Archive for the ‘Arms Export’ Category


May

21

House Committee Passes Export Reform Proposal


Posted by at 8:08 pm on May 21, 2009
Category: Arms ExportCriminal PenaltiesExport Control Proposals

Howard Berman
ABOVE: Howard Berman
Chair, House Foreign Affairs


Yesterday, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs approved legislation that would, among other things, amend parts of the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”). The Bill, H.R. 2410, is titled the ‘‘Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011’’ and was sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman, chair of the committee.

Like many of its predecessors, the bill would set processing time goals for licenses and commodity jurisdiction requests, each to be no more than 60 days. And commodity jurisdiction determinations would be required to be posted by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) on its website. The processing times are just “goals” so, even if the legislation passes, I wont be holding my breath waiting for CJ requests to blast out the door in 60 days. But I think we can all give some polite golf claps, and maybe even a louder hooray or two, to the requirement that CJs be posted on the website.

Section 826 of the bill permits the President to remove “satellites and related components” from the United States Munitions List, but it is poorly drafted and has a confusing China exception which reads:

(b) Exception- The authority of subsection (a) may not be exercised with respect to any satellite or related component that may, directly or indirectly, be transferred to, or launched into outer space by, the People’s Republic of China.

Come again? Does this mean that satellites and parts that might be transferred to China stay on the USML and, like all other items, require a license to all destinations? Or does it mean that DDTC can decide that the satellite-related items in Category XV can be exported to every destination but China without a license? And where does the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) fit into this? Can it require BIS licenses for satellites and parts removed from the USML? Your guess is as good as mine.

A third provision of interest in the proposed legislation might be referred to as the Full Prisons Act. Section 831 increases the maximum criminal penalty from 10 years imprisonment to 20 years imprisonment. For whatever reason, Congress seems unable to enact any reform with increasing prison sentences, even though this appears to be an effort to conform the criminal penalties under the AECA to the increased penalties provide under the International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act (“IEEPEA”) for violations of other export laws. Look for life imprisonment to be a penalty for false AES entries in the not-so-distant future.

Section 831 also attempts to conform civil penalties under the AECA to those enacted under IEEPEA by providing for a penalty equal to the greater of $250,000 per violation or twice the value of the export involved. But Representative Berman’s legislation doesn’t quite manage to get this right either. First, it fails to amend section 38(e), 22 U.S.C. § 2778(e) of the Arms Export Control Act which sets the maximum civil penalty at $500,000. Does this mean that a transaction valued at $1 million, and thus eligible for a $2 million penalty under the amended 38(c), is limited to a penalty of $500,000?

Worse the language of the bill, unlike the language in IEEPEA, makes the penalty payable “upon conviction.” Does that mean that the civil penalty is only available after a criminal conviction? Again, this is probably a drafting oversight, but with all the newly unemployed lawyers in town, can’t the committee hire somebody to clean up its bills?

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


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

May

20

Do What The E.U. Says Not What It Does


Posted by at 7:39 pm on May 20, 2009
Category: Arms Export

FlagsThe excellent online E.U. news source, EUobserver.com, ran an interesting column on the E.U. and arms sales to Sri Lanka. The column noted that on Monday the E.U. condemned human rights abuses by the Sri Lankan military and demanded an independent inquiry into the matter. The column cited a statement of the E.U. foreign ministers which stated:

The EU is appalled by the loss of innocent civilian lives as a result of the conflict and by the high numbers of casualties, including children, following recent intense fighting in northern Sri Lanka.

Such human rights abuses should trigger an arms embargo under the E.U. Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. According to that code, member states shouldn’t export arms if there is a “clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression.” The code did not become binding until 2008 and seems to have been widely ignored in the case of Sri Lanka. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the UK, France, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Poland haveall exported arms to Sri Lanka.

The U.S. has an arms embargo in place against Sri Lanka. That embargo provides an exception only for, on a case-by-case basis, “technical data or equipment made available for the limited purposes of maritime and air surveillance and communications.”

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


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

Mar

26

Thursday Export Law Grab Bag


Posted by at 6:44 pm on March 26, 2009
Category: Arms ExportCriminal Penalties

Grab BagNo big news today, so it’s time for another Export Law Blog grab bag:

  • A Swiss court convicted an un-named Czech man for exporting missile-related electronic components to Iran. The man claimed he thought the components were harmless. The court really threw the book at him and fined him 5,000 Swiss francs ($4,440) and ordered 26,500 Swiss francs in profits seized. Apparently export violations in Switzerland are only slightly more serious than speeding tickets.
  • A woman that was convicted in October of exporting mobile phone equipment to Iraq right before the U.S. invasion was sentenced yesterday to 6 years in prison and order to pay a $1.1 million dollar forfeiture. The prosecution had asked for a sentence at the low end of federal sentencing guidelines, which they calculated to be around 20 years in prison. Even though the judge gave a much lower sentence, I’m sure she still wished she had been tried in Switzerland.
  • Russia earns the good citizen award for passing a law lowering the number of weapons subject to export control. The new law removes export controls from revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, submachine guns, automatic rifles, light machine guns, anti-aircraft machine guns, anti-tank guns, and mortars with a caliber of less than 100 mm.
Permalink Comments Off on Thursday Export Law Grab Bag

