Archive for the ‘Criminal Penalties’ Category


Jul

30

Army Captain Pleads Guilty To Arms Smuggling Charges


Posted by at 8:28 pm on July 30, 2008
Category: Criminal Penalties

EoTech 553 rifle sightLast week we reported that charges had been filed against a U.S. Army Captain for exporting EoTech holographic rifle sights to Japan without the required export license from the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. Of particular interest was that the government charged Captain Iishiba for violating the overseas smuggling provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 555, rather than under 22 U.S.C. § 2778(c), the criminal provisions of the Arms Export Control Act. We speculated that this might be because the government believed that 18 U.S.C. § 555 had a relaxed scienter requirement such that the government would only have to prove that the export was knowing but not that it was a knowing violation of law.

On Monday, a plea agreement between Iishiba and the government was entered with the court. Iishiba pleaded guilty to violation of the federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371 for conspiring to violate the overseas smuggling statute. The plea agreement, however, did not simply indicate that the exports were intentional, but also stated that Iishiba knew that the exports were in violation of law. Specifically, the plea agreement noted that Iishiba was aware that the exports were illegal because he “misidentified the contents of the packages on the export declaration forms.”

Given that the plea agreement seemingly acknowledges that 18 U.S.C. § 555 requires that the export be in knowing violation of law, the question remains as to why Iishiba wasn’t charged under the Arms Export Control Act as opposed to the anti-smuggling provision. The penalties under the two statutes appear to be the same, so that’s not the reason. Any ideas? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section.

Permalink Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share


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

Jul

21

Platte River Associates Mystery Deepens


Posted by at 3:54 pm on July 21, 2008
Category: Criminal PenaltiesCuba Sanctions

Oil in Cuba
ABOVE: Cuban oil well

Last week we reported on criminal charges filed against a Colorado software company for violating the Cuba embargo. We had hoped to see the criminal information when it became public because the charges seemed, well, a little bit fishy. Now it appears, according to this article in Boulder’s Daily Camera, that the criminal information won’t be made public until a “change of plea” hearing takes place in October. The company had previously pleaded not guilty to the charges.

That article also gives a fair amount of detail about the facts leading to the indictment including claims by the defense attorneys that the company had no direct dealings with the Cuban government:

Foreman, an attorney with Denver-based Haddon Morgan Mueller Jordan Mackey & Foreman, said Thursday that the allegations stem from Platte River’s work in 2000 with Repsol, a Spanish oil and gas company.

He said the Boulder company sold its software program, which analyzes seismic and other ground data to assist in determining potential places to drill for oil, to Repsol in 2000.

A couple of months later, a Repsol employee came to Boulder for further training on using the software, Foreman said. At that time, a Platte River representative recognized that the seismic data looked as if it related to the Caribbean and Cuba, he said.

“I have no idea whether or not Repsol ultimately did anything with Cuba utilizing that software,” Foreman said.

This is all pretty attenuated as a basis for a criminal indictment. Platte River sold software to a Spanish company that then fed data into the program relating to areas around Cuba. Is Microsoft going to go to jail for selling Excel to a Canadian company that then uses the program to analyze its sales figures, including sales to Cuba? It strikes me that you don’t have criminal activity unless it can be demonstrated that Platte River knew that the software was going to be used to aid drilling in Cuba and was in fact later used to aid drilling in Cuba. Short of that, “no cigar,” as they say.

That being said, the mystery about this case only deepens. The change of plea hearing suggests that the defendants are now going to plead guilty and that some sort of plea agreement has been reached. But why would anyone plead guilty on the facts as they appear so far?

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


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

Jul

15

Colorado Company Charged With Violating Cuba Embargo


Posted by at 10:08 pm on July 15, 2008
Category: Criminal PenaltiesCuba Sanctions

Basin View SoftwareThe U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia issued a press release today on charges filed against Platte River Associates in Boulder, Colorado, for violating the U.S. embargo on trade with Cuba. A copy of the criminal information detailing the charges is not yet available, and the press release raises as many questions as it answers.

According to the press release:

[Platte River] provided specialized technical computer software and computer training, which was then used to create a model for the potential exploration and development of oil and gas within the territorial waters of Cuba, without first having obtained a license from the Secretary of the Treasury.

