Archive for April, 2010


Apr

13

Closed for the Weekend


Posted by at 7:48 pm on April 13, 2010
Category: BISIran Sanctions

Bladerunner 51“Hillbilly,” a regular reader and commenter here, brought to my attention news reports last week, like this one, that indicated that the Bladerunner 51, a high-speed boat that holds the speed record for circumnavigating Great Britain, is now in the hands of the Iranian Navy. Regular readers may recall a post on this blog in January 2009 about a Temporary Denial Order (“TDO”) issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) which attempted to block the transfer of the craft by a South African company, Icarus Marine (Pty) Ltd. BIS believed that Icarus was planning to load the Bladerunner 51 onto an Iranian merchant shipping vessel and send it to the Tadbir Sanaat Sharif Technology Development Center in Tehran. Thereafter it was feared that the boat would be transferred to the Iranian Navy, which would try to use the boat as an attack craft.

When I first wrote about the TDO, I expressed some scepticism about its effectiveness. Certainly the two Iranian entities named in the order would simply ignore it, and there was no obvious reason that the South African party would obey it. Now, however, it appears that the TDO had another purpose, at least according to this article in the Washington Post:

The U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security asked South African authorities to block the transfer. It voiced concern that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards intended to use the boat as a “fast attack craft.” The bureau noted that similar vessels had been armed with “torpedoes, rocket launchers and anti-ship missiles.”

Nonetheless, the loading went ahead because, according to one source, no one saw the U.S. notice sent by fax on a weekend.

So, if this report is to be believed, the TDO was designed not as much to deter Icarus but to prompt the South African government to take action and prevent the loading of the Bladerunner 51 onto the Iranian merchant vessel. That plan failed because BIS sent the TDO on a weekend, when the South African government was, not surprisingly, closed.

Another interesting factoid is that the U.S. also had a plan for special forces to intercept the Iranian merchant vessel carrying the Bladerunner 51. That plan was called off, no doubt because of the concern that the Bladerunner, as then configured, was not subject to the arms embargo set forth in paragraph 5 of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1747.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


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

Apr

9

Another Hearing for Kakavand


Posted by at 4:52 pm on April 9, 2010
Category: Criminal PenaltiesIran Sanctions

Majid Kakavand
ABOVE: Majid Kakavand


This blog has previously reported on the case of Majid Kakavand, both here and, most recently, here. Kakavand, an Iranian citizen, was provisionally arrested in March 2009 by French authorities at the request of the U.S. Government. The provisional arrest warrant alleged that Kakavand used a company of his in Malaysia to order electronic components from U.S. companies and then transshipped those components to Iran. On April 14, the French court will hold its sixth hearing on the US request for Kakavand’s extradition from France.

There has been almost no coverage of this case in the U.S. press. Most of the English-language press coverage of this case originates from the Government of Iran, which is, needless to say, a less than reliable source on matters such as this. But a recent French-language report from TF1 provides some interesting detail about the upcoming hearing on April 14.

First, the court has now received the reports on the exported items that it requested from French authorities, namely from the DGA, the French agency responsible for developing and procuring items for the French military, and from two bureaus of the Ministry of the Economy. Both agencies have reportedly concluded that the items exported by Kakavand from the United States to Iran (through Malaysia) were not dual-use items. If that is the conclusion of these two reports, it will mean that there is a good chance that the extradition request will be denied by the French court.

Second, Kakavand’s lawyers have now alleged that the U.S. government falsified documents that it presented to the French court in support of the extradition request. In addition, his lawyers claim that they are requesting prosecutors in San Francisco to investigate these allegations of document forgery. The basis for this claim of falsification seems, frankly, not very convincing. The lawyers allege that the U.S. submitted emails that had attachments with dates that did not correspond to the emails.