Bookmark and Share


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

Sep

9

Mistrial Declared in Night Vision Export Trial


Posted by at 7:51 pm on September 9, 2008
Category: Arms ExportCriminal PenaltiesIran Sanctions

Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan
ABOVE: Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan

In yet another strange turn of events in one of the stranger export prosecutions to wend it’s way through the federal courts, a federal district court in Fort Lauderdale declared a mistrial in the prosecution of Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan for her involvement in a plan to export 3,500 night vision goggles to the Iranian military. According to an article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, one juror held out for acquittal after eight hours of deliberations. The prosecution announced that it intended to retry Ms.Gholikhan in October.

The case started when Ms. Gholikhan and her ex-husband Mahmoud Seif traveled to Austria to pick up a pair of night vision goggles in order to re-export them to the Iranian military. She and Seif were arrested by the Austrian authorities, convicted, and sentenced to fifty days jail time in Austria, after which they were returned to Iran. In the meantime, a grand jury indicted Gholikhan and Seif for conspiring to export 3,500 Generation III night vision goggles to Iran.

Since the U.S. and Iran do not have extradition treaties, Ms. Gholikhan could have remained safely in Iran but instead came to the United States in December 2007 to enter a plea agreement under which she would plead guilty to one count and be sentenced to time served in the Austrian jail. After the plea was entered, prosecutors said that a mistake had been made in the sentencing guidelines calculation. As a result, Gholikhan was sentenced to 29 months in jail. Gholikhan then moved to withdraw the plea. Even though that motion was opposed by prosecutors, the judge granted the motion and the case was set for trial on all seven counts of the grand jury indictment.

The trial, which began on September 3, focused on the prosecution’s claims that Gholikhan sent faxes and made phone calls about the night vision goggles before the Vienna meeting under the alias Farideh Fahimi. This was to counter the defense’s claim that Gholikhan only acted as a translator for his husband and was not substantially involved in the planned exports. The Sun-Sentinel article described the thrust of the prosecution’s argument as follows:

Prosecutor Michael Walleisa said Gholikhan’s phone records corresponded to calls placed by Fahimi and faxes sent from Fahimi came from Gholikhan’s fax number.

In his closing argument, Walleisa repeated Fahimi’s words on one of the recorded phone calls: “In this line of work, everyone has two or three names, none of which is their real name.”

Gholikan’s new trial is set for October 14.

Permalink Comments Off on Mistrial Declared in Night Vision Export Trial

Bookmark and Share


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

Sep

3

Wednesday Export Law Grab Bag


Posted by at 8:52 pm on September 3, 2008
Category: Arms ExportCriminal PenaltiesCuba SanctionsIran Sanctions

Grab BagWe’re back from vacation and we’re back with a grab bag of things:

  • University of Tennessee Professor J. Reece Roth was convicted on eighteen counts, including violations of the Arms Export Control Act for permitting foreign graduate students to have access to information relating to an Air Force project on the use of plasma technologies for unmanned aerial vehicles. According to the report on the Knoxville News Sentinel‘s website, a key piece of evidence proving that Roth had knowledge that his conduct was illegal was a set of notes that divided the work between an American graduate student and the Chinese graduate student in order to keep export-controlled technical data away from the graduate student. When this arrangement impeded progress on the project, the students were allowed to share data. Roth claimed that he didn’t believe the information was export-controlled until the project netted an actual military product, a claim that would appear inconsistent with his initial division of work on the project between the American and the Chinese graduate student.
  • The Denver Business Journal supplies more information on the Platte River Associates prosecution for allegedly violating the Cuba embargo. The attorney for Platte River told the Denver Business Journal that the prosecution arises from training that the company gave to an employee of a Spanish company, Repsol, that had previously purchased geological modeling software used for oil exploration. The employee arrived with seismic data that appeared to relate to the western Caribbean and possibly to Cuba. There is apparently no allegation that Platte River dealt with any Cubans or the Cuban Government, nor any allegation that Repsol actually used the software in connection with a Cuban project. Instead, it now appears that the government’s case is based not on the sale of the software but the training of the Repsol employee. It’s still a tenuous connection without proof that Repsol used the software in connection with dealings with the Cuban government.
  • Someone has made a broad-ranging Freedom of Information Act request at the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), apparently seeking copies of all applications for licenses to export agricultural and medical products to Iran. This has prompted OFAC to send letters to licensees requiring the licensees to assert in writing any claims that information in these licenses is proprietary or confidential to the licensee. Does anyone have any information on who may be seeking this information and why? Please let me know in the comments section.
Permalink Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share


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