Archive for the ‘Criminal Penalties’ Category


Sep

21

German Court Orders Retrial in Iran Export Case


Posted by at 6:49 pm on September 21, 2009
Category: Criminal PenaltiesEUNonproliferation

iran_bombThe Institute for Science and International Security recently released an interesting report on Germany’s criminal prosecution of Vanaki Mohsen, who was accused of exporting various dual use items to Iran in violation of Germany’s War Weapons Control Act. The prosecution arose from Vanaki’s brokering of the export of certain high-speed cameras that could be used in the development and testing of nuclear weapons. Vanaki brokered this sale from a Russian company to an Iranian front company in the U.A.E.

Although the ISIS report isn’t clear on this, it appears that Vanaki must have been charged under section 19 of the German law. Although the law prohibits exporting or brokering of “war weapons,” it is likely that the high-speed cameras were considered a dual-use item rather than a war weapon. In that case, section 19 would prohibit the brokering of the item to Iran if, and only if, Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

This lead to an unusual step by Vanaki’s defense which introduced the United States’ 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (“NIE”) on Iran which, the defense claimed, concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear program in 2003 and had not resumed it by 2007 when the high-speed cameras at issue were sold to Iran. The German trial court agreed and acquitted the defendant.

The prosecution appealed, and the appeals court sent the case back to the trial court for another trial. In reaching its decision, the appeals court pointed out that the trial court put too much reliance on the 2007 NIE. The NIE’s conclusion that it was “moderately confident” that Tehran had not resumed its nuclear weapons program was far from proof that it had, in fact, not resumed that program. The appeals court also relied on a supplemental report from the Bundesnachrichtendienst (“BND”), Germany’s foreign intelligence service, which discussed the development by Iran of a missile launcher as well as similarities in procurement practices by Iran and countries known to have nuclear weapons programs, such as Pakistan and North Korea. Based on this report, the appeals court found that it was now likely that Vanaki would be convicted on a retrial and sent the case back to the trial court.

Two things bear noting here. First, Germany’s export laws in this case, and in other cases that involve dual-use items, impose an intolerably heavy burden of proof in export prosecutions. In effect, the state has to prove that the country in question has a nuclear program, an element of proof that would be difficult and almost necessarily speculative in the case of many countries which are believed to be developing nuclear weapons but have not yet admitted that fact. Second, it appears that the BND assessment must provide some fairly certain intelligence demonstrating the existence and scope of Iran’s nuclear program. This may explain why Germany, unlike some other EU countries, has recently seemed more interested in restricting certain exports to Iran.

Permalink Comments Off on German Court Orders Retrial in Iran Export Case

Bookmark and Share


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

Sep

15

Malaysia Fast Becoming a Diversion Destination for Exports to Iran


Posted by at 7:38 pm on September 15, 2009
Category: Criminal PenaltiesIran Sanctions

flagsAn excellent article that appeared today on the Bloomberg website indicates that Malaysia may be nudging the U.A.E. out of the position as top transhipment destination for items headed from the U.S. to Iran. According to that article, increasing crackdowns by the U.A.E. on exports to its neighbor across the Strait of Hormuz has caused Iran to increase its usage of middlemen and front companies in Malaysia to source equipment that Iran seeks to acquire from the United States.

One case in particular that is highlighted by the article involves the criminal prosecution of Majid Kavakand, an Iranian citizen who was provisionally arrested in France on March 6, 2009, where he is awaiting a determination by French courts on the United States’ request for extradition. The criminal complaint filed in the case provides interesting details on Kakavand’s modus operandi. Typically Kakavand would receive requests from Iran and then would use his company in Malaysia, Evertop Services, to solicit over the Internet small businesses in the U.S. to ship the items to Evertop, at which point the goods would be shipped to Iran.

Although the complaint doesn’t identify the U.S. companies in question, it provides enough detail (product model numbers, company addresses, etc.) that it was a simple matter for me to ascertain the identity of the companies. I won’t specifically name them here, but suffice it to say that each of the companies was a small business with a website that advertised the companies’ willingness to export items to overseas customers. In other words, they all were companies that Kakavand might suspect lacked the sophistication or motivation to make much inquiry into Kakavand’s purchase orders.

And, inf fact, not one of the companies involved in the charges filed against Kakavand appeared to perform any due diligence on Evertop or Mr. Kakavand other than to ask for confirmation that the end-user was Evertop in Malaysia. And none seemed to have been bothered by a substantial, no, gigantic red flag. In each case, Kakavand asked that the items be shipped to Evertop in care of “K” Line Logistics, it’s freight forwarder in Malaysia. If Evertop was the end user, why on earth would it want the goods sent to a freight forwarder in Malaysia? Needless to say, “K” Line Logistics appeared to have had instructions to ship the goods immediately upon receipt to Tehran.

Another interesting detail from the Kakavand case is that the prosecution made a large part of its case from emails sent by Kakavand from his Yahoo! mail account. Yahoo! coughed up all the emails after it was served a search warrant. Similarly, as Sharon Weinberger recently noted, the case made against Monsieur Monsieur was aided by a search warrant served by the government on Google to obtain emails sent by M. Monsieur through his gmail account. It’s hard to imagine why people busy trying to violate U.S. export laws would use a U.S.-based email provider, but there you have it. It’s not much different, I suppose, from a bank robber writing his demand note on the back of one of his own personal checks.

Permalink Comments Off on Malaysia Fast Becoming a Diversion Destination for Exports to Iran

Bookmark and Share


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

Sep

2

Feeding The Hand That Bites You


Posted by at 7:29 pm on September 2, 2009
Category: Arms ExportCriminal Penalties

Monsieur MonsieurThe exquisitely-monikered and equally notorious Monsieur Jacques Monsieur (or Mister Mister as he is affectionately known here)(pictured on the left) was nabbed last Friday when he arrived in New York and then sent to Mobile, Alabama, to face charges that he conspired to export F-5 jet engines and parts to Iran. In February 2009, Monsieur allegedly contacted an undercover U.S. agent looking for F-5 engines and parts. He then met with the undercover in both Paris and London.The indictment alleges that after those meetings, in July 2009, Monsieur wired $110,000 to an account in Mobile, Alabama, in payment for F-5 parts, and the rest, as they say, is l’histoire.

Monsieur gained his notoriety beginning in the 80s and is alleged to have sold arms to countries subject to international arms embargoes, including Iran, Bosnia, Croatia, and Congo-Brazzaville. For his troubles (perhaps) he was “arrested” in Iran in 2000 on espionage charges and sentenced to ten years in prison, a sentence that was commuted to a $400,000 fine after he had spent eighteen months in jail.

In 2005, while living in France, Monsieur was extradited by Belgium on charges relating to arms sales to Congo-Brazzavile. After a trial in Belgium in 2008 he was given a suspended four year sentence. And not long afterwards he contacted the U.S. undercover agent in an attempt to buy F-5 engines and parts for Iran.

In 2004, in the sole press interview Monsieur has ever given, he told Radio France Internationale that he wasn’t an arms dealer but was instead a spy and that his job as an arms merchant was just a cover. In fact, Monsieur claimed he had “relations” with the CIA, which he “preferred” not to describe in detail. He also claimed to be acting for the DST, the French counter-espionage agency. Needless to say this is neither a surprising nor a credible defense to charges that he was running arms to countries subject to international embargoes.

Of course, all this raises several questions. Why would Monsieur, after being convicted and imprisoned in Iran for espionage then attempt to acquire aircraft parts for Iran or, as this post title asks, why would he start feeding the hand that bit him? Or perhaps the mysteriously commuted ten year sentence was a ruse of some sort.

Even more intriguing, what on earth was Monsieur doing flying to New York? Or perhaps the flight wasn’t, er, exactly voluntary. The DOJ press release is conspicuously silent on this little detail.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


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

Jul

9

Chinese Spy Arrested for Export Violations During Atlanta Layover


Posted by at 8:32 pm on July 9, 2009
Category: Criminal Penalties

KG-175 Taclane EncryptorChi Tong Kuok, a citizen of the PRC, was indicted earlier this week for violations of the Arms Export Control Act in connection with an attempted export of a General Dynamics KG-175 Taclane Encryptor to Kuok at his address in Macau. Kuok became the subject of an undercover investigation in 2006 after he sought to buy from a defense industry employee a device used for encrypted satellite communications between military aircraft and satellites. That defense industry contact referred Kuok to an undercover agent, who ultimately negotiated with Kuok to sell him the KG-175 Taclane Encryptor for export.

There doesn’t seem to be much question that the Taclane Encryptor is in Category XIII(b)(3) of the United States Munitions List. Although the General Dynamics web page describing the product doesn’t explicitly state that the item is USML, it is clear that the item was designed for, and primarily used for, military applications. Kuok also seemed to be quite aware that the export of the device was illegal. In the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, Kuok allegedly expressed concern that the undercover agent was FBI and allegedly indicated he preferred to pay by Western Union rather than through PayPal because the U.S. government monitored PayPal transactions.

Several interesting background details to the indictment are provided in this article in Wired. First, since Kuok was operating out of Macau, the federal agents running the investigation had to lure him back into the United States. The undercover agreed to deliver the encryption device in Panama. Kuok flew to Panama . . . through Atlanta. Oops. Kuok was arrested in Atlanta and is now being held without bail.

Second, Kuok told federal investigators after his arrest that he was acting on behalf of the government of the PRC. According to Kuok, the PRC government was seeking the encryption device, and other similar devices he had obtained or tried to obtain, to eavesdrop on U.S. military and government communications.

Third, after Kuok was arrested investigators were able to examine Kuok’s eBay account. This examination allegedly revealed that Kuok had purchased export-controlled items over eBay for export to China starting in 2005.

