News Stories

Dual National Indigestion: Any Relief?

A senior official from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) hinted today that it may consider revisiting the definition of what constitutes a “dual” or “third country” national for purposes of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) compliance. Frank Ruggiero, the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs noted at a Defense Technical Advisory Group meeting in Washington on April 7 that Commerce, State and the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program all have different definitions on what constitutes a dual or third country nationals for purposes of export compliance, and that State would look into developing a harmonized interagency approach. Read More

Former Tyco Employee Claims He Was Fired for Complying with ITAR

A case has recently received some attention by export department all around; an employee who refused to violate licensing agreements issued by DTC was fired and is now suing for wrongful discharge. Much more legal jargon and the legality of what court can hear what case surrounds the public records and mainly is what got the case on the map, but for my sanity I will only focus on the export issues.

Samuel A. Varco was hired by Tyco Electronics in May 2006 as a sales representative. He was responsible for promoting and selling military surveillance and signal intelligence products used by the US and allied nations. Court documents explain that Varco “alleges that shortly after being hired by Tyco, he regularly witnessed Tyco employees violating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”)…specifically he witnessed employees of Tyco violate licensing agreements issued by the Office of Defense Trade Controls by routinely disseminating technical information about the equipment and selling the equipment to foreign entities.” Varco claims that these employees further instructed him to “participate in the alleged illegal conduct” but he refused and went as far as to “encourage Tyco and its employees, including his boss, to disclose the ITAR violations.” Soon after the employees and Varco’s boss, Martin T. Cunningham, “ostracized him” and limit his contact with other sales personnel and customers. In October 2006 Varco went to upper management about the ITAR violations and his treatment, management informed him an investigation would begin.

On March 20, 2007 Varco claims that Tyco began “making false and defamatory statements” about his job performance and fired him 3 days later. A year later Varco filed a claim against Tyco alleging defamation and wrongful discharge on the grounds that his termination was in violation of public policy, pointing specifically to Tyco’s “alleged” violations of the ITAR, as well as Varco’s duty to report the alleged violations under 127.12(a) of the ITAR.

In order to win the case Varco must prove that:

  1. He was discharged (should be pretty easy);
  2. The basis of his discharge violated a clear mandate of public policy;
  3. There was a nexus between his conduct and the employer’s decision to fire him.

The verdict of this case could really change how ITAR and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) violations are viewed in court cases involving termination. The issue at hand, under state law, is if the ITAR is sufficiently “clear” to support the public policy prong of a common law wrongful discharge claim.

Tyco originally filed a motion to dismiss and then to remove the case from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to the Federal court system arguing that a federal question was at hand which has federal jurisdiction. The courts recently ruled that the complaint does not raise a substantial question of federal law sufficient enough to support federal jurisdiction so Maryland State court will hear the case.

More information:

Putting Thermal Imaging Cameras in Shoes Doesn’t Avoid Conviction

Zhi Yon Guo, a Chinese national, has been found guilty of two charges of conspiracy and exporting and/or attempting to export restricted items. In April 2008 Guo and Tah Wei Chao of China attempted to conceal 10 thermal-imaging cameras in their suit cases as they attempted to fly from Los Angeles International Airport to Beijing, China. The two men stuffed the cameras in shoes and wrapped them in clothing, in an attempt to fool airport security. When officials found the cameras hidden in the suit cases the cameras still had the warning stickers on them, “This product is an export controlled item. Authorization by the US Government must be obtained prior to any shipment outside the United States.”

The cameras were obtained for Guo’s clients in China, the Special Police and the Special Armed Police. The cameras are controlled by the Department of Commerce for national security reasons.

Tah Wei Chao has already pled guilty to 3 felony counts: conspiracy, and 2 counts of exporting and/or attempting to export restricted items. He will be sentenced on March 16, 2009 and faces a maximum of 60 years in prison. Zhi Yong Guo is scheduled to be sentenced on May 11, 2009.

More information:

DOJ News Release (PDF)

Violators Shouldn’t Travel to the US: Singapore Business Woman Hit with $500,000 Penalty for Iran Scheme

In early 2008 Laura Wang-Woodford, director of Monarch Aviation Pte. Ltd was arrested and arraigned on a 20-count federal indictment. Wang-Woodford and her Singapore company illegally exported components used on Chinook military helicopters from the US to Singapore and then to Iran in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Her husband, Brian Woodford has remained a fugitive since December 23, 2007 when Wang was arrested.

