Archive for the ‘Criminal Penalties’ Category


Oct

22

Exporting While Chinese


Posted by at 6:21 pm on October 22, 2007
Category: Criminal PenaltiesDDTC

Piezoresistive AccelerometerQing Li, a Chinese permanent resident in the United States, was recently indicted for attempting to export piezoresistive accelerometers to China without a license from the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”). Ms. Li had sent an email to undercover investigators asking to buy the accelerometers. Although the woman never received the accelerometers, she was arrested as she was boarding a flight to China at JFK Airport.

Julie Myers
, Assistant Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) had these comments on the indictment:

These devices are simply not for export to China or anywhere else without explicit permission from the U.S. government. … Accelerometers are a designated defense article frequently used in missiles, ‘smart bombs’ and other major weapons systems and in the wrong hands, could prove catastrophic.

This case may not, however, be as cut and dried and Ms. Myer wants us to believe.

Piezoresistive accelerometers have a number of non-military uses, including automobile crash testing, flutter testing, and biomedical motion studies. Nor are all accelerometers designated defense articles. Category XII(d) of the United States Munitions List (“USML”) covers only “military accelerometers.” The Missile Technology Control Regime Annex of the USML only covers accelerometers with specified performance characteristics. Item 9, Category II covers only “continuous output” accelerometers “specified to function at acceleration levels greater than 100 g” or

Accelerometers with a threshold of 0.05 g or less, or a linearity error within 0.25 percent of full scale output, or both, which are designed for use in inertial navigation systems or in guidance systems of all types

The accelerometers in question were Endevco accelerometers. The Endevco website has a listing of available piezoresistive accelerometers and detailed specifications. Not one of the data sheets on the available accelerometers, at least that I could find, indicated that the particular accelerometer required a State Department license for export or that it was a military accelerometer. This accelerometer comes the closest, since the website states that it can be used in crash test dummies and in flight navigation systems. Nor did any of these products, as described in the data sheets, appear to me to meet the other specific technical specifications (e.g., designed to function at over 100g) listed above.

This indictment illustrates the dangers faced by exporters. Even if an exporter checks the USML and compares it to the technical specifications of the product to be exported, that may not reveal that the item is, in fact, export controlled. At a very minimum, companies that sell export-controlled items should clearly mark such items as export-controlled in their sales literature and data sheets. Absent that, there is a non-frivolous argument that the company itself has some liability for illegal exports of items that were not clearly disclosed as such.

I am trying to get the indictment, which may reveal other information that indicates the Ms. Li knew that the particular accelerometers she was seeking were, in fact, subject to export controls and listed on the USML. Once I obtain a copy, we’ll post it here and look at what evidence, if any, supports any claim that she had knowledge of the controlled status of the items she was trying to export.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

17

Breaking Stupid Criminal News


Posted by at 11:39 am on October 17, 2007
Category: Arms ExportCriminal Penalties

Leupold ScopeA friend of mine, a former policeman who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, used to say that the easiest thing about being a cop was that most criminals are really, really stupid. Case in point: Doli Syarief Pulungan.

Mr. Pulungan, an Indonesian national, was indicted last week for attempting to export Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T rifle scopes to Indonesia without a license. Now comes the stupid:

Pulungan is accused of approaching Norwalk-Wilton Police Chief Steve Kaczik on Sept. 26, saying he wanted to buy 100 rifle scopes for $1,000 each, about $300 above list price, and then ship them overseas.

Another news report indicates that Pulungan requested Kaczik “not to tell the company the scopes were going to Indonesia.”

Going to a police chief to buy these scopes and then asking him not to tell the company what they were for is about as bad as reporting your stolen marijuana to the local constabulary. Or writing a robbery demand note on the back of your latest pay stub.

