Archive for the ‘Criminal Penalties’ Category


Mar

24

Irish Company Indicted for Exports to Iran


Posted by at 7:24 pm on March 24, 2009
Category: Criminal PenaltiesIran Sanctions

Drumcliffe Church
ABOVE: Drumcliffe Church

In an earlier story, we reported on the arrest of a Tehran-based businessman on charges that, among other things, he exported helicopter engines from the United States to Iran. One of the intermediate consignees for that export was, according to court documents, an unnamed “Irish Trading Company.” Today, a 2008 indictment against the “Irish Trading Company” and three of its principals was unsealed. The company in question was Mac Aviation from Drumcliffe, County Sligo, Ireland, and the principals were Tom McGuinn, his son Sean McGuinn, and Sean Byrne.

As it turns out, Tom McGuinn is no stranger to U.S. export laws. He’s on the debarred parties list maintained by the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. Debarred parties are prohibited from engaging in exports of defense services and defense articles. Mr. McGuinn’s debarment was based on a 1996 conviction for violation of the Arms Export Control Act. McGuinn was sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release plus a $50 assessment fee.

Only the docket sheet for the 1996 conviction is available, so we’re not certain what the precise charges against Mr. McGuinn were in that case. However, it seems likely to have arisen from an attempted export of night vision equipment to Iran in 1992 in which Mac Aviation was involved. The night vision equipment, on its way from Ireland to Tehran, was seized in London by British Customs. At the time of the seizure, Mr. McGuinn described himself as an “ex-director” of the company Mac Aviation. In addition, McGuinn said he had “no idea why the stuff was blocked” and that his firm “would never get involved without an export license.”

Permalink Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share


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

Mar

16

Iranian Visitor to U.S. Arraigned on Export Charges


Posted by at 5:15 pm on March 16, 2009
Category: Criminal PenaltiesIran Sanctions

Rolls-Royce Model 250 Engines
ABOVE:Rolls-Royce Model 250
Engine


When an Iranian businessman based in Tehran arrived in the United States on Saturday, he was probably not expecting that his welcome wagon would be a contingent of special agents from the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), who promptly whisked him away and charged him with violating U.S. export laws restricting trade with Iran. The businessman, Hossein Ali Khoshnevisrad, was arraigned today in a United States District Court in San Francisco.

An affidavit filed by a BIS special agent provides a great deal of detail on the circumstances surrounding Khoshnevisrad’s business operations and his ultimate arrest. Not surprisingly to regular readers of this blog, Khoshnevisrad’s modus operandi was to interject front companies into the transactions to hide the ultimate end-user and destination of the exported goods.

Two series of transactions were detailed by the affidavit. The first involved the sale of Rolls Royce Model 250 helicopter engines. According to intercepted emails and correspondence described in the affidavit an un-named “Irish Trading Company,” which had purchased 17 of the engines, responded to a request from Khoshnevisrad’s company Ariasa AG with a proforma invoice for 8 of the engines. Thereafter, a number of these engines were shipped from New York by the “Irish Trading Company” to Khoshnevisrad’s designated consignee, Penerbit Kemas Sdn. Bhd, in Malaysia. Penerbit is apparently a Malaysian book publisher and distributor with a side business in “auto accessories” but with no apparent need for helicopter engines. The affidavit traces the journey of the engines to Malaysia, but stops there. No description is provided as to when, how or whether the engines went to Iran.

The second transaction involved two aerial panorama carriers which Khoshnevisrad’s company obtained through a “Dutch aviation parts supply company.” (I’ll bet that the Dutch company is Aviation Services International B.V., which was indicted in 2007 for selling U.S.-origin aircraft parts to Iran.). When the Dutch company, in response to an inquiry from the U.S. freight forwarder for the goods, inquired as to who was the end-user, Khoshnevisrad replied:

Regarding the end user as you know USA will not deliver to Iran in any case. You should give an end user by yourself.

The cameras are needed for the students at Geographical university to lern them how to film from the air.