I suspect that on that basis alone most of my emails might be subject to a claim of falsification, because they often have attachments created before the date of the email. If the allegation is that the documents bore dates after the date of the email to which they were attached, there are also reasonable explanations for that. In particular, the date shown by the operating system for the attachment might reflect the last time it was accessed on a particular computer. Dates on pages of the document might be typographical errors. And, of course, if someone is going to forge documents, it is unlikely that such obvious discrepancies would be permitted in the forged documents. It would be like adding “1982” after the signature of a forged Vermeer.

In all events, even though I think the U.S. claim for jurisdiction to prosecute Kakavand for his activities in Iran and Malaysia is dubious, I don’t buy the notion that the U.S. Government would go so far as to falsify documents to support its request.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


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

Apr

7

BIS Sets New Record for Detail in a Charging Letter


Posted by at 8:57 pm on April 7, 2010
Category: BISIran Sanctions

Cooling TowersAqua Loop Cooling Towers, a California-based supplier of cooling equipment to power plants, recently agreed to a ten-year denial order and a $100,000 fine to settle charges by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) arising out of charges of illegal exports of, and a conspiracy to export, EAR99 goods to Iran. The items involved were filament winding machines and rolls of hog hair filter media. (For those perplexed about exports of hog products to a Muslim country, hog hair filters are not made from hog hair, at least they aren’t anymore.)

More interesting than the charges themselves and the agreed settlement is the unusual amount of detail that BIS put into the charging letter and the associated documents. Typically a charging letter says, for each count, that on A date B company violated C rule by exporting item D, classified as ECCN 0X000, to country Y. Each count rarely exceeds a short paragraph. In this instance, the Charging Letter, while many pages short of the length of, say, Marcel Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu, is quite detailed and, certainly, a step in the right direction. Greater detail in charging letters provides more notice to the export community as to how BIS interprets its own regulations.

The charging letter tells a story of a contact made by Parto Abgardan, a Tehran-based manufacturer of cooling towers, with Aqua Loop to procure items for shipment to Tehran. The president of Aqua Loop replied that he was “more than happy if I can be of assistance on your purchase of filament winding machines.” Upon contacting a distributor of those items, the Aqua Loop president reported back:

I should emphasize that I found this lady a bit reluctant on the subject of export the unit [sic] to Iran, but she sound [sic] OK to work with us, if we do not mention any thing [sic] about Iran.

Later Aqua Loop’s president reported that the only way he could get the items to Iran was through a Gulf state:

I am trying to find a way to send the components that I promised to you. Unfortunately after many unsuccesssful [sic]attempts, I came to a conclusion that the only was to open this channel is what you were thinking, and if I understood correctly, you are going to have some kind of agent or office in one of the Gulf countries. I tell you this that I would have no problem getting a container to my place and loading to a steam ship toward Dubai. . . . Many shipping companies express that you shouldn’t have any major problem getting the goods to Tehran from Dubai

Finally, the charging letter notes that Aqua Loop’s president had told a BIS special agent that he was aware that it was illegal to ship goods to Iran through third countries, noting that the practice was called “diversion.” Not surprisingly, the Aqua Loop president agreed individually to a ten-year denial order and a $100,000 penalty suspended for ten years provided that no export violations were committed by him during that period.

If you clicked on the link earlier in this post to Parto Abgardan’s website (which appears only to work in Internet Explorer and not to work in either Firefox or Chrome), you may have noticed something interesting. Abgardan claims to have a “sister factory in the USA.” Here’s a screen grab (with highlighting added by me) showing that claim.

Screen Grab

And on its website Abgardan gives as its U.S contact information the same address, telephone number and fax number as shown on Aqua Loop’s contact page. Here’s another screen grab if your browser doesn’t like Abgardan’s website:

Screen Grab

I would have thought they would have changed that by now.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


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

Apr

6

Eleventh Circuit Upholds Export Conviction


Posted by at 7:38 pm on April 6, 2010
Category: Criminal Penalties

11th Circuit USCAIn an unpublished opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld yesterday the conviction of Joseph Pinquet for violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in connection with exports of defense articles and dual use goods to China without the required export licenses. In his appeal, Pinquet argued that there was insufficient evidence that one of the exported items was properly classified as an item on the United States Munitions List (“USML”). He also argued that the jury instructions did not properly state the wilfulness requirement for a conviction under the Arms Export Control Act.

