Archive for August, 2007


Aug

21

Freight Forwarder Fined For False Statements on Export Documents


Posted by at 6:37 pm on August 21, 2007
Category: BIS

BIS LogoIf you thought BIS could only come after you for exports of dual-use items, you would be wrong — a lesson learned the hard way by P.R.A. World Wide Trading Co., Inc., a freight forwarder which was fined $250,000 pursuant to a Settlement Agreement released last week. According to the Settlement Agreement, P.R.A. understated the value of exports on 41 separate Shipper’s Export Declarations (SEDs) filed in 2001 and 2002. The BIS agreed to suspend $90,000 of the penalty contingent upon PRA not committing any further violations for one year.

The Settlement Agreement alleged that PRA’s conduct violated two provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”). First, since PRA conspired with its shippers to understate the value of the shipments, PRA violated section 764.2(d) which prohibits conspiracies to violate the EAR. Second, the false statements on the SEDs violated section 764.2(g)(1)(ii) which prohibits making any false statement on an “export control document.”

For a company that didn’t voluntarily disclose the violations, that’s a fairly good deal, since BIS could have fined PRA up to $462,000, i.e. $11,000 for 42 violations (41 false statements and 1 conspiracy). Perhaps the fine reduction reflected the fact that the President and owner of PRA, Igor Cherkassky, pleaded guilty in December 2006 to a conspiracy to file false SEDs and was sentenced to two months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, a $5,000 criminal fine, and a $100 special assessment.

False statements on SEDs not only violate the EAR and the criminal provisions of 50 U.S.C. § 1705(b), but also violate other federal laws. Willful misstatements on an SED are punishable under 13 U.S.C. § 305, which provides for civil penalties and for a criminal penalty of five years imprisonment. And, of course, such false statements are also punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3), which also can result in up to five years in jail.

So it might be said that PRA got off fairly lightly. One question I have is what happened to the exporters themselves? BIS charged a conspiracy between PRA and its exporters to understate the value of the shipments. Clearly the exporters were doing this to try to reduce their liability for import duties imposed by the destination country. They would, therefore, seem just as culpable, maybe even more culpable, than the freight forwarder in this case.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


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

Aug

17

U.S. Prepares to Designate Eritrea as State Sponsor of Terrorism


Posted by at 2:27 pm on August 17, 2007
Category: Sanctions

Eritrean StampDuring a briefing held today Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jindayi Frazer announced that the United States is preparing to designate Eritrea as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Such a designation would be made under the provisions of 50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j), which requires a finding that a country “has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.”

The U.S. intends to base its argument for designation of Eritrea as a state sponsor of terrorism on a July 18 report of the United Nations that found that “huge quantities of arms” have been provided Al-Qaeda linked groups in Somalia “by and through Eritrea.” These arms “include an unknown number of surface-to-air missiles, suicide belts, and explosives with timers and detonators.”

If designated, Eritrea would join the list of state sponsors of terrorism that currently is comprised by Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Designation would automatically result in an arms embargo against Eritrea pursuant to section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2780. It could also serve as a justification of a ban on imports from, and exports to, Eritrea.

Imposition of an arms embargo and/or comprehensive sanctions, including bans on imports and exports, would probably have minimal effect on U.S. exporters — or on Eritrea, for that matter. The Section 655 report for 2006 shows no licenses granted for shipments of arms to Eritrea. Other trade between Eritrea and the United States is small, which is not surprising given that Eritrea’s economy is overwhelmingly based on subsistence agriculture. Exports from the United States to Eritrea in 2006 were valued at $8,848,000. Imports from Eritrea to the United States in 2006 were even less and were valued at $858,000.

One area in which sanctions might be effective would be in cash remittances. The State Department estimates that currently 32% of the GDP of Eritrea is provided by overseas workers remitting cash back to their families and relatives in Eritrea. And a large number of Eritreans live in the United States. So, if Eritrea is designated and sanctions are imposed, my guess is that we will see prohibitions on cash remittances to Eritrea.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


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

Aug

16

Mapping the Cuban Che-Gnome


Posted by at 10:29 pm on August 16, 2007
Category: Cuba Sanctions

The Cuban Che-Gnome

An excellent news story in the Miami Herald by Douglas Hanks on the Travelocity fine, which we first blogged about here, raises some interesting questions. (Full disclosure: Hanks interviewed me for the article).

First, Hanks (being a real reporter and not a lowly blogger) called Travelocity to ask about the fine and the response that he got was a whopper, if you know what I mean:

”In no way did the company intend to sell trips to Cuba,” the spokeswoman, Ashley Johnson, wrote in an e-mail Tuesday. “The trips to Cuba . . . were unintentionally booked online because of a technical issue several years ago and it’s just now being settled.”

I’m not buying it. You can’t “unintentionally” include Cuban flights on a website and then “unintentionally” take money from a traveller and then “unintentionally” pay it to an airline for a flight to Cuba. Maybe you can unintentionally leave the “District of Columbia” off of your drop-down list of destinations; you don’t unintentionally add Cuba to that list.

The Miami Herald story also got a current travel provider to confess that they are still facilitating travel bookings to Cuba:

Kayak.com, a popular travel website operated out of Norwalk, Conn., does advertise Cuba vacations. Though Expedia, Travelocity and other large travel sites set their own prices, Kayak merely receives ”referral fees” from travel providers who get business through the site, spokeswoman Kellie Pelletier said. Because of that, she said, it is free to post the Cuba offerings

Huh? Has anyone at kayak.com actually read the Cuban Assets Control Regulations? That rationale makes no sense — there is no “referral fee” exception in those regulations.

