It’s easy to forget that there are things other than dual-use items, defense articles, and nuclear materials that are export-controlled. The recent conviction of Florida resident Max Moghaddam for the unlicensed export of paddlefish roe should serve as a reminder that plants and animals listed on Appendix II to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES”) also require export licenses from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Paddlefish, a species found in the Mississippi River and related to sturgeon, produces a roe that is often sold as American caviar at around $17 per ounce, about one-tenth the cost of Iranian beluga.

One count of the three-count indictment in the Moghaddam case charges the defendant with unlicensed export of the paddlefish roe to Belgium in violation of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371 et seq.. Section 3372(a)(1) of the Act prohibits the transport of any fish or wildlife in violation of an U.S. treaty. Article IV of CITES requires member states to prohibit the unlicensed export of items listed on Appendix II of the treaty. And paddlefish are listed on Appendix II of CITES.

A second count charged Moghaddam with falsely labeling the paddlefish roe on export documents in violation of section 3372(d). According to the indictment, Moghaddam labeled the paddlefish row as bowfiin roe, amia calva (the scientific name for bowfin) and mia calva (a misspelling of amia calva). The false labeling, in addition to constituting a separate count, also provides evidence that the defendant was perfectly aware that his export required a license.

A review of the docket in the case provides no clear view of Moghaddam’s defenses against the charges. Most seem to have been procedural and directed at a third count of the indictment which charged Moghaddam with conspiracy to violate the export provisions of the Lacey Act. A motion to dismiss filed by the defense alleged that the indictment failed to provide sufficient details regarding the co-conspirators and the defendant’s alleged overt acts with these co-conspirators. I couldn’t determine what defenses Moghaddam offered with respect to the attempted export and false labelling charges. Perhaps he argued that the exports really were bowfin roe. Whatever he argued, the jury didn’t buy it.

Permalink


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)