Archive for the ‘OFAC’ Category


Nov

8

OFAC Slaps Penalty on Company for Export of Model Railroad Scenery


Posted by at 11:03 pm on November 8, 2006
Category: OFAC

Woodland Scenics Model Train StationOFAC released this week its latest civil penalties information which reported two fines, one against a company and one against an individual.

The first penalty noted in the report was a $500 fine imposed by OFAC on Osment Models d/b/a Woodland Scenics for violation of the Iranian Transaction Regulations. Woodland Scenics makes the trees, tunnels, rocks and similar stuff used by model railroaders to add scenery to their train kits. The fine arises from a voluntary disclosure by the company after it exported its model railroad products to Iran. Model railroaders are a significant political force in Iran so it seems reasonable to suppose that OFAC’s action in this case will hasten the end of the current regime in Iran.

OFAC also imposed a fine of $975 on an individual for buying Cuban cigars on the Internet. Not surprisingly, there are a number of web sites, like this one, which offer to ship Cuban cigars from Europe (or elsewhere) to the United States in clear violation of the embargo. Although OFAC arguably has better things to do with its time than to chase down Internet Cohiba shipments, it’s hard to shed many tears for this purchaser who certainly should have known better.

Permalink Comments Off on OFAC Slaps Penalty on Company for Export of Model Railroad Scenery

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2006 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

3

Win A Trip to Tehran! Send Your Travel Agent to Jail!! (Maybe)


Posted by at 9:23 am on November 3, 2006
Category: OFAC

Ruins of PersepolisIt would appear that Iran’s nascent efforts to cook up a few nuclear bombs hasn’t been a tremendous boon for its tourism industry. So, Iran has announced a plan to pay a bribe, no, make that bounty, well let’s just say an incentive, to travel agents that convince Western tourists to visit Iran. And they are offering a premium incentive for Americans ($20) versus tourists from the rest of the Western World (worth only $10).

Now, of course, it’s impossible for me to see such a promotion without wondering how OFAC might react. At first, the incentive payment might seem to be permitted under 31 C.F.R. 560.210(d), which permits:

transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from any country, including . . . arrangement or facilitation of such travel including nonscheduled air, sea, or land voyages.

But is a payment of a bounty to a travel agent a transaction ordinarily incident to the arrangement of such travel? Particularly where a premium is paid for Americans? That’s hard to say with certainty but it seems to me that there is at least a reasonable argument that it isn’t.

Assuming, however, that it is ordinarily incident to facilitating travel, this guidance letter from OFAC suggests there may be other problems:

With respect to the advertisement of air service between the United States and Iran, the Regulations do not prohibit such transactions unless they are undertaken at the behest of a person in Iran or an Iranian entity. The Regulations would prohibit advertising-related transactions undertaken at the behest of a person or entity in Iran, unless the information or informational materials exemption applies. To fall within the scope of the information and informational materials exemption, such transactions must be limited to the direct dissemination of copy-ready materials. A U.S. person cannot provide any other related services to Iran, such as the development of advertising materials or an advertising campaign or serving as an agent for the buying or brokering of advertising space, without OFAC authorization.

I would read this to suggest that there would be issues if the agent, in response to the bounty, developed advertising or promotional campaigns (such as a sweepstakes) to encourage travel to Iran. Perhaps one would argue that the payment of the bounty only indirectly results in the promotional campaign and thus that it is not at the behest of Iran. If I were a travel agent, however, I’d want to hear from OFAC before running a “Win A Free Trip to Iran” contest.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2006 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

31

Guns and Gladiolas: Viktor Bout’s Path to the SDN List


Posted by at 3:08 pm on October 31, 2006
Category: OFACU.N. Sanctions

Only known photo of Viktor BoutYesterday OFAC issued a new set of designations of individuals under the sanctions regime for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In that designation, OFAC amended the designation of Viktor Anatolijevitch Bout to include the DRC Sanctions as the reason for designation in addition to the Liberia sanctions under which Bout had already been designated.

Mr. Bout has a more interesting story than most SDNs. Starting in 1992, Bout built a network of aircraft that he used to carry everything from guns to gladiolas. It was the former product, and not the latter, which got Mr. Bout into hot water. There appeared to be substantial evidence that bout was running weapons to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the Taliban, Angola and the UNITA rebels that sought to overthrow Angola, Charles Taylor of Liberia and Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

After the U.S. incursion into Iraq, Mr. Bout also began to provide services to the U.S. military and its contractors. Shortly after the fall of Baghdad, the United States coordinated a massive airlift of goods and supplies into Iraq. According to a just-published article in Foreign Policy by Douglas Farah and Stephen Braun, Bout played a role in that airlift:

But to their embarrassment, U.S. officials later learned that many of the Russian planes were operated by companies and crews working for Viktor Bout. His planes were flying Federal Express shipments for the U.S. Air Force, tents for the U.S. Army, and oil field equipment and personnel for KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary. In the months that followed, Bout’s flagship firm flew hundreds of sorties in and out of Baghdad, earning millions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers.

Bout’s involvement in the Iraq airlift caused the U.S. to delay impositions of sanctions on Bout. OFAC continued to squabble with the Pentagon which claimed that it had no obligation to scrutinize second-tier subcontractors such as Bout, who was ferrying items for KBR. Finally in April 2005, sanctions were imposed on Bout for his dealings with the Charles Taylor regime of Liberia. UN Sanctions followed in November 2005. Even so, there appears to be evidence that Bout-operated planes have continued to ferry goods into Baghdad’s airport, at least according to Farah and Braun.

The purpose of designating Bout under a second sanctions regime at this point seems unclear. Perhaps OFAC hopes that this might double the penalty for dealing with Bout, although the legal basis for such a supposition is doubtful. More likely it may be to preserve a second basis for sanctions against Bout if the Liberia sanctions should be ended for some reason.

In all events, Mr. Bout is alive and well in Moscow. He has always claimed that he has no idea, absolutely no idea whatsoever, what was in those packages he delivered throughout the world to rebels and dictators. He continues to reside in a luxury apartment complex and to carry on his business undeterred. As Messrs. Farah and Braun state:

Conceding their difficult straits, U.S. officials admit that there is no clear evidence that Bout’s air fleet has been diminished or his activities slackened as a result of the sanctions. “You never can say with 100 percent certainty that he is gone,” says Zarate—who is now President George W. Bush’s chief counterterror deputy at the NSC. “He is very, very good at doing his business.” The Europeans find it equally hard. “He doesn’t go away. He just keeps changing his aircraft and registrations, hoping that he will outlast the interest in following him,” says a European military intelligence source. “So far, he is right.”

Permalink Comments Off on Guns and Gladiolas: Viktor Bout’s Path to the SDN List

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2006 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

25

Don’t Leave Home With It


Posted by at 3:58 pm on October 25, 2006
Category: DDTCOFAC

Motorola i580 Mobile PhoneSince not much is in the news today export-wise, other than OFAC’s addition of “El Mono” Sabogal to the SDN list1, I thought I would bring up something I’ve been wondering about since seeing a Nextel television ad for the Motorola i580. This is something that would only bother an export lawyer, so I thought I would mention here. When I’ve mentioned it to friends they’ve told me that I need to take a vacation.

Anyway, here’s my query regarding the Nextel i580. The commercial, and advertising materials, make a big deal that the phone is made to “810F military specs.” That means, presumably, it has been “ruggedized,” which is military-speak for saying you can drop it from a plane, or throw it on the ground, or run over it with a tank and you can still call your wife, er, lieutenant on it. Assuming that this is true, doesn’t that put the phone on the USML and specifically in Category XI(a)(5)? After all, it is a communication system “specifically designed, modified or configured for military application.” Do I need an export license from DDTC if I take it with me on my next trip to Europe?

Leave your thoughts on this in the comments.

____________

1And that really isn’t news because you shouldn’t be doing business with anyone with the alias “El Mono” (The Monkey) in any event.

Permalink Comments (8)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2006 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

24

The Old Man and the Sanctions


Posted by at 7:34 pm on October 24, 2006
Category: OFAC

Hemingway's Fishing BoatAccording to a report from television station WTVJ in Miami, Florida, a small group of craftsmen in Cuba are trying to restore “The Pilar,” the fishing boat which was owned by Hemingway and which was captained by Gregorio Fuentes, the presumed model for the protagonist in The Old Man and the Sea.

Lacking funds, the craftsman are relying on their on sweat and sandpaper to restore the boat, ravaged by years of hurricanes and lack of upkeep. A group of American conservationist have tried to help but . . . well, you can probably guess the rest of the story:

A group of conservationists from the United States tried to help the preservation efforts, but [OFAC] prevented them from traveling to Cuba, arguing that proceeds from Cuba’s Hemingway Museum benefit Fidel Castro’s regime.

Who knew you could make so much money in the museum business?

Permalink Comments Off on The Old Man and the Sanctions

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2006 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)