Archive for the ‘Iran Sanctions’ Category


Sep

29

Wednesday Export Law Grab Bag


Posted by at 8:28 pm on September 29, 2010
Category: BISIran SanctionsOFAC

Grab BagNo big news today, so it’s time for another Export Law Blog grab bag:

  • In connection with President Obama’s upcoming trip to India, negotiators for India are demanding the removal of the Indian companies that are on the Entity List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”). Given the prior history of some of these entities trying to obtain U.S. exports illegally notwithstanding their presence on the Entity List, I’d call this demand a long shot.
  • The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued a final rule yesterday implementing the import ban provisions of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (“CISADA”). As expected, the general licenses for imports of Iranian foodstuffs and carpets were removed from the Iranian Transaction Regulations. Relying on the regulatory exception power granted to OFAC in section 103(d)(1) of CISADA, all general licenses other than those for foodstuffs and carpets, such as the general license for household effects, remain in effect.
  • Congressman Dale Kildee, Sen. Carl Levin and Sen. Debbie Stabenow from Michigan on Tuesday sent a letter to BIS asking it to reverse a decision denying Michigan-based B&P Process Equipment a license to export an industrial vertical mixer to Taiwan. The mixer, which can be used to mix rocket fuels, has raised concerns by BIS that “the export presents an unacceptable risk of contributing to activities detrimental to U.S. foreign policy, including our missile nonproliferation interests.” The Senators and Representative argue in their letter that if B&P is not allowed to export the equipment, a foreign company will sell its own similar equipment to the company in Taiwan. My guess is that the BIS objection is really coming from the Department of Defense and that the Congressional letter will have about as much effect on the DoD’s position as a toy pistol fired at an aircraft carrier.
Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

27

Further Details on Ardebili Sting


Posted by at 8:49 pm on September 27, 2010
Category: Criminal PenaltiesIran Sanctions

Amir Ardebili
ABOVE: Amir Ardebili
mugshot


All of the installments in the outstanding series on the Ardebili case under John Shiffman’s byline at The Philadelphia Inquirer have now been published, and each article is a treasure trove of new information about the case. Although I’m going to highlight a few interesting things revealed by the series, don’t let that deter you from reading the whole thing. There is much more to be learned in the articles than I have the time and space to cover here.

When Ardebili was released from jail in Georgia, he was whisked back to the U.S. on a Gulfstream IV that cost the United States $300,000 to rent. While on the way back, one of his interrogators from Immigration and Customs Enforcement lied to him:

You have a right to an attorney. While you can have an attorney paid for by the Iranian government, you should be careful, because that lawyer will probably report everything you say back to Tehran. You tell the Iranian lawyer the wrong thing, and it might endanger your family.

Because, of course, such a lawyer would readily violate attorney-client privilege to endanger his or her client’s family

Once Ardebili was in the United States, the U.S. government not only threw him into solitary confinement, but also they gave him a fictitious name to conceal what had been done. When an Ardebili relative in the United States was approached by Ardebili’s family in Iran, he hired Ross Reghabi, an Iranian-American lawyer in Beverly Hills, who assured the family that he could find Ardebili if he was here:

Reghabi was not a criminal lawyer. He specialized in family and business matters, and taught an advanced accounting class at the University of California, Los Angeles. But he knew enough to assure his friend that the U.S. government did not routinely hold people in secret confinement.

Don’t worry, he said. This is America, not Iran. Laws and procedures must be followed. People don’t just disappear.

Well, perhaps that was true at one time. It certainly wasn’t any longer.

So why was Ardebili in solitary confinement under an assumed name? Because the U.S. government had assumed his identity and was continuing to negotiate with the U.S. companies that had been approached by Ardebili. They found hundreds of contacts on Ardebili’s computer. And they planned on keeping Ardebili in the hole forever, if they had to, until they had run down all their contacts. And, according to the article, around 100 U.S. companies are still under investigation based on leads from Ardebili’s computer.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

22

New Details Emerge in Ardebili Sting


Posted by at 9:17 pm on September 22, 2010
Category: Criminal PenaltiesIran Sanctions

Amir Ardebili
ABOVE: Amir Ardebili captured on
surveillance video in Tbilisi, Georgia


An eight-part series has been running this week in the Philadelphia Inquirer on the U.S. sting operation conducted against Iranian national Amir Ardebili, which this blog first reported on here. Needless to say, much of the series so far contains a number of interesting details not previously reported on the sting operation and presumably will contain even more fascinating details on the prosecution and plea bargain in the upcoming installments. So far, the series has glossed over the question of the legality of the U.S. operation under international law and why the U.S. chose to engage in such questionable tactics to spear such a small fish as Ardebili.