No further information is provided relating to the substance of the charges, but the description provided here doesn’t really state all the elements of a violation. It seems unlikely, based on the language in the press release, that the training was provided to Cuban nationals or the Cuban government. Likely it was provided to nationals of other countries such as China, which is indeed involved in efforts to exploit Cuba’s offshore oil reserves. Even then, providing that software so that potential exploration can be modeled doesn’t violate the embargo until the software is used for actual exploration and then only if Platte had knowledge that the software would be used for those purposes.

The criminal information, when available, will likely provide enough information to evaluate the charges more fully, but, at the moment, not everything adds up. Once the criminal information is available, we will update this post.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


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

Jul

14

Acquitted Export Defendant Goes After U.S. Attorney


Posted by at 6:26 pm on July 14, 2008
Category: Arms ExportCriminal Penalties

Alice Martin
ABOVE: U.S. Attorney Alice Martin

The Alex Latifi saga continues. As we have reported in detail here on Export Law Blog, Mr. Latifi was acquitted on charges that emailing a drawing of a Blackhawk helicopter part to a Chinese supplier violated the Arms Export Control Act. The acquittal appears to have been based, at least in part, on the availability of that drawing on the Internet.

Latifi’s attorney, Henry Frohsin, indicated on Friday that he has filed a complaint with the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility against Alice Martin, the U.S. Attorney involved in the prosecution. A copy of the complaint is not publicly available, but another attorney in Frohsin’s firm told the Birmingham News that the complaint alleges that the government had exculpatory evidence that it failed to provide to the defense team. The precise nature of that exculpatory evidence was not revealed to the newspaper.

Alice Martin told the Birmingham News that her office has been the unsuccessful target of earlier complaints and that she was certain that her side would prevail again.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


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

May

28

An American in Rio


Posted by at 8:35 pm on May 28, 2008
Category: Criminal PenaltiesIran Sanctions

Ipanema BeachNelson S. Galgoul, the Brazilian distributor for software company Engineering Dynamics, who sold the company’s software to customers in Iran was sentenced to 13 months in jail, a fine of $100,000 and a forfeiture of $109,291 for violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Iranian Transaction Regulations. We’ve previously posted on this case here, here and here.

Two things are of particular interest about this sentence. First, how did Mr. Galgoul, a Brazilian distributor, wind up in U.S. jail for violation of the U.S. embargo against Iran. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) press release suggested that Mr. Galgoul was an American living in Rio, so that serves as a pretty solid basis for criminal jurisdiction. Certainly its a much better basis than the oft-asserted basis that the exported product was a U.S.-origin item.

But even if the U.S. courts had jurisdiction over Mr. Galgoul, they have to get their hands on him. The extradition treaty between Brazil doesn’t provide for extradition in the case of violation of U.S. export laws. Furthermore under the dual criminality principal embodies in Article III, even if it did, extradition wouldn’t be possible unless exports to Iran were a violation of Brazilian law, which they are not. Mr. Galgoul was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which could only occur on U.S. soil, so obviously he came to the U.S. voluntarily, although the possibility can’t be dismissed that ICE and the FBI said that they just wanted to “talk” to him. I can imagine that he sure wishes he stayed home now.

Second, the DOJ apparently aware that 13 months might seem harsh for selling software to Iran, larded its press release with a whopper:

According to court documents, Galgoul is the director of SUPORTE, a Brazilian consulting engineering firm which acted as an agent for Engineering Dynamics, Inc. (EDI), a Kenner, Louisiana engineering company that designed, produced, marketed, and supported Structural Analytical Computer Software (SACS), an engineering software program intended to assist in the design of offshore oil and gas structures. Due to the product’s sophistication and its potential use, SACS is a controlled product under various United States laws and regulations.

The cite to “various” laws should be the first indication that something is amiss. Computer assisted design (“CAD”) software for offshore oil and gas rigs isn’t controlled under any laws due to its “sophistication and its potential use,” much less “various” laws. The Commerce Control List covers CAD software for the design of semiconductors under ECCN 3D003. Software for the design of nuclear power plants is probably covered under ECCN 0D001. But the CAD software here seems to be EAR99 and only controlled for destinations such as Iran because it is a U.S.-origin product.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


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