment-page-1#comment-22456 Clif Burns Thu, 07 May 2009 19:16:34 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=496#comment-22456 515 CFR 571 governs Cuban nationals in the U.S. pursuant to a visa, and only permits limited payments to Cubans sufficient to pay living expenses and to buy goods for personal consumption. Any moneys won in a casino would exceed that and would have to be blocked. Cuban baseball players also couldn't be paid anything in excess of what's necessary to cover living expenses and goods for consumption in the United States. You couldn't pay them extra money to take back to Cuba. 515 CFR 571 governs Cuban nationals in the U.S. pursuant to a visa, and only permits limited payments to Cubans sufficient to pay living expenses and to buy goods for personal consumption. Any moneys won in a casino would exceed that and would have to be blocked. Cuban baseball players also couldn’t be paid anything in excess of what’s necessary to cover living expenses and goods for consumption in the United States. You couldn’t pay them extra money to take back to Cuba.

]]> By: Kelly Yip http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/496/comment-page-1#comment-22455 Kelly Yip Thu, 07 May 2009 18:22:49 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=496#comment-22455 Speaking of Cuba. "What about TWEA, there is the risk of Cuban Nationals gambling in U.S. institutions" A friend asked me the above-noted query and my response was: "Are we talking about Cubans entering the US legally? What separates the Cuban Nationals from the Cuban baseball players entering the US to play for their country (Olympics). I have a feeling they probably took some moola back to Cuba afterward." Am I correct? Regards, Kelly Speaking of Cuba. “What about TWEA, there is the risk of Cuban Nationals gambling in U.S. institutions”

A friend asked me the above-noted query and my response was: “Are we talking about Cubans entering the US legally? What separates the Cuban Nationals from the Cuban baseball players entering the US to play for their country (Olympics). I have a feeling they probably took some moola back to Cuba afterward.” Am I correct?

Regards,
Kelly

]]> By: Chris W. http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/496/comment-page-1#comment-22432 Chris W. Tue, 05 May 2009 17:25:08 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=496#comment-22432 Good management has hands everywhere. Good management has hands everywhere.

]]> By: Clif Burns http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/496/comment-page-1#comment-22365 Clif Burns Fri, 01 May 2009 15:36:33 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=496#comment-22365 Unlike the $250k penalty increase which was clearly meant to have some retroactive effect, Section 402 of P.L. 109-177, which increased the penalty to $50k, doesn't appear to have retroactive effect, and it appears many of the violations at issue may have occurred prior to the enactment of the law and the issuance of the revised regulations. And I don't recall right now whether OFAC took the position that it was retroactive. Also, OFAC specifically states that the case was decided under the January 2003 enforcement guidelines which reference the $11k penalty. This potential confusion over the applicable fine is why OFAC's practice of submitting the briefest possible squib on enforcement actions is a disservice to everyone. Unlike the $250k penalty increase which was clearly meant to have some retroactive effect, Section 402 of P.L. 109-177, which increased the penalty to $50k, doesn’t appear to have retroactive effect, and it appears many of the violations at issue may have occurred prior to the enactment of the law and the issuance of the revised regulations. And I don’t recall right now whether OFAC took the position that it was retroactive. Also, OFAC specifically states that the case was decided under the January 2003 enforcement guidelines which reference the $11k penalty.

This potential confusion over the applicable fine is why OFAC’s practice of submitting the briefest possible squib on enforcement actions is a disservice to everyone.

]]> By: Ex-OFAC http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/496/comment-page-1#comment-22364 Ex-OFAC Fri, 01 May 2009 14:57:19 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=496#comment-22364 Clif -- The Varel case was probably handled at the 5/22/2006 adjusted rate of $50,000 per violation, rather than the old $11,000 rate. That would make a penalty of $110,000 only 20% of the maximum $550,000 potential penalty for 11 violations (assuming each of the violative transactions was valued at over $50,000). -- Ex-OFAC Clif — The Varel case was probably handled at the 5/22/2006 adjusted rate of $50,000 per violation, rather than the old $11,000 rate. That would make a penalty of $110,000 only 20% of the maximum $550,000 potential penalty for 11 violations (assuming each of the violative transactions was valued at over $50,000).
– Ex-OFAC

]]> By: Anna Madejski http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/496/comment-page-1#comment-22356 Anna Madejski Fri, 01 May 2009 07:15:32 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=496#comment-22356 Isn't management consulting all about massaging figures? Isn’t management consulting all about massaging figures?

]]>