Trust you can manage to get the cameras free.

Best regards,
HOSSEIN.

Ultimately the Dutch company shipped the cameras from the Netherlands to Khoshnevisrad in Tehran.

One puzzling issue in this case is why Khoshnevisrad, who knew that he was breaking U.S. law by arranging the export of U.S.-origin goods to Iran, would travel to the United States in the first place. The chance of him being arrested in, and extradited from, Iran on charges of violating the U.S. sanctions on Iran were, I’d say, pretty much on the same order as the chance that my dog, although a very clever dog, will graduate from college or win the Nobel Prize for Literature. The chances of him being arrested in the United States were pretty high. One has to speculate that some clever law enforcement techniques might have been used to lure him here.

UPDATE: The Washington Post story that I linked, as did other wire stories like this one, referred to Khoshnevisrad’s court appearance on Monday as an arraignment. The DOJ press release, however, characterized the court proceeding as an initial appearance. This would mean that an indictment has not yet been issued and that the arrest warrant for Khoshnevisrad was premised instead on a criminal complaint. If that is the case, the formal arraignment of Khoshnevisrad will occur, if at all, after an indictment or criminal information is subsequently filed.

Permalink Comments Off on Iranian Visitor to U.S. Arraigned on Export Charges

Bookmark and Share


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

Feb

17

Model Drones on Autopilot: How *Fun* Is That?


Posted by at 9:52 pm on February 17, 2009
Category: Criminal Penalties

MicroPilot AutopilotA criminal complaint (not yet available on PACER) was, according to news reports on the AP wire and in the DC Examiner, filed against Yaming Nina Qi Hanson, a 51-year-old woman living in Silver Spring, Maryland. The complaint charged her with exporting autopilot circuits to China without a license. The autopilots, manufactured by Manitoba-based MicroPilot, weigh 24 grams (0.85 ounces) and are specially designed for use in unmanned aerial vehicles (“UAVs”), or drones. Hanson’s husband was named as a co-conspirator but has not yet been charged.

I’ll provide more details once the criminal complaint appears on PACER, but the account in the news reports raise provide some apparently incriminating details that the Hansons will need to explain.

It appears that MicroPilot told the Hansons that the autopilots could be shipped to the United States, but that exports from the United States would need to be licensed. The Hansons told MicroPilot that the autopilots were destined for model flying clubs in China. Canadian officials understandably wondered why model airplane clubs would use autopilots since manual control was more or less the point of flying a model aircraft. Mr. Hanson allegedly replied that “”typical of Asian men, these modelers want the very best product on the market.” So, once the Hansons signed a letter promising not to export the autopilots without a license from the U.S. government, the company shipped 20 autopilots valued at $90,000

According to the criminal complaint, Mrs. Hanson admitted delivering the autopilots to China without a license. She allegedly said that she thought that they were destined for “humanitarian” purposes and for the flight clubs. The money to pay for the autopilots was also alleged to have been hand-carried into the United States by Mrs. Hanson and friends in amounts less than $10,000 to avoid reporting requirement. The criminal complaint also states that the Hansons filed a claim with UPS asserting that the shipment from MicroPilot had never arrived and was lost.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


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

Feb

9

German Company and Two Employees Indicted for Export Conspiracy


Posted by at 11:46 am on February 9, 2009
Category: Criminal Penalties

Wermelskirchen
ABOVE:Wermelskirchen

An indictment was filed last Thursday in Federal District Court in Boston against Schneider GMBH, a manufacturer and exporter of industrial products located in Wermelskirchen, Germany, for conspiracy to export pump parts from the United States to Iran. The indictment also names as defendants two of the company’s principals, father and son Hans Werner and Christof Schneider.

The indictment alleges, among other things, that Hans Werner Schneider contacted undercover federal agents by email requesting assistance in procuring pump parts for a “restricted foreign destination.” Subsequently, Schneider sent a purchase order via email and air courier to the undercover agents. Other acts in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged by the indictment included telephone conversations, facsimile transmissions, and emails between the Schneiders (while in Germany) and the undercover agents and representatives of the part manufacturer.