Once again, eBay seems to be developing as a major source of leakage of sensitive export-controlled items. Sellers on eBay are not likely to be very sophisticated about the export-status of the items they are selling and are unlikely to be concerned about much more than guaranteeing that they are paid for items before they ship them. And the Chinese government seems well aware of vulnerabiity and is all too willing to exploit it. At some point eBay and Craig’s List will be forced to address this issue on their own or risk possible government intervention to correct the problem.

Permalink Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share


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

Jun

16

Seventh Circuit Reverses Export Conviction In Rifle Scope Case


Posted by at 5:12 pm on June 16, 2009
Category: Criminal PenaltiesDDTC

Ouch!Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed* a federal district court conviction of Doli Syarief Pulungan for attempted unlicensed exports of rifles copes to Indonesia in violation of the Arms Export Control Act. I previously reported on Mr. Pulungan’s case here and here.

The decision can only be characterized as a complete smack-down of the theory, advanced in most recent prosecutions by the DOJ and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”), the State Department’s export licensing agency, that decisions that a particular defense item falls within a particularl USML category are unreviewable under section 2778(h) of the Arms Export Control Act. The Seventh Circuit’s decision also provides an interesting elucidation of how the “willfulness” requirement for an AECA prosecution and conviction should be construed.

In the Pulungan case, in order to prove that the Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T rifle scope was listed on the United States Munitions List (“USML”), the prosecution introduced the testimony of Anthony Dearth, a Division Chief at DDTC. According to the appeals court, Mr. Dearth:

testified that the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls has concluded that the Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T is “manufactured to military specifications” but he would not say what those specifications are or why the Directorate believes that the Mark 4 CQ/T is “manufactured to” them. The decision itself was not produced.

The prosecution then claimed that this determination was not reviewable under section 2778(h) and asked for, and received from the district court, a jury instruction, stating that the rifle scope was, as a matter of law, a USML item and taking that question out of the jury’s hands.

The court disagreed, adopting the interpretation of section 2778(h) that this blog has advanced — namely that the decision of DDTC to put a category of items on the USML is non-reviewable but that the decision as to whether a particular item falls within a USML category is not shielded from judicial review:

Section 2778(h) provides: “The designation by the President (or by an official to whom the President’s functions . . . have been duly delegated), in regulations issued under this section, of items as defense articles or defense services for purposes of this section shall not be subject to judicial review.” (Emphasis added.) So if 22 C.F.R. §121.1 Category 1(f) read “any Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T riflescope”, that designation would be incontestable (even though made by the Directorate rather than the President), and the question for the jury would be whether the item that Pulungan tried to export was indeed a Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T riflescope.

And now for the smack-down and language which can only be characterized as unusually harsh for an appellate opinion:

A designation by an unnamed official, using unspecified criteria, that is put in a desk drawer, taken out only for use at a criminal trial, and immune from any evaluation by the judiciary, is the sort of tactic usually associated with totalitarian régimes. Government must operate through public laws and regulations.

On the willfulness issue, the Seventh Circuit made clear that because DDTC had not made a public determination that the rifle scope was a USML item, it would be difficult to prove that the defendant here knew that it was a USML item and required a license. The court dismissed all of the evidence that the prosecution had proffered as proof of willfulness and criminal intent.

First, the prosecution introduced evidence that Pulungan had printouts of web pages from sellers of the Leupold rifle scope that stated that the rifle scope could not be exported outside the United States. The Court noted that the web pages didn’t say why the items couldn’t be exported. Territorial restrictions imposed on distributors could be one reason. That the pages said that the items couldn’t be exported even with a license further suggests that these restrictions may have been unrelated to U.S. export laws. And the court noted that other web sites advertised these rifle scopes without any mention of export restrictions.

The prosecution also pointed to Pulungan’s efforts to conceal the actual destination of the rifles by claiming that they were going to Saudi Arabia rather than Indonesia and to an email from Pulungan indicating a belief that exports of defense articles to Indonesia violated a U.S. arms embargo. The concealment of the destination and the emails were based on his mistaken belief that Indonesia was subject to a U.S. arms embargo at the time of the proposed exports. The court held that an intent to break a non-existent arms embargo is not sufficient proof of an intent to break the specific licensing requirements of the AECA.

As always, it is always difficult to parse the exact amount of intent and knowledge that is required to prove a criminal export violation. One the one hand, it seems clear that defendants need not know the name of the law or the section numbers of the provisions violated. On the other hand, it’s not enough for the defendant to have a mistaken belief that his conduct violates the law in a manner different from the charges brought by the government. Where to draw the line between those two extremes is a challenge and the Seventh Circuit’s decision doesn’t provide much guidance in this regard.

The court’s ruling, however, on the scope of section 2778(h) is clear and well-reasoned and is likely to have influence on other courts considering the matter. DOJ and DDTC would be well advised to stop trying to hide classification decisions behind a non-existent and improper shield of non-reviewability.


*Free FindLaw subscription required. I’ll update the link when the slip opinion appears on the Seventh Circuit website.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


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