As to the first argument, it appears that the government didn’t trot out, as it often does, the spurious old saw that the Department of State certificate presented at trial, certifying that the item was a USML item, is immune from judicial review. Perhaps the Seventh Circuit’s decision in the Pulungan case has dissuaded the government from continuing to employ the star chamber logic that would permit criminal convictions based on administrative fiat. The Eleventh Circuit noted that, in addition to the legendary certificate (signed by Hillary Clinton herself, no less!), there was testimony of an engineer from Northrop Grumman, which manufactured the item, that the items was designed for military use and had no civilian applications. The Court of Appeals also relied on evidence that sales documentation for the item indicated that item was controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and required a license for export.

As to the second argument, the Eleventh Circuit stated the wilfulness requirement under the AECA as this: “a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty,” and not “innocent or negligent errors.” The district court’s instruction went one step further and required that the government, in order to convict, had to prove that Pinquet “”knew, from whatever source, that a license was required.” Pinquet attacked the instructions on the ground that another instruction given by the district court, namely that there was no need to prove that Pinquet was aware of or had read the Arms Export Control Act, made the instruction confusing. The court held that the instructions, taken as a whole, were not confusing.

The court’s decision here seems to gloss over the difference between its own looser scienter standard and the stricter standard used by the district court. The appeals court states that only a general, non-specific knowledge of illegality needed to be shown whereas the district court instruction required a showing that the defendant need to know that an export license was required. This distinction can be crucial in instances where the defendant’s belief that a transaction is illegal is based on a misunderstanding of the applicable law.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


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

Apr

5

BIS Eats, Shoots, and Leaves


Posted by at 9:36 pm on April 5, 2010
Category: BIS

Chashman Nuclear Plant
ABOVE: Chashma Nuclear Plant


Louisiana-based DeepSouth Hardware Solutions, an aftermarket provider of parts for power plant control systems, agreed to pay a $32,000 fine to settle charges by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) that DeepSouth had shipped automatic control instruments classified as ECCN 1B999 to a company on BIS’s Entity List. The problem, however, is that the entity involved isn’t clearly on the Entity List.

Specifically, the Charging Letter stated:

On or about July 27, 2007, Deepsouth engaged in conduct prohibited by the Regulations when it exported parts . . . classified under Export Control Classification Number 1B999 to the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission’s Chashma Nuclear Power Plant, an entity on the Entity List set forth in Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations, without . . . Department of Commerce licenses.

Let’s take a look at the Entity List and see if we can find Chashma Nuclear Power Plant anywhere on the list. Here is the entry for the PAEC to which BIS is presumably referring:

BIS Entity List Entry

Nope, not there. We’ve got the National Development Complex (and its nuclear power plants) and the Pakistan Institute for Nuclear Science and Technology. And given that the list refers to the “following subordinate entities,” the plain meaning would be that NDC and PINSTECH are the only subordinate entities of the PAEC on the list.

Or maybe not. If you put a period after NDC and then remove the indentation of the line starting with “nuclear power plants,” the entity listing takes on a new meaning and now would be read as the NDC, PINSTECH and any PAEC nuclear power plants, a reading that would include Chashma. As BIS noted in the Charging letter:

The Chashma Nuclear Power Plant was identified on the order form it submitted to Deepsouth as an entity affiliated with the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission.

If BIS is going to fine exporters for lack of care in exporting, then BIS needs to take appropriate care with its own lists and rules and write them using standard English punctuation that would avoid this sort of needless ambiguity. Punctuation is not an optional affectation of the literate elite but rather is an integral part of written English that changes the meaning of what is written. As the title of this post shows, take out the two commas and BIS might be the name of a panda instead of someone who dines, fires a gun, and makes a hasty exit.

Permalink Comments Off on BIS Eats, Shoots, and Leaves

Bookmark and Share


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