May

18

ECO Announces Big Fine In Short Newsletter


Posted by at 7:52 pm on May 18, 2009
Category: General

Big BenThe United Kingdom’s Export Control Organization has launched a newsletter, pithily titled “Compliance Newsletter.” In its premier four-page issue, we learn that the ECO is big on warning letters, boasting that it has issued 50 of them since establishing procedures for warning letters a year ago.

The newsletter also notes that an unnamed company agreed to settle export charges for £575,000 ($880,000). The newsletter’s description of the settlement is a treasure trove of useful information:

In April 2009, a UK company paid a compound penalty of £575,000 for alleged offences in relation to the export of controlled goods to a number of sensitive destinations without licences between 2003 and 2006.
 
Compounding is the means by which HMRC can settle out of court a case which would normally be prosecuted to save both the tax payer and the company time and legal fees.

That’s it. Those 66 words are the entire entry on the settlement, or about £8,700 ($13,000) per word. There is no mention of the identity of the company, the goods exported, the number of exports, the destinations, or the value of the goods. This blog often complains about the paucity of information given by U.S. export agencies in announcements of export settlements, but in comparison to the ECO’s stingy announcement, the U.S agencies are releasing disclosures the length of a 17th century epistolary novel — OFAC, perhaps, excluded.

In fact, the monthly newsletter of the East Anglia Society for the Protection of Water Voles and Stoats is longer and packed with more information than the ECO’s new newsletter.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

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


4 Comments:


Clif

In fact we have to be grateful to the ECO for this tiny amount of information. The compounding is an agreement between HM Revenue and Customs (the prosecuting authority) and the company concerned. If it was not for the ECO we would probably have heard nothing at all from HMRC.

By accepting a Compounding the company has managed to keep the action out of court and thus out of the Public domain. Given the size of the compounding (possibly the largest ever) this may have been something that both thee company and the Government would have wished for.

The rule of thumb is that a court case is not considered unless a licence would have been refused. Add that to the story and the actuality could be very interesting indeed.

Comment by Hamish on May 19th, 2009 @ 2:39 am

I would be curious as to whether a “Compounding” is more analagous to a “Consent Agreement” or a deferred prosecution agreement (both of which are mechanisms by which DDTC and DoJ cut deals for large corporate friends while going after small businesses and individuals like Professor Roth).

Comment by Hillbilly on May 19th, 2009 @ 8:02 am

A URL to the East Anglia Society’s newsletter, pls?

Comment by Joey on May 19th, 2009 @ 12:31 pm

Wow, they are true believers in the old quote, “Brevity is the soul of wit.”

Comment by Lauren from ExportCompliance.Org on May 27th, 2009 @ 4:33 pm