Rudolf Cheung, who is the head of the Research & Development department of Microwave Engineering Corporation in North Andover, Massachusetts, pleaded guilty on January 20, 2012, to charges that he violated the Arms Export Control Act in connection with unlicensed exports of military antennae to Singapore. A copy of the criminal information detailing the charges can be found here.

The story begins in June 2006 when an unnamed company in Singapore sought to order certain military antennae from Microwave Engineering. In preparation for requesting an export license, Microwave Engineering asked the Singapore company to execute a Form DSP-83 (Nontransfer and Use Certificate). When the company, citing its own internal policies, refused to sign the DSP-83, the sale and export were cancelled by Microwave Engineering’s export compliance officer.

When Cheung learned of the cancellation of the sale, he contacted another Massachusetts company, and agreed with that local company that it would purchase the military antennae and ship them to the company in Singapore. Thereafter, the local company purchased antennae from Microwave Engineering and exported them without license to the company in Singapore. The local company also purchased antennae from Microwave Engineering for export to another company in Singapore, Corezing International. Corezing is subject to another indictment, and the U.S. is seeking extradition, in connection with its role in the exports of radio modules from the United States to Iran which were later found in improvised explosive devices in Iraq.

The criminal information alleges that Cheung was aware that the purchases by the unnamed local company were destined for the customer in Singapore and that he took no action to stop these exports or to obtain the required licenses from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”).

Moral of the story: if your export compliance officers stops a sale, it is probably not a good idea to try to find another way to make the sale.

Law students always chuckle at forfeiture cases because they have the best names, such as United States v. 3,462 Cans of Tuna Fish or the like. It always seemed so unfair to those cans of tuna to have the entire juridical apparatus and force of the United States arrayed against them. Poor cans!

So I’m hoping that readers will be equally amused by an export law forfeiture case that is titled United States v. Twenty Miljam 350 IED Jammers and that was recently decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The twenty jammers at issue were manufactured by an Israeli company called Wireless Avionics. They were seized by Immigration and Customs Enforcement during a criminal proceeding against the CEO of the company for attempting to export these items without a license from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. They had been manufactured for sale to NATO, but DDTC had denied an export license claiming that the devices would interfere with radios used by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The CEO then tried to disassemble them and export them from the U.S. for reassembly and sale elsewhere, which led to the seizure of the jammers, his arrest and a criminal indictment.

Now comes the odd part. For reasons not clearly explained by the Second Circuit opinion, the U.S. dropped all criminal charges provided that the CEO agreed to waive any future claims against the U.S. and the ICE agents for false arrest and to waive any objection to the forfeiture of the devices. The CEO, however, contested the forfeiture claiming that he was forced to sign the release under duress, the duress apparently being the threat of criminal prosecution. He also argued that the items were not on the United States Munitions List and did not require an export license. The Second Circuit dismissed the duress claim in large part based on a letter that the CEO sent after signing the waiver in which he said he had signed it voluntarily. And although the court notes that items on the USML require a license, it does not discuss whether these items were on the USML or not.

The Wireless Avionics website asserts that these devices are covered by “ECCN class 5.A.1.h,” presumably a reference to ECCN 5A001.h. That ECCN has a somewhat cryptic note that says “See also . . . Category XI of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.” It would seem that whether an IED jammer fits under ECCN 5A001.h or Category XI of the ITAR would depend on whether it was specifically designed, modified or configured for military application.

Here the fact that the products were destined for NATO and were called — of all things — by the model name “Miljam” both suggest the items might well be Category XI. But then it’s hard to understand why the government folded like cheap lawn chairs and tried to get a promise that no one would get sued for false arrest. It also doesn’t help the Wireless Avionics case here that it applied for a license from DDTC which was denied. On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that these jammers had been ruggedized, shielded or otherwise specifically adapted for military vehicles.

Because all we can do is speculate about the Government’s action here, speculation is welcomed in the comments section.