The Department of Justice has recently announced that Wang-Woodford has pled guilty to charges of conspiring to export controlled aircraft components to Iran in violation of the US trade embargo on Iran. Wang-Woodford has agreed to forfeit $500,000 to the treasury department with regards to the plea. She faces a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. “Ms. Woodford, through her company Monarch Aviation, was one of the largest diverters of U.S. origin aircraft parts to Iran,” said Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement Delli-Colli.

More information:

Irish Trading Company Formerly Known as “Un-named” Charged for Iran Violations

Irish trading company, Mac Aviation Group (perhaps the formerly known as “un-named Irish trading company”) and three of its officers have been charged with two counts of conspiracy, 19 counts of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Iranian Transactions Regulations, four counts of false statements, and forfeiture allegations. The officers being charged are 72 year-old Thomas McGuinn, the owner of Mac Aviation, his son Sean McGuinn, the sales/procurement director and Sean Byrne, the commercial manager of the company.

Beginning as early as 2005 Mac Aviation purchased helicopter engines and other aircraft components from US companies and then illegally exported them to Iran via Malaysia and the UAE. Mac Aviation concealed from the US sellers the ultimate end use and end users of the parts that they purchased, they declared to Rolls Royce that, “Mac Aviation was not selling the engines to any military organization or government.” At one point the company was selling engines to the Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company (HESA) who is on the SDN List for supporting proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.

According to the indictment, Mac Aviation and the defendants were all well aware that they were breaking export laws, but the money they were making supplying Iran with the aircraft and parts was worth the risk at that time. The defendants all face well over life in prison if convicted of all charges, it is a 10-20 year prison sentence for each IEEPA count and 5-20 years for each conspiracy and false statement counts.

More information:

Violators Shouldn’t Travel to US: Iranian Citizen Charged with Illegal Exports to Iran

Iranian business man Ali Khoshnevisrad, has been arrested and charged with two counts of conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Iranian Transactions Regulations and two counts of unlawfully exporting US goods to Iran. He was arrested March 14, as soon as he stepped off of a flight at the San Francisco International Airport. According to the Affidavit filed by a BIS agent, Khoshnevisrad and his company, Ariasa AG had an un-named “Irish Trading Company” purchase 17 Rolls Royce Model 250 helicopter engines for Khoshnevisrad’s company. An un-named “Dutch aviation parts supply company” also obtained aerial panorama cameras from a US supplier and later sold them Khoshnevisrad in Iran.

Between January and December 2007 Khoshnewisrad instructed the Irish company, very likely to be Mac Aviation Group (recently indicted) to purchase the engines from Rolls Royce and falsely state that they would be used by the Irish company and some phony companies they created to ensure the sale from Rolls Royce. Several intercepted emails and correspondences in the affidavit describe 8 of the engines being shipped from New York by the Irish company to Khoshnevisrad’s designated consignee, Penerbit Kemas Sdn. Bhd in Malaysia. Investigating agents later learned that Penerbit Kemas Sdn. Bhd was a book publishing company in Malaysia, with no interest in the engines.

Beginning in June 2006 Khoshnewisrad collaborated with a Dutch aviation parts company, very likely to be Aviation Services International B.V. (indicted in 2007 for selling aircraft parts to a company in Iran) to purchase panorama cameras. The affidavit contains an email where Khoshnewisrad responded to the Dutch company with, “Regarding the end user as you know USA will not deliver to Iran in any case. You should give an end user by yourself. The cameras are needed for the students at Geographical university to lern them how to film from the air. Trust you can manage to get the cameras free”. In August 2006 the Dutch company received the cameras from the US supplier and shipped them from the Netherlands to Khoshnevisrad in Tehran.

At the base of this case there is no real surprising issues, some companies lied to US suppliers about the end user, who ended up being an Iran businessman who conspired a grand scheme to receive illegal US goods. The mystery which is surprising to many is why Khoshnevisrad traveled to the US, especially when he knew he was breaking US laws. The likelihood that he would have ever been extradited from Iran for breaking the US sanctions on Iran, are in the negative digits. Many are wondering if law enforcement may have enticed him to come to the US, most likely a free weekend at Disneyland.

