Comments on: Ex-Treasury Advisor Claims U.S. Jurisdiction over Entire Planet

By: Impaphatt

Impaphatt — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:20:08 +0000

I’m often looking for new informations in the internet about this subject. Thankz!

By: South Florida Jack

South Florida Jack — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:42:11 +0000

P.S. That picture is a stitch. It would make a great t-shirt, along with the title.

By: South Florida Jack

South Florida Jack — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:39:48 +0000

Clif obviously is having too much fun with his blog because he’s now embedding puzzles in his entries. He left out the juiciest sentence of the WSJ article which states:

“A U.S. correspondent bank should theoretically be involved because the American government owns the greenback.”

Now it’s an intellectual property argument. Forget the theoretical part. Printed currency aside, given that all money is an idea, isn’t this just an agreement as to the exchange rate?

By: Chris W.

Chris W. — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:39:47 +0000

Good question, MJ. But even if so, would the definitions of export/re-export even be met? For re-exports, no US persons would be involved & nobody would know how the US money would be used in the future (so nobody to prosecute?).

I think.

I’m more tempted to wonder if money would count as a publicly available printed material…(Part 734.3(a)(2))

By: MJ

MJ — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:17:08 +0000

Does US-minted currency carry an ECCN of EAR99?

By: Kelly Yip

Kelly Yip — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:57:17 +0000

Yes, Indeed. Both Clif and Scott K. got it correct. We in the United States have no jurisdiction or say so if companies in Europe, Latin America, Middle East…etc. want to conduct business with Iran as long as it is not effected via the U.S. banking systems.

Regards,
Kelly Yip

By: Scott K.

Scott K. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:43:52 +0000

It would, and I believe that’s Clif’s point. No US law prohibits companies in India from transacting business with entities in Iran. And to the extent that the transactions can be conducted in local currencies, then there’s still no issue.

The issue arises when a US correspondent bank is asked to settle the transaction. Then it’s the bank that’s in trouble, not the two trading entities.

By: F.H. London

F.H. London — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:41:42 +0000

Next you are telling me Father Christmas doesn’t exsist !!
Interesting though, you would have thought he’d know the ‘ins and outs’
Q; in your example, ”And even if a U.S. correspondent bank is involved, U.S. law only prohibits the bank’s participation, not the transaction between India and Iran” would the transaction in USD via a US bank not count as facilitation?

By: Hillbilly

Hillbilly — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:21:31 +0000

With respect, Professor Sam, exports controls were no where near getting institutionalized in 1909. What you are referring to was a subset of the laws of war relating to prizes and blockade, and the duty of neutrals versus belligerants. The United States never imposed export controls in peacetime until 1940. All the embargoes prior to then were instituted as a consequence to a war in which the U.S. was a belligerant (which would have triggered the common law offense of “trading with the enemy”) or during war in which the U.S. was not a belligerant but in which was a declared neutral. In fact, the embargoes of 1807-09 were imposed because the belligerants, Britain and France, wviolated neutral rights. In fact of the prize cases resulting from that era, the Supreme Court noted that the principal purpose of the embargo was to protect U.S. commerce by prohibiting US ships from sailing to foreign ports and thereby risking capture.

When the Trading With the Enemy Act was passed in 1917, the legislative history stated the purpose of the act was to mitigate the harshness of the common law offense by providing for a system of licensing whereby the government could permit certain transactions in enemy property. Obviously, its been a long time since anyone at the Department of Justice – let alone Treasury – bothered to read either the 1917 or the 1942 legislative histories to TWEA.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:04:53 +0000

As an interesting historical note, back when export controls were still getting institutionalized, money was actually classified as conditional contraband, a precursor category to "dual-use". See, for instance, Article 24 of the 1909 Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War.