Kaczik, not surprisingly, notified the FBI and the rest, as they say, is history.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

16

The Purolite Saga Continues


Posted by at 1:48 pm on October 16, 2007
Category: Criminal PenaltiesCuba SanctionsForeign Countermeasures

Purolite in CubaSometimes the Cuba embargo can be good for U.S. business — at least for the business of U.S. law firms. In the latest turn of events in the Purolite saga, which involves trading by a Purolite foreign subsidiary with Cuba, a federal district court recently ruled that a U.S. attorney involved in the prosecution may have to testify in a malpractice suit against a law firm that allegedly advised the defendants that the illegal trades were proper. Brodie v. United States Department of Justice, 2007 WL 2972577 (E.D.Pa. 2007)

The saga of the prosecution of Stefan and Dan Brodie, executives of the Purolite Company, began in 2000 when the brothers were prosecuted for sales made by a Purolite subsidiary in the U.K. to Cuba. The Brodies were convicted by a jury. The trial court then set aside the verdict against Stefan, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that he was aware of the sales to Cuba. The trial court also found that Dan deserved a new trial because of inflammatory remarks made by the prosecution at the trial. Dan subsequently pleaded guilty and Stefan’s conviction was reinstated by the Third Circuit.

In 2004 the Brodies filed a lawsuit against Morgan, Lewis and Bockius for malpractice relating to advice the law firm allegedly gave the brothers concerning the sales by Purolite UK to Cuba. A partner at the law firm was alleged to have advised that the sales by Purolite UK to Cuba weren’t illegal as long as there was no U.S. participation in those sales. Additionally, according to the Brodies, the partner advised that stopping the Purolite UK sales to Cuba would violate British law and that, accordingly, the Foreign Sovereign Compulsion Doctrine would shield the brothers from prosecution.

Of course, if Morgan Lewis actually advised that a foreign subsidiary could trade with Cuba as long as there was no U.S. involvement, this would have been truly cringe-worthy advice. The Trading with the Enemy Act explicitly covers activities of foreign subsidiaries controlled by U.S. parents and makes trading with Cuba illegal even if no U.S. citizens are involved. The advice, if given, on the Foreign Sovereign Compulsion Doctrine would seem equally problematic if applied simply to foreign blocking statutes. Some U.S. courts have narrowly construed the doctrine to require that the foreign sovereign order specific acts by the defendant. Others have applied a balancing test which discounts the interest of the foreign sovereign in merely blocking U.S. laws.

But the District Court opinion at hand involves an interesting side issue in the lawsuit against the Morgan Lewis firm. During the original prosecution, Kristin Hayes, the wife of the managing partner of Morgan Lewis joined the prosecution team. Thereafter, it was alleged that the managing partner of Morgan Lewis provided confidential information about the Brodie brothers to his wife. When the trial court learned of these disclosure, Hayes was removed from the prosecution team, and two weeks before trial, Morgan Lewis withdrew from representing the Brodies.

The case at hand arises from the efforts of the Brodies to obtain a deposition of, and the trial testimony of, Kristin Hayes in the Brodies’ suit against Morgan Lewis. When the DOJ refused to make her available, the Brodies sued the DOJ in U.S. District Court. The district court ruled that the deposition was unnecessary because of the extensive testimony of Hayes during the disqualification hearing and because the DOJ had made a substantial number of relevant non-privileged documents available on the matter. As to the trial testimony, the court found that there may be reasons that would justify Hayes’s testimony at trial and scheduled further proceedings to resolve that issue.

So far it would appear that the Brodies have probably paid much more in legal fees over the Cuba sales than any profits that they might have made from those sales.

Permalink Comments Off on The Purolite Saga Continues

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

4

BIS Denies Export Privileges for Dutch Aircraft Parts Company


Posted by at 11:27 pm on October 4, 2007
Category: BISCriminal PenaltiesSanctions

Aviation Services InternationalWe have previously reported on the recent criminal complaint filed against the Dutch company Aviation Services International B.V. and its owner Rob Kraaipoel. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Aviation Services purchased aircraft parts in the United States, exported them to the Netherlands and then later shipped them to Iran. The Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) has now issued an Order temporarily denying export privileges to Aviation Services, Kraaipoel and related entities that had been involved in the transactions subject to the complaint. In this case, it seems to me, the BIS order is both an appropriate remedy and the only remedy in this case.

Nothing in the criminal complaint suggests that Aviation Services or any of its officers or employees, including Rob Kraaipoel, ever set foot in the United States in connection with these transactions. Nor is there even a scintilla of evidence that Kraaipoel or any of the other employees even went to Disneyland or anywhere else in the United States on a family vacation or for any other reason. A basic principle of international law is that a jurisdiction must have some minimum contact with a foreign citizen before it has the right to prosecute that foreign citizen for the laws of the prosecuting jurisdiction. We can be certain that the United States would assert this principle if the Netherlands sought to indict a U.S. citizen for exporting Dutch goods in violation of Dutch Law.