One interesting detail in the report relates how some grandstanding by a political appointee in the Justice Department threatened the investigators’ plan to whisk Ardebili back to the United States and throw him into a black hole while they searched his laptop, continued the investigation, and waited for months of solitary confinement to soften Ardebili up to the idea of a guilty plea. The political appointee wanted to announce the apprehension of Ardebili at a press conference as soon as Ardebili was in cuffs, which would, of course, lead to inconvenient questions about where Ardebili was. The investigators headed off this plan by having a judge in the United States put all the information on the operation and planned arrest under seal.

The series also has new video of what took place in the hotel room in Tbilsi where Ardebili was apprehended. I was particularly amused by the preposterous faux-Russian accent put on by a Customs investigator called “Darius.” It sounded like “Darius” had boned up on this over-the-top accent by listening to Boris and Natasha in old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons. In the videos, Ardebili seems at best naive as the investigators ask questions that more sophisticated persons would clearly see as unrelated to the business transaction at hand and simply designed to set him up. Frankly the questioning reminded me of the legendary SNL sketch where a badly wired Linda Tripp with a flower mike tried to extract information from Monica Lewinsky at the Pentagon City Ritz Carlton.

The series continues on Thursday and Friday. Read the whole thing.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

16

Omani Sultan Pays Hiker’s Ransom


Posted by at 9:05 pm on September 16, 2010
Category: Iran Sanctions

Sultan Qaboos
ABOVE: Sultan Qaboos

According to a story appearing in London broadsheet The Daily Telegraph, the bill for the $500,000 ransom paid to Iran to enable release of imprisoned hiker Sarah Shourd was footed by Oman’s Sultan Qaboos. The question of who paid is interesting because U.S. sanctions would forbid U.S. persons from paying the ransom to the Iranian government.

State Department Philip Crowley, however, was somewhat cagey in his discussion of the ransom payment and U.S. sanctions during Wednesday’s daily press briefing:

QUESTION: Since you’ve gotten brought up to speed from the Omanis on the arrangements that were made but want to leave it to them to describe, can you at least assure us that U.S. sanctions weren’t violated in whatever the arrangements were?

MR. CROWLEY: I have nothing to suggest that there were any violations.

But in today’s press briefing Crowley side-stepped an effort to get him to confirm that Sultan Qaboos paid the ransom.

In the context of payment of ransoms to Somalia pirates, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) made clear that U.S. economic sanctions override any interest in protecting the safety and liberty of kidnapped Americans being held for ransom. This is not to say that OFAC might not license such payments, although if it did it certainly wouldn’t want that to be known. This might explain Crowley’s caginess about describing what happened. On the other hand, it is also possible that Sultan Qaboos made the payments but has his own reasons for not admitting that publicly.

Permalink Comments Off on Omani Sultan Pays Hiker’s Ransom

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Aug

23

OFAC Issues Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations


Posted by at 6:38 pm on August 23, 2010
Category: Iran SanctionsOFAC

Department of TreasuryLast week, the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) published a final rule in the Federal Register adopting the Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations as required by the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (“CISADA”). A major focus of CISADA was to extend U.S. sanctions to foreign banks that engaged in transactions that assisted the nuclear proliferation efforts of the Iranian Government.

In particular, section 104(c) of the Act required OFAC to issue regulations within 90 days of the passage of CISADA imposing conditions on the opening of correspondent accounts with U.S. financial institutions by any foreign bank that provided such assistance to Iran. These regulations satisfy that requirement. Section 561.201(c) provides that no U.S. financial institution shall open or maintain a correspondent account for foreign banks providing such assistance. OFAC plans to list all such foreign banks subject to this condition in Appendix A to the new regulations. No bank is currently listed on Appendix A.

Compliance with section 561.201(c) should not cause any particular heartburn for U.S. financial institutions, because it is simply another list that banks must check when opening new accounts and when scrubbing existing accounts for compliance. Another portion of CISADA, however, was the subject of much speculation and concern that it would pose complex and laborious due diligence obligations on U.S. financial institutions doing business with foreign financial institutions. Section 104(e) of CISADA requires OFAC to promulgate regulations requiring U.S. financial institutions with foreign bank correspondent accounts to undertake one or more of four activities designed to determine whether the foreign banks are providing services to Iran in aid of its proliferation goals. These include audits and “due diligence” on the foreign banks.

However, section 104(e) imposes no time limit on when OFAC must promulgate such regulations, and they were not included in the new Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations. This comes as a relief — perhaps only a temporary one — because few financial institutions are keen on engaging in these extra activities with respect to foreign correspondent accounts.

Permalink Comments Off on OFAC Issues Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)