Archive for July, 2008


Jul

22

Export Violation Charged Under Overseas Smuggling Law


Posted by at 9:03 pm on July 22, 2008
Category: General

Tomoaki Iishiba
ABOVE: Tomoaki Iishiba

Captain Tomoaki Iishiba, stationed at Fort Lewis in Washington State, has been charged in connection with his shipment of sixty EoTech 553 night-vision-compatible holographic rifle sights to Japan without obtaining the required export license. Prior to these charges, Captain Iishiba was best known as one of the technical consultants on a computer war game known as Metal Gear Solid.

The export classification of these sights is unclear. The one-count criminal information filed by the U.S. Attorney makes no attempt to provide an export classification for the items. If these sights are principally used on firearms listed on Category I of the USML then they would be classified as Category I(h) and require a license from the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. The sights could also be covered by ECCN 0A987 which covers “optical sighting devices for firearms,” but this classification does not require a license in the case of shipments to Japan. So, we can probably safely assume that the government believes that the items are properly classified as USML Category I(h).

Notwithstanding the likely USML classification of the sights, the criminal information does not charge Iishiba under 22 U.S.C. § 2778(c), the criminal provision of the Arms Export Control Act. Rather the charge is conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 555, the overseas anti-smuggling provision added by the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005.* That section provides as follows:

Whoever fraudulently or knowingly exports or sends from the United States, or attempts to export or send from the United States, any merchandise, article, or object contrary to any law or regulation of the United States, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such merchandise, article or object, prior to exportation, knowing the same to be intended for exportation contrary to any law or regulation of the United States, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Significantly, the criminal information doesn’t allege that Iishiba knew that it was illegal to export the sights. Rather it only alleges that he “knowingly exported” the rifle sights. Now the reason to charge under 18 U.S.C. § 555 rather than Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2778(h), seems clear: the prosecution is trying to avoid the scienter requirement of the later statute.

Section 127.1 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations is violated by an unlicensed export of a defense article whether or not the violator was aware that the export required a license. And it would appear that the prosecution is reading the anti-smuggling provision to require only a knowing export that violates a regulation without a scienter requirement. Whether a court will support this reading of the new provision remains to be seen.


*The provision was enacted as 18 U.S.C. § 554, even though there was already a § 554, and it was later recodified as § 555. The information, however, continues to cite the provision as 18 U.S.C. § 554.

Permalink Comments (5)

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

17

BIS Fines New Jersey Company For Exporting Imaginary Equipment


Posted by at 9:16 pm on July 17, 2008
Category: General

TiltometerNew-Jersey-based Advanced Orientation Systems entered into a settlement agreement with the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) pursuant to which it agreed to pay a $31,500 to settle charges that it shipped 11 “tiltometers” to Mayrow General Trading Company in August 2006. BIS agreed to waive $16,500 of this penalty if AOS committed no further export violations for one year. Exports to Mayrow General Trading Company without a BIS license are prohibited under BIS’s General Order No. 3.

AOS appears to be a relatively small company and not an experienced exporter, so it’s not surprising that it was unaware of the prohibitions of General Order No. 3, and there is no allegation in the charging documents that AOS was engaged in an intentional violation of BIS rules. Indeed, General Order No. 3 was promulgated by BIS in June 2006, only two months prior to the exports in question. This probably accounts for the relatively small fine agreed to by BIS.

One humorous aspect of the charging papers is that BIS continually insists on referring to the exported equipment as “tiltometers,” even though there is no such thing as a “tiltometer.” Maybe they were thinking about Tilt ‘O Wheels or something.

The correct term is an “inclination sensor,” which is the term used by AOS on its own website. A quick Google search of “tiltometer” would have revealed that this term refers only to a digital camera project by some English computer geeks who hung some plumb weights and protractors from a camera and to an Internet test, part of the Texas Information Literacy Tutorial about the best way to research certain questions. I guess the folks at BIS still don’t have access to the Internet.

Permalink Comments Off on BIS Fines New Jersey Company For Exporting Imaginary Equipment

Bookmark and Share


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

Jul

16

Wednesday Export Law Grab Bag


Posted by at 5:55 pm on July 16, 2008
Category: General

Grab BagIt’s a slow day today in export news, so we’re bringing you a grab bag of various items, each interesting but none worthy of an entire post:

  • Vanderbilt University has announced that it has hired a new assistant director of export compliance to handle the “new wave of federal export control regulations that is crashing down on Vanderbilt.” Were we asleep and missed a new wave of export control regulations or did Vanderbilt just wake up and discover the export regulations that crashed down on Vanderbilt years ago?
  • An article on the Deutsche Welle website indicates that German firms are circumventing sanctions on Iran by doing business in Iran with suitcases of cash to avoid detection. This leads to the day’s most amusing quote from a German businessman living in Tehran:

    “If a plane crashes on its way to Tehran from Germany, then the loss of the luggage would be more expensive than the loss of the plane,” he said.

  • A spokesman for the State Department testified yesterday in a Senate hearing that in response to the sham electoral victory of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the United States is considering additional sanctions against individuals and government entities in Zimbabwe. Raise your hands if you think these will lead Mugabe to break down in tears, resign his office, and flee the country.
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.)