The Export Controls and Economic Sanctions Committee of the American Bar Association Section of International Law took that position quite clearly when it issued a recommendation that U.S. sanctions laws should not be imposed on foreign corporations where the only jurisdictional basis for doing so was that the articles involved are U.S. origin goods. The Committee explained its position as follows:

The most widely accepted basis in international law for prescribing legal rules of conduct is the territorial principle – that a sovereign may prescribe and apply its laws to conduct that takes place within its territory. … Foreign transaction controls that purport to regulate, proscribe or sanction conduct that takes place entirely outside the territory of a state do not satisfy the general formulation of the territorial principle.

Beyond that, of course, is the question as to whether the U.S. can extradite an individual from The Netherlands in connection with this criminal complaint. The Extradition Treaty between the United States and the Netherlands provides that an extradition may occur for conduct occurring outside the territory of the state being asked for extradition only if the party being extradited is a national of the requesting country or

The courts of the Requested State would be competent to exercise jurisdiction in similar circumstances

This provision permits a Dutch court to deny extradition by saying that, due to principles of international law, it would not be competent to exercise jurisdiction over a U.S. citizen who exported Dutch Goods from the United States.

Of course, the BIS order denying export privileges is an exercise of jurisdiction over U.S. companies and individuals and would impose sanctions on such companies and individuals for exporting items to Aviation Services and Mr. Kraaipoel. This is well within the jurisdictional authority of the United States and, it seems to me, is the appropriate course to be taken when foreign individuals, outside the jurisdiction of the United States, re-export U.S. origin items in violation of U.S. law.

I would, however, advise Mr. Kraaipoel to cancel any plans to vacation in the U.S.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Aug

8

There Will Always Be an England


Posted by at 9:21 pm on August 8, 2007
Category: Criminal Penalties

Periodic Table Entry for HfDevotees of the New Yorker will no doubt remember items that used to be short entries titled “There Will Always Be an England.” A typical item under that heading recounted humorous but true anecdotes of quaint English behavior. You know, the story of an eccentric don who wins the lottery and uses the proceeds to buy first-class plane tickets to Sardinia for two voles that he nursed back to health after they were run over by a lorry in Dorset.

So I couldn’t help using the same title for the story of Avocado Research Chemicals Ltd of Heysham, Lancashire and its unfortunate and unlicensed export of two chemicals from the U.K. In July 2005, the company exported to Egypt without a license small quantities of 2-diisopropylaminoethyl chloride hydrochloride, a precursor to VX nerve gas, and hafnium, a component used in producing control rods for nuclear reactors. The company was fined £600 and ordered to pay £100 in costs, or just over $1400 in fines and costs. And, no, we aren’t missing several zeros in those figures. Those are the actual fines.

But it gets better. The illegal exports were discovered by the Department of Trade and Industry after it reviewed the company’s annual export report and noted that licenses had not been obtained for the exports in question. The company then made a voluntary disclosure of the unlicensed exports. Is that great or what? The agency can discover the violation but you can still make a voluntary disclosure. That’s better than getting two mulligans on the eighteenth hole. A subsequent internal audit disclosed that the exports were “a result of human error” – or, translated from the British, inadvertent.

Wait, there’s still more. A spokesman for the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office put on a very serious face and said this:

Today’s successful result shows how important it is for companies to make sure that correct exporting procedures are in place. ARC Ltd did the right thing once they noticed their mistake and contacted the authorities. But other companies should note that, even in a case where small quantities and genuine human error are involved, some action must be taken. The unlicensed export of potentially lethal substances is too serious to be ignored at any level.

Come on, he’s kidding isn’t he? Something can be “too serious to be ignored at any level” and the appropriate result is a $1400 fine for a company that “voluntarily” discloses the export after it got caught? The great sucking noise you are hearing is the sound of U.S exporters looking for office space in Lancashire.

So, to paraphrase another famous expression, next time your company is getting, er, worked over for an export violation, just lie back and think of England.

Permalink Comments Off on There Will Always Be an England

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)