Significantly, at all times during the alleged conspiracy and thereafter, Hans Werner and Christof Schneider were outside the United States. All acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy occurred outside the United States. The conspiracy was thwarted and no pump parts were actually exported from the United States. These circumstances raise serious questions as to whether the United States has jurisdiction to indict the Schneiders and their company.

The first question in determining whether criminal charges can be asserted against the Schneider’s is whether Congress intended the statutes involved to have extraterritorial application. The Schneider’s are accused of violating the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (“IEEPA”), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 and the Anti-Smuggling Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 554. Although it’s not clear that Congress intended the Anti-Smuggling Act to have extraterritorial application to conspiracies outside the United States, it is clear that Congress intended that IEEPA was intended to have extraterritorial effect. See, e.g., United States v. McKeeve, 131 F.3d 1 (1st. Cir, 1997). However, U.S. courts will look at international law in determining the extent of extraterritorial application intended by Congress. See, e.g., United States v. Mow, 730 F.2d 1308 (9th Cir. 1984).

U.S. courts have allowed prosecutions of extraterritorial conspiracies in certain instances based on the territorial principle of international jurisdiction. These courts found the requisite territoriality in the effects that the conspiracy has on the United States. In the export arena, the fact that goods are U.S.-origin has been alleged as a basis for exercising jurisdiction under the territorial principal. But when the alleged conspiracy is thwarted and the defendants never actually export anything from the United States, these two territorial bases for U.S. jurisdiction collapse. Even if a U.S. court would find jurisdiction in this case, it is doubtful that a German court would actually permit extradition both because of the tenuous jurisdictional nexus and because exporting these items from Germany to Iran doesn’t appear to be illegal under German law.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


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

Oct

30

Nice Work, If You Can Get It


Posted by at 8:58 pm on October 30, 2008
Category: ChinaCriminal Penalties

Chinese Spies?An indictment was returned on October 28, charging three men with conspiring to export carbon-fiber material to the China Academy of Space Technology (“CAST”). Certain types of carbon-fiber materials are covered by ECCNs 1A002, 1C010, 1C210, and 1C990. The DOJ press release announcing the indictment provides no further detail on the carbon-fiber material involved or the applicable ECCN.

Two of the indicted men are or were employed by a Singaporean import/export company known as FirmSpace, Pte Ltd. A reporter for Singapore-based news website TODAYonline visited FirmSpace and discovered some interesting things:

For over a year, the company, Firmspace …, appears to have not had any business. But it has not laid off any employees and was even able to pay its staff promptly, said its receptionist, who only wanted to be known as Ms Vera.

“I found it quite strange but I never thought of asking the bosses, as long as I still got my salary,” she told Today. …

None of the three employees working in Firmspace knew what was sustaining the business, Ms Vera said. But she stated that Firmspace had been “involved in a few projects” — she didn’t know the nature of these projects, though — since it stopped its import and export business, but none of them were successful.

Ms. Vera and her two co-workers had the perfect job where they got to show up at work, do absolutely nothing at all, and still get paid. Who were they to step off this gravy train?

Of course, it doesn’t take an especially clever sleuth to guess what was going on:

TODAY’s checks revealed that Chinese nationals Mr Hou Xinlu and Mr Gao Xiang are listed as Firmspace’s directors. It is believed they are based in China.

Ya think?

Not surprisingly, Firmspace appears to be simply a front company set up by CAST or some other agency of the Chinese government to obfuscate Chinese efforts to obtain export-controlled items from the United States. This time it didn’t work out so well, since the Chinese front company tried to order the carbon-fiber material from a U.S. front company set up by the U.S. government to catch people trying to engage in illegal exports. Still, you have to wonder how many people get paid by the Chinese to sit at desk in a front companies used by the Chinese in their attempts to obtain sensitive materials from the United States and other countries.

Permalink Comments Off on Nice Work, If You Can Get It

Bookmark and Share


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