Whether or not kayak.com is violating the Cuban embargo is a close question. The kayak.com site will generate a list of Havana hotels. If you provide dates of your intended stay, the site will take you to another site which will provide rates for those dates, will book the hotel for those dates and, presumably, will pay a referral fee back to kayak.com for the booking.

This might well be seen as more than simply providing information about Cuban hotels and would arguably seem to make kayak.com a “travel service provider” under section 515.572. “Travel service providers” are required to obtain an OFAC license. Under section 515.572, “travel service providers” are defined as parties that “provide services in connection with travel to Cuba,” including “arranging hotel accommodations.” The kayak.com website provides a list of hotels, permits a click-through reservation for specific dates for those hotels, and receives a “referral fee” in exchange. That looks like providing a service in connection with Cuba travel to me.

Permalink Comments Off on Mapping the Cuban Che-Gnome

Bookmark and Share


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

Aug

15

Punching BAWAG


Posted by at 9:24 pm on August 15, 2007
Category: Cuba SanctionsForeign CountermeasuresOFAC

Branch BAWAGUSA*Engage recently released a report on foreign countermeasures that have been applied to the extraterritorial application of unilateral U.S. sanctions. Most of the incidents covered in the report have been discussed here — such as the eviction of a Cuban oil delegation from an American-owned hotel in Mexico City and the eviction another Cuban delegation from a American-owned hotel in Oslo. But I missed one interesting story from April of this year. Of course, I blame Google.

The incident in question was the cancellation by BAWAG, an Austrian bank, of all accounts held by Cuban nationals at the bank in advance of the expected takeover of the bank by American-owned Cerberus Capital. Lawyers for Cerberus had evidently advised that it could not close the transaction as long as Cuban nationals had accounts at the bank. In response to the cancellations, Austria instituted proceedings under E.U. Council Regulation 2271/96 which prohibits compliance with U.S. sanctions on Cuba. BAWAG faced a 73,000 euro fine under the Austrian proceeding.

Two things are interesting about this. First, this is the first instance I am aware of where a proceeding has actually been brought by an E.U. member state under Regulation 2271/96. Second, BAWAG applied for a license from OFAC to reinstate the accounts. And the license was granted.
So companies that find themselves caught between the rock of U.S. sanctions and the hard place of foreign countermeasures should consider seeking a license based on the foreign countermeasure.

While reading some of the news accounts of the BAWAG matter, I also discovered the interesting story of Maria Cajigal-Ramirez, whose accounts at BAWAG were initially cancelled. Ms. Cajigal-Ramirez was a naturalized Austrian citizen who had been born in Cuba. Problem is that Cuba doesn’t allow renunciation of Cuban citizenship. Section 515.201 of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations prohibit transactions with Cuban “nationals.” Are banks, and other businesses, in the U.S. violating the CACR by dealing with first-generation Cuban immigrants since they are still Cuban nationals? And, in answering this question, don’t forget the application of section 515.303 of the CACR that says that dual nationals are considered nationals of both countries for purposes of the regulations.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


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

Aug

13

The Roaming Gnome Busted for 1,458 Trips to Cuba


Posted by at 6:35 pm on August 13, 2007
Category: Cuba SanctionsOFAC

The Roaming Gnome in front of the Cuban Capitol Building

The new OFAC penalty disclosure for August came out on Saturday with some embarrassing news about Travelocity’s Roaming Gnome. Seems that for for six years, between 1998 and 2004, the Travelocity site booked 1,458 reservations for travel to Cuba. The gnome, or rather his employer Travelocity, agreed to a fine of $182,750.

The report of the Travelocity fine follows the general OFAC “the less you know the better” policy and reveals no more about the violation than described above. But some educated guesses can be made. First, the violation was not voluntarily disclosed because the OFAC report almost always notes that fact if there has been a voluntary disclosure. Second, given the time frame, this violation probably involved Travelocity booking trips to Cuba through the sites of its foreign subsidiaries.

You may remember this letter which OFAC sent in 2002 to an unidentified company that operated travel websites in the United States and in foreign countries. That company (probably Travelocity, Orbitz or Expedia) had sent a letter to OFAC requesting OFAC to declare that those operations were permissible or, alternatively, to issue a license to cover them. In OFAC’s responding letter, OFAC asserted that the Cuban Assets Control Regulations apply to overseas subsidiaries and that the Berman Amendment’s exception for information didn’t apply to actually booking reservations but only to providing information about available flights. Accordingly OFAC held that the company’s overseas operations violated the CACR and declined to issue a license to permit such operations.

It’s now pretty safe to assume that the 2002 OFAC letter did not involve Travelocity. Travelocity appears not to have disclosed the violations leading to the fine, and the company involved in the 2002 letter had at least fessed up to its overseas operations. (My money is on Expedia, and not Orbitz, given the length of the whited-out references to the company in the letter.)

One part of the letter has an intriguing passage:

Your letter indicates that there are many U.S.-owned or controlled companies located in third countries that engage in providing travel services. OFAC has not granted a license authorizing any such companies to provide services associated with the tourism and business travel of third country nationals to Cuba. If you have specific information concerning apparent violations of the CACR by such companies, you may submit the information, preferably in writing, to the attention of OFAC’s Chief of Enforcement.

Does anybody else wonder if Expedia (or maybe Orbitz) snitched on Travelocity?

In other OFAC penalty news, the August disclosure indicates that your tax dollars are still being spent on fining individuals who bought Cuban cigars over the Internet, with one individual being fined $999.45 and another $510.00. Given what’s involved in the penalty process, it’s safe to assume that these fines won’t recoup the time spent by OFAC enforcement staff on chasing down the stogie-puffing miscreants, sending penalty notices and negotiating a settlement. Shouldn’t OFAC be chasing terrorists or something?

Permalink Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share


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