Aug

2

Chinese Man Pleads Guilty To Export Charges After Ninth Circuit Remand


Posted by at 8:28 pm on August 2, 2012
Category: Criminal Penalties

KG-175 Taclane EncryptorBack in 2009, this blog reported on the arrest of Chi Tong Kuok, a PRC citizen, during a layover in Atlanta while he was traveling to Panama to meet with undercover agents who believed he was involved in various illegal exports of items from the United States to the PRC. After his conviction, he appealed successfully to the Ninth Circuit which threw out two of the four counts against him and remanded for a new trial on the remaining two counts. The court held that Kuok deserved a new trial because he had improperly been denied the opportunity to present a duress defense during his trial. Kuok claimed that the Chinese government had forced him to engage in the illegal exports in question.

Yesterday, Kuok pleaded guilty to the remaining charges. He did so before he had the opportunity to present his duress defense during the new trial ordered by the Ninth Circuit.

This is, to say the least, an odd outcome, and it is far from clear why Kuok would just give up at this point. The evidence of duress described by the Ninth Circuit was fairly compelling.

The threat to Kuok’s family was both immediate and serious. According to his counsel’s opening statement, Zheng made it clear to Kuok that his family was being monitored, through Zheng’s actions in giving Kuok reports on his wife’s daily activities, calling her at the family’s home phone number, and sending Kuok various pictures of his wife and his son taken in public. When Kuok attempted to get out of his dealings with the government, Zheng explicitly threatened to send Kuok’s wife to a “black jail,” and told Kuok that this was “somewhere where we take people off the grid if they don’t do what we ask them to do.”

The prosecutors made the absurd argument that Kuok was required to seek help from U.S. law enforcement authorities regarding the threat made against him in China by the Chinese government authorities, a claim which the Ninth Circuit readily dismissed:

[T]he government’s suggestion that Kuok should have cooperated with the authorities immediately upon landing in the Atlanta airport may be unreasonable, given that Kuok knew his family was still in danger of being jailed by Chinese government officials beyond the control of U.S. authorities.

The plea agreement has not yet appeared on PACER, but a local San Diego newspaper article provides some additional details that may explain this seeming about face. Apparently, the plea agreement proposed a maximum of 46 months in jail and provides that the plea agreement can be withdrawn if the district court judge does not accept that maximum. Kuok has already served 36 months, and the plea agreement provides that the defense can request a lesser sentence of time served. So, at this point, there’s a chance that Kuok will go free immediately upon the acceptance of the plea by the court. The worst that could happen under the plea is that he would spend 10 more months in jail, which is pretty much what a new trial was going to take, or that he will have a trial where the duress defense could be presented.

Permalink Comments (3)



Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)



Jul

31

OFAC Drops CISADA Bomb on Two Banks


Posted by at 11:19 pm on July 31, 2012
Category: OFAC

Bank of KunlunThe Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) today applied sanctions under the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010 against the Bank of Kunlun in China and the Elaf Islamic Bank in Iraq. Under these sanctions, U.S. financial institutions are “prohibited from opening or maintaining a correspondent account or a payable-through account” for the two banks, effectively cutting them off from foreign exchange and the U.S. financial system. This is the first time these sanctions have been applied. OFAC does not supply details on the basis for these actions other than to state that they were imposed under 561.201 of its Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations.

Back in April, the Wall Street Journal identified Kunlun as significant player in providing financial services to Iran. Kunlun, which is controlled by state owned China National Petroleum Corp., on its website identifies the petroleum and petrochemical industries as its main customer base. Sanctions under section 561.201 are aimed at financial institutions that assist the Government of Iran to acquire WMD or support terrorist organizations, unlike 561.203 which is directed at foreign persons that facilitate transactions with blocked Iranian financial institutions such as the Central Bank of Iran or Bank Tejerat. Therefore, it seems reasonable to surmise that OFAC is taking the broad position that banks that help Iran sell petroleum products are, at least indirectly, furthering Iran’s nuclear program.