Khoshnevisrad faces a maximum sentence of 65 years in prison if convicted. He will be sentenced later this year.

More information:

Dual US-Iranian Citizen Guilty of Illegal Business with Iran

Dr. Ali Amirnazmi has been found guilty of several counts of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), bank fraud and making false statements to federal officers. Amirnazmi, both a US and Iranian citizen, is the president of TranTech Consultant’s Inc. and inventor of ChemPlan, a database/software decision support system for the chemical process industry.

Amirnazmi engaged in several transactions with companies located in Iran, including NPC, RIPI, IBACO, and NITD even though he was aware that it was prohibited by US laws. From 1996 through 2008 Amirnazmi had continuous contact with the Iranian business, and in one instance, NPC agreed to pay TranTech $270,000 per year to use the ChemPlan database and software system. In late 2007 Amirnazmi, as president of TranTech, signed a document with IBACO for the construction of a chemical plant in Iran, TranTech would receive a share of the profits. Amirnazmi also began arrangements to create a joint venture with NITD in Tehran in which NITD would provide a $2.2 million investment to become one of TranTech’s partners and would receive expert advice regarding the ChemPlan database and software system.

A federal jury in Philadelphia convicted Amirnazmi of lying to the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service about his many business deals with Iran in an attempt to cover up his illegal activity. Amirnazmi faces a maximum sentence of 80 years in prison and a $4 million fine. He is expected to be sentenced later this year.

More information:

Voluntary Disclosure of 29 ITAR Violations Results in $500,000 Penalty

After a voluntary disclosure, Analytical Methods, Inc. has been charged with 29 violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and fined $500,000-according to the consent agreement, $400,000 of the fine has been suspended and the company must use that money to enhance its compliance program. The company creates Computation Fluid Dynamic (CFD) software which is used to create an accurate three dimensional computer model of an item used for design testing in a simulated environment such as flying through air or traveling through water. This allows manufacturers to test design changes within the software before investing in the costly change of the equipment.

The majority of Analytical Methods CFD software is dual-use, but there are some that are ITAR controlled and this is where the company ran into issues. In 1999 Analytical Methods obtained development and marketing rights for a software program known as MGAERO-FPI which allows users to simulate aircraft store separation such as seat ejection, missile separation and cargo deployment. In January 2004 the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls determined, after a Commodity Jurisdiction request, that the MGAERO-FPI software was ITAR controlled. Between 1999 and 2003 Analytical Methods exported the software to the People’s Republic of China, Israel, Singapore, Turkey, and the UK. At the time of these violations the company was not registered with the DDTC.

The charges are as follows:

  • Charges 1-5: Unauthorized export of defense articles to the PRC
  • Charges 6-11: Causing the unauthorized export of defense articles to the PRC (Analytical Methods shipped the software to a US persons who later exported the software to the PRC with Analytical Methods’ full knowledge)
  • Charge 12: Failing to notify the Department of unauthorized exports to the PRC
  • Charges 13-25: Unauthorized exports of defense services to Turkey, Singapore, Israel, and the UK
  • Charge 26: Unauthorized export of a defense article to Turkey
  • Charges 27-28: Unregistered manufacturing and exporting
  • Charge 29: Misrepresentation and omission of facts (Analytical Methods filed export control documents containing false statements that the exports were non ITAR controlled intercompany data)

As par of its remedial compliance measures, the company now will have continuous on-site reviews by the Department and must provide to DDTC an itemized accounting of all self initiated remedial compliance measures to show how the money was used to strengthen compliance within the company and to ensure it is of the DDTC’s standards.

More information:

BIS Approves Aircraft Parts License for Syria

BIS recently approved the export of aircraft parts and repair services from the US to Syria. The export should put two mothballed Syrian Arab Airlines 747’s back in service soon.

Many are looking at this as a sign that the new administration is finally beginning to ease back on sanctions against Syria, but don’t get your hopes up too high or too fast. BIS’s regulations currently state that they will consider licenses for the export of “parts and components intended to ensure the safety of civil aviation and the safe operation of commercial passenger aircraft” on a case-by-case basis.

New Twist in the Antiboycott Arena: Companies in Libya May Be Asked to Boycott the Swiss

Although companies doing business in Libya may be accustomed to seeing requests to participate in the Arab League boycott of Israel, some companies are seeing a surprising new twist on the familiar refrain. Instead of being asked to avoid doing business with Israeli nationals, some companies in Libya have recently been asked not to do business with companies of Swiss nationality.

The tensions between Libya and Switzerland arose after an incident last summer involving the Swiss police and the youngest son of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. On July 15, 2008, Qaddafi’s son, Hannibal, was arrested after two hotel employees from Tunisia and Morocco accused him and his expectant wife, Aline, of beating them with a belt and a coat hanger. The young Qaddafi spent two days in custody, while his wife remained under police supervision in a clinic in Geneva. They were later released on $490,000 bail.

The incident caused an uproar in Tripoli and led to the detention of two Swiss nationals, who were later released. In protest, Libya’s General National Maritime Transportation Company stopped oil shipments to Switzerland and recalled its diplomatic representatives in Switzerland. News sources report that several Swiss firms were forced to close their Libyan branches, and the Libyan embassy stopped processing visa requests from Swiss nationals. In addition, Libya’s air carrier, Afriqiyah, was instructed to cut its flights to Switzerland to one flight per week. The same instructions were apparently given to Swiss International Air Lines. See http://www.gulfnews.com/World/Switzerland/10231675.html. Then, in October of 2008, Libya announced it would withdraw $7 billion of assets in Swiss banks and cut all economic ties with Switzerland, in addition to cutting off its oil supply. See http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE49A0G720081011?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0.

U.S. law prohibits firms from participating in foreign boycotts that the U.S. Government does not sanction and imposes tax penalties for such participation. These regulations are aimed in particular at curbing U.S. cooperation with the Arab League boycott of Israel, with which Libya is known to participate. U.S. antiboycott laws are separately administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce through the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), and by the U.S. Department of the Treasury through § 999 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”).

According to a Commerce Department official, Libya’s actions with respect to Switzerland are not considered to amount to an “unsanctioned foreign boycott” under the EAR. Therefore, the official said, requests to cooperate with Libya’s activities against Switzerland fall outside of the scope of these regulations. A Treasury official maintained a contrary view, however, stating that such requests do qualify as an “international boycott” under the IRC and therefore must be reported on a U.S. taxpayer’s annual tax return.

Given the scope and history of U.S. antiboycott regulations, it would seem that Commerce has taken the more reasoned view of the matter. First, both Treasury and Commerce antiboycott regulations are limited to activities in support of a boycott imposed by the government of a participating country. It is not clear that Libya’s activities with respect to Switzerland rise to the level of a government-imposed boycott since there are no reports of any implementing Libyan laws. Secondly, U.S. antiboycott regulations were originally developed to address the Arab League boycott of Israel. It seems inappropriate that these regulations should be used as a platform by which the U.S. government can take a position on any and all diplomatic rifts that may occur around the world, even if one of the countries involved happens to be an Arab League country.

According to a Treasury representative, Commerce and Treasury are working with the State Department to get further information on the Swiss-Libya standoff in hopes that the problem between the two countries can be resolved in the near future.

— Ginger T. Faulk, Esq. Baker Botts L.L.P. bakerbotts.com

State Department Finally Removes Requirement to Use Form that Does Not Exist

The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls published a notice on its website regarding the submission of the initial export of technical data and/or defense services. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations requires this submission to be made electronically using the DS-4071. Currently the electronic system is not available-in fact, the electronic system has never been available even though the requirement to use it was put in the ITAR several years ago. DDTC now advised exporters that send in the required notification on paper.

DDTC states that it will continue to work on the implementation of the DS-4071 and will give updates periodically on its website. (Likewise, my friend’s teenage daughter says she is working on cleaning her room and will finish soon.)

DDTC said it will publish a Federal Register notice with instructions when it implements the DS-4071 electronic system.

More information:

BIS Posts Self-Audit Module on Its Website

BIS has posted on its website a self-assessment tool to be used by exporters in the development of their export management and company compliance program. BIS offers a long 27 page assessment for exporters to answer “yes/no/uncertain” to questions ranging from whether your company posts export awareness posters to whether your company has a detailed step-by-step procedure for recordkeeping retention for employees to follow. The methodology behind the tool is as BIS describes, “An effective EMCP consists of many processes that connect and intersect. The connections and intersections must be planned, and then, clear directions must be given to those who are to follow the rules of the program. Without these maps (instructions), chances are that personnel will all go in their own directions, leaving them vulnerable to getting lost on the way…resulting in violations.” So in laymen’s terms, the regulations are confusing and will puzzle people so you should write procedures as if a 1st grader was reading them so no one “gets lost and causes you a fine.”

In a nut shell this tool is a basic means for exporters to see where they have serious control risks and inconsistencies in their written procedures verses actual practices. I think the questionnaire is excellent for a company who has a long standing export compliance program and can benefit from seeing where their programs strengths and weaknesses are. For companies just starting a compliance program from scratch, you should probably stay clear of this document. Companies with little or no compliance program will answer the majority of questions “no”, making compliance seem impossible and maybe even out of the question. My recommendations are for exporters beginning to dab into the idea of creating an export compliance program is to read over the questions, get some ideas, research the EAR and try not to drown in the information along the way.

It should be noted that this audit tool does not provide ALL Export Administration Regulations requirements…so if you are actually able to answer yes to all 27 pages of questions, your compliance program could theoretically still not be in compliance with all Regulations.

The tool:

DDTC Clarifies that Nobody May Use an Agreement until All Parties Sign It

The Office of Defense Trade Controls Licensing (DTCL) has issued a notice on its website to inform applicants that the format for Agreement and Amendment Approval Letters has been modified to address the requirement that “No US signatories may export or temporarily import defense articles, technical data, or defense services against an agreement until all parties have executed the agreement.”

On December 12, 2008 DTCL announced that it would be revising Agreement and Amendment Approval Letters that it issued to eliminate redundancy and improve clarity by eliminating some of its informative provisos. As part of this revision, the proviso which explained that “exports or temporary imports against the agreement were not authorized until parties have executed the agreement” was removed.

Since this revision, DTCL has apparently received numerous queries from exporters and importers as to whether a fully executed agreement was still required prior to export or temporary import of defense articles, technical data or defense services in furtherance of the agreement or amendment. So DTCL has issued a notice effective March 18, 2009 that the proviso will now once again be included in all agreement and amendment approval letters issued by DTCL.

This clarification may create a significant burden for companies who have assumed that an agreement may be used by all parties who have signed it, even if some of the parties have not yet signed it.

More information:

DDTC’s Approval Letter Notice (DOC)

BSG Consulting Introduces Export Control Classification Database

BSG Consulting has created the Corporate Export Control Classification Database, a complimentary service. The database includes internet links which provide users with direct access to export control classification numbers (ECCNs) and other export-related information made available by manufacturers.This great new tool will save you hours of searching manufacturers sites for ECCNs.

Database available at: www.tradecontrols.com/geteccn.php

Position Available

VP, Export Compliance and Licensing - Moorpark, CA

This individual reports to the CEO of Custom Sensors and Technologies, Inc. (CST). This position drives CST export compliance strategy and tactics, and leads continuous process improvements.
US Citizenship is required - U.S. person as defined by 22 C.F.R. Part 120.14.

Please apply online at: www.cstsensors.com

News & Alerts by Email

Stay informed with our free monthly newsletter.




Sample newsletters/archive



RSS

Subscribe
to the news feed


Upcoming Seminars

Get practical advice on complying with US export regulations.

Chicago, Illinois
September 14-17

Amsterdam
Sep 30 - Oct 2

London
October 5

Phoenix, AZ
October 26-29


More information & complete schedule


Corporate ECCN Database

Direct access to ECCNs and other export-related information made available by manufacturers.

GetECCN.com

(Provided by BSG Consulting)



Special Seminar

US Economic Sanctions and Export Controls

Impact on Trade Finance and Global Payments

Details (PDF)

October 5, 2009
LONDON

Sponsors

Clifford Chance
BSG Consulting