Aug

4

OFAC Fines Exporter For Failure To Recognize Red Flags


Posted by at 8:53 pm on August 4, 2009
Category: Cuba Sanctions

Cuba PosterThe Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) released last Friday its monthly report of civil penalties it imposed for violations of the economic sanctions programs administered by the agency. I was particularly interested in the announcement of a $10,341.00 fine imposed against, and paid by, MGE UPS based on allegations that the California-based company “sold electrical regulators ultimately destined for Cuba.” According to the penalty report, MGE didn’t voluntarily disclose the violation.

The allegation that the goods were “ultimately destined for Cuba” is interesting because it indicates that MGE didn’t ship the goods to Cuba but shipped the goods outside the country — likely to Schneider Electric, its parent company in France — and that the goods were then sent from outside the U.S. to Cuba. The penalty notice provides further information as to what occurred when it cites the following “aggravating factor” relied on by OFAC in assessing the penalty:

OFAC also determines that the following aggravating factor is present: the regional sales manager should have recognized that the shipment in question might be destined for Cuba and taken steps to stop the transaction.

Notice that MGE isn’t being fined for exporting directly to Cuba. Nor is it being fined for an export knowing that it was going to be re-exported to Cuba. It was fined because one its regional sales managers “should have recognized that the shipment … might be destined for Cuba.” It seems to me that if OFAC is going to fine exporters because an employee should have known that something might go to Cuba — a standard that could arguably be applied to any export to an E.U. country — the agency has an obligation to the export community to indicate what red flags were ignored here and what sorts of other “red flags” can serve as a basis for liability under such a theory.

Another interesting factor here is that OFAC was probably tipped off to the export of the MGE equipment to Cuba by the Cubans themselves who complained that Schneider Electric’s acquisition of API somehow or other derailed planned exports of MGE products to Cuba. Look at this from the website of Cuba’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations:

The merger resulting in the formation of ARC-MGE between the manufacturer MGE UPS Systems, part of the French Schneider Electric, and the American manufacturer APC, has created serious problems for supply of three-phase UPSs to Cuba’s Ecosol. After lengthy delays in arranging purchases of this product, accompanied by false promises that the merger would not affect supply, the French APC-MGE told the Cuban company that it was to cease operations on the instructions of APC and would not be honouring its contractual commitments. Its executives in the Dominican Republic as well as those in France requested that they should not be contacted again, as this would place them in a difficult position. The supplies in question were destined for the University of Computing Sciences (UCI), the Neurological Hospital, the Institute of Cardiovascular Surgery and an amusement park.

Schneider bought APC in 2006. The exports resulting in the OFAC fine occurred in September 2005, prior to APC’s objection to Cuba sales.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


6 Comments:


Thanks for the interesting background, Clif. I’d be surprised if there weren’t some further basis in the facts of this case for OFAC to assert the regional sales manager had reason to know of the ultimate destination. The Cuban news article seems to show good compliance with the U.S. sanctions after the merger, perhaps to the chagrin of the EU…

Comment by Ex-OFAC on August 5th, 2009 @ 8:32 am

I agree, Ex-OFAC, that there must be some further basis for OFAC’s contention that the manager ignored some red flags. I just think that this basis should be shared with the export community, particularly if we are no going to start fining people for ignoring red flags.

Comment by Clif Burns on August 5th, 2009 @ 8:40 am

Thanks Clif for this interesting post. My understanding of the standard has always been the exporter “had knowledge” or “had reason to know”. The use of the word “might” is particularly troubling for me. I agree that standard could be applied to almost any export from the US to the EU where the US has a unilateral trade embargo on a country. One assumes if the regional sales manager knew the product was going to be reexported to Cuba, the language in the penalty letter would have stated that directly. This is indeed very troubling.

Comment by SG Paris on August 5th, 2009 @ 9:11 am

It should be noted that when BIS (the agency formerly known as BXA) attempted to lower the requisite standard for knowledge, it had the decency to do so by notice and comment, and got soundly rebuffed by industry commenters such that it withdrew the proposed rule. OFAC is trying to change the rules by what administrative lawyers used to call “Starbursting”, i.e., by taking new positions in administrative litigation expecting a docile public and tame judges to go along.

Comment by Hillbilly on August 5th, 2009 @ 10:26 am

How many degrees of Kevin Bacon does an exporter have to go through before they are removed from the possibility that something “might” go to Cuba/Iran? What’s next? Company A ships to a company in the UK, who ships to its parent company in Germany, who ships to Australia and then to Cuba? The more information that OFAC publishes the better everyone can be at their jobs by following the rules and avoiding the precedents. By punishing someone who didn’t ship anything which might/might-not have gone to Cuba OFAC hasn’t really done anything except open the door for more penalties to companies which “might” have known. Also how is “might” defined? They use Gillette razors in Cuba, I’m selling those, those “might” end up there?

Comment by longhorn on August 5th, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

OFAC isn’t interested in Bacon. For example, in US v. Gas Tech (ND OKLa. 2006) the company was charged with violations of the ITR because it provided designs of its equipment to a company in Calgary, Alberta (that’s in Canada for folks who don’t watch the Stampede) that made and then sold the equipment to a company in England that sold and installed it in a gas field in Iran that served the public utility for Tehran. The value of US content was less than 10%; but, for the purpose of the OFAC ITR, there is no de minimis rule for the Iranian petroleum and petrochemical industry. A little factoid that OFAC didn’t put in its brochures in that era. So a company that made the correct calculation for EAR purposes, and 250 employees, got hung on OFAC’s trophy wall because they didn’t read the unpublicized fine print in the ITR.

Comment by Hillbilly on August 5th, 2009 @ 10:21 pm