Permalink Comments (2)



Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)



Jul

30

Check The List Or Go To School


Posted by at 6:03 pm on July 30, 2012
Category: BIS

Peoples Steel MillKesco Shipping Corporation and Multi-Link Container Line, a freight forwarder and a shipping line respectively, have agreed to pay $28,000 to the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) to settle charges that they aided an unlicensed export of scrap steel, classified as EAR99, to Peoples Steel Mill in Karachi, Pakistan. Peoples is on the BIS Entity List, and a license is required for all exports of EAR99 items to Peoples (although there is a presumption of approval for all such license requests). Peoples Steel Mill was part of the A.Q. Khan nuclear weapons network in Pakistan, and they are still paying the price.

The settlement papers do not reveal the identity of the exporter or the fate awaiting the exporter as the principal culprit in this matter. But this is not a case simply of vicarious liability since it appears that both Kesco and Multi-Link knew where the shipment was headed and simply failed to check the Entity List. Where the Internet puts that list just a few keystrokes away for anyone with a connected computer, it is hard to get all misty-eyed for Kesco and Multi-Link here.

As we noted in a previous post, recent settlement agreements have started to contain a requirement that offenders go to the export equivalent of drunk driving school. In this agreement, both companies are obligated to have an officer or export compliance manager undergo export training within one year of the agreement. One wonders whether soon the training will require the compulsory viewing of the export version of Signal 30, complete with gruesome photographs of the aftermath of export derelictions.

Permalink Comments Off on Check The List Or Go To School



Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)



Jul

25

Your Tax Dollars At Work


Posted by at 9:15 pm on July 25, 2012
Category: OFAC

Zachary Sanders
ABOVE: Zachary Sanders

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, a young American teaching English in Mexico decided to take a trip to Cuba. Today, after fourteen years of legal maneuvering with the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the young American, now a middle-aged lawyer, threw in the towel and agreed to give OFAC $6,500 to atone for his sins.

We reported on the travels and travails of Zachary Sanders, harmless tourist and OFAC target, back in 2009, and you can get more of the details of what originally happened in that post. The shorter version is that by the time OFAC got around to filing anything against Sanders, the five-year statute of limitations on his travel to Cuba had passed so they went after him for not answering a letter demanding incriminating details of his jaunt to the most dangerous country ever on the face of the earth. (Apparently OFAC’s copy of the Bill of Rights had the Fifth Amendment excised somewhere along the way.)

OFAC won here not because it was right but because it was persistent, not because it was fair but because it had an unlimited amount of the taxpayers’ money and Sanders had his salary as a public interest lawyer, not because it was defending the country against terrorists but because it bore a grudge against a little guy who wanted to drink a daiquiri at El Floridita.

/

Permalink Comments (6)



Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)



Jul

24

Double Jeopardy?


Posted by at 11:48 pm on July 24, 2012
Category: BISDDTC

Scylla and CharybdisA colleague brought back an interesting tidbit from the BIS Update Conference last week relating to one of the unresolved conundrums of the current export reform efforts. Under the currently proposed reforms, certain items on the United States Munitions List will be transferred to the Commodity Control List, which will transfer licensing jurisdiction over those items from the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) to the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”). That process is summarized in some detail in this BIS fact sheet.

In a presentation at Update by Kevin Kurland, in BIS’s Office of Enforcement Analysis, there was confirmation that even after the transfer of items to the CCL, previously issued DDTC licenses will remain effective for two years.

Now here’s the issue: suppose you are exporting a 600 series item under a grandfathered DDTC license and some irregularity occurs in the export. If the exporter decides to report this issue, to whom is the report made. Is it in a voluntary disclosure to DDTC or a voluntary self disclosure to BIS? (One thing that we can hope about export reform, but which appears to be a futile hope, is that we could forever stamp out this silly terminological distinction. Please, guys, agree to include or omit “self’ and move on!)

It seems that there is no current resolution to this issue. So what does the exporter do? File a disclosure with each agency? Or avoid the issue by not shipping under grandfathered DDTC licenses and getting new license from BIS? Of course, most exporters would prefer to file a disclosure with DDTC which does not appear to consider the disclosure process as a revenue collecting enterprise and is often thought to be fairer in dealing with parties that make a voluntary disclosure. But that option may not be available.

Permalink Comments (1)



Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


« Previous posts | Next posts »