NJ-based Swiss Technology, Inc. was sentenced yesterday to probation in connection with its guilty plea last July to charges that it violated the Arms Export Control Act when it exported diagrams of military rifle parts to China for manufacture there. The company was also ordered to pay $1.1 million in restitution to the Department of Defense.

The DOJ press release in July regarding the initial plea is larded with the typically hyperbolic language of prosecutors in export cases, but with a twist.

“We simply can’t risk that companies trying to manufacture military equipment on the cheap will expose our troops to more danger than they already face,” said U.S. Attorney Fishman.

“Our armed forces deserve the very best equipment to perform their missions in these difficult times,” said Edward T. Bradley, Special Agent in Charge, Department of Defense, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), Northeast Field Office. “Fraudulent practices, designed to illegally enrich a corporation, and which could compromise the integrity and reliability of that vital equipment is inexcusable. The Defense Criminal Investigative Service is committed to vigorously investigating such violations of law.”

“This case underscores ICE’s commitment to work tirelessly with our law enforcement partners to investigate individuals or corporate organizations that circumvent federal regulations in the name of greed,” said Peter T. Edge, Special Agent in Charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigation (ICE HSI) in Newark. “When our troops’ safety is put in jeopardy, our national security is also compromised.”

And here I always thought that the purpose of the China arms embargo was to keep weapons and military technology out of the hands of the Chicoms because they were a military threat. Instead it appears that the reason is because they make shoddy stuff. If that’s the reason, is an arms embargo of Taiwan next?

ABOVE: Anna Fermanova

---

Twenty-five year old Texas woman and Russian expat, Anna Fermanova, was sentenced to four months in federal prison and four months of home confinement after she pleaded guilty to having tried to export Russian night vision equipment, which she concealed inside pairs of Uggs in her luggage.

The defense argued that the sentencing guidelines, which in Fermanova’s case called for a sentence between 46 and 57 months, should not be applied on the basis, inter alia, that there was no harm to national security. The night vision, according to the defense, was destined for Fermanova’s father-in-law in Moscow who was Target Master at a private hunting club in Moscow. He intended to sell the night vision equipment to wealthy clients who would use the scopes to hunt wild game. The judge evidently accepted this argument.

Because the defendant is an attractive young blonde woman with a Facebook page on which she posted a number of her photos, this case quickly became catnip for the media which labelled Ms. Fermanova as the “sexy Russian spy” (or “sexy Russian smuggler”) and then rolled in the story as often as possible. Here’s my question, albeit mostly rhetorical: if a defendant in an export prosecution is an attractive young man, would the media call him a “sexy” spy?

If you are annoyed by co-workers who spend the day on eBay and still get paid, you may be even more annoyed to find out that the U.S. government actually pays federal agents on purpose to hang out on eBay and look for export violators. James Pendzich, who had only a junior college degree and no prior criminal history, was targeted by federal agents because his eBay page offered “worldwide” shipment of body armor. The ICE agents then set up a sting and had Pendzich ship protective inserts to undercover agents in Colombia.

Pendzich, of course, had little choice but to plead guilty to one count of violating the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”). An article that appeared last week in the Knoxville News reported on the sentencing hearing at which the judge gave Pendzich a 46-month sentence for the illegal exports.

The applicable federal sentencing guideline for an AECA violation allows the judge to take into account national security considerations in determining the appropriate sentence. The defense argued that since the plates were shipped to federal agents there had been no adverse impact on national security. The prosecution reached deep into its bag of hypotheticals and argued:

Although not intended by the defendant, had he been successful, the bulletproof vests and body armor he attempted to export could possibly have ended up in the hands of narco-terrorists.

And if the plates had been made of highly-enriched uranium the narcos could have built and exploded a nuclear bomb. Unfortunately for Pendzich, the sentencing judge bought this coulda-shoulda-woulda line of argumentation and threw the book at him.