Szubin opposes Sudan listing

See, this is progress. Now, how about a similar statement regarding the SEC's "black list" list of companies (now temporarily offline) doing business in embargoed countries?

This is awesome.

Oh sure, they should be working (how about passing a new EAA?), but I just LOVE it when politics gets fun.

At one point Limbaugh dared Sen. Reid (D-NV) to "say it to his face".

Actually, I think the slimmed-down Rush could probably kick this guy's ass.

He should know...

...that making false statements during an investigation just makes things worse.

OEE agent indicted for stalking his former girlfriend!


Details in the link.

Havana on $55,000 per violation

This is something I've been meaning to post for a while.

Take a look at picture #3 on this site. (Note: You have to sit through the stupid ad)

I'm sure she got a license from OFAC, or qualifies as a journalist, or something.... Maybe she can claim one of the general authorizations in 31CFR515.564.

But good lord, (unless she knows she's covered) who puts their real name on something like this? And in a Washington DC paper, no less!

How much is that Madman in the Window?

...the one with the green aura? So this wackjob is actually going to be allowed to speak at Columbia University after all? Ok. Fine.

So, will he get paid a speakers fee (ahem...OFAC, can you check this out)? And if so, is it a violation of 31CFR560.206(a)(1) or (2) if he does? Seems to me to be a transaction related to services of Iranian origin, as he would provide a service to the Student Body in exchange for payment (if provided).

From the OFAC sanctions summary:

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION AND INFORMATIONAL
MATERIALS - The receipt or transmission of postal, telegraphic, telephonic or other personal communications, which does not involve the transfer of anything of value, between the United States and Iran is authorized.

And apologies to the 2 guys that read this blog for not posting for so long.

I'm back (more or less)!

This guy should make his own docu-political statement

Or just bring a camera crew with him next time.

Gotta be the shoes?

OFAC sanctions the regime of shoe salesman, and apparently former Liberian President, Charles (Chuck) Taylor.

Geez, that's news to me.

Actually, they can't even prove that he ever played basketball, but I guess he was probably on TV in Liberia and stuff like that.

UPDATE: Yes, this is export humor, and yes it is kind of pathetic.

Yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't ya?

China urges easing of US export controls.

As the China Catch-All rules start to look more like a reality, I expect to see more protests like this from the PRC Government.

Maybe if ya'll stopped selling missiles to our enemies...?

I'm gonna havta pass...

I can't remember where I read this, but this is not an original thought: I don't want to re-enter Tony Soprano's world. I just can't stay with this season, so let me know how it turns out.

Don't get me wrong: this is one of the best shows on TV, from the writing to the music and imagery. And that "world" is one of the more vivid that's ever been put on the screen.


But I have to say, I feel nasty when I watch this show. I lose faith in everything, and start to buy in to the shows darkness: everyone's a phony, everyone's out to take what you have, and there's no redemption.


If Tony would finally start fighting terrorists or something, maybe I'd keep watch to see where that went, but probably not.


I love great storytelling, I love great characters, and this show is full of examples of the best of both. But I just can't do it anymore.

Ciao baby.

YouTube on Chi Mak

CNN story on YouTube.

This is old, but I'll be posting any relevant video on Export Controls topics as I find them.

Seriously, I do feel sorry for Paris....

...but not for this Moron. Michael Moore has drafted an angry letter arguing that enforcement of his blatant violation of the Cuba sanctions is a political attack. While the Bush Admin, and others who hate Michael Moore may be enjoying the juicy potential enforcement action that was dropped in their lap, I would ask: what the hell else is OFAC supposed to do?

Moore is set to release a movie in which he takes a number of 9/11 responders to Cuba to take advantage of their debatable superior state-run health care system.

So is OFAC supposed to ignore the violation playing on 200 screens nationwide (god, I hope that's a generous estimate)? Also, he obviously knew his trip required licensing, since he requested just such a license in October 2006 (Moore refers to OFAC knowing about his trip since 10/06, I assume this is what he means). Actually OFAC responded with an investigatoin in less than 3 months after the crime was committed.

See, Hilton didn't deserve what she got. A huge fine, maybe. 45 days in jail? I really don't think so, and I think you can look to that as a good example of someone getting a sentence that far outweighs their crime due only to their celebrity status. In this instance, Moore is dealing with a much more serious area: carousing with our enemies. For this, and the unrepentant boldness of his action, a proper response is required.

I suppose this guy qualifies as a "journalist"

Article on US goods available in Havana. Not a big surprise to anyone, except the "journalist" who gets to go to freaking Havana, while I'm stuck here in DC.

This would be funny if it weren't true

Terrorist Mickey Mouse. Hamas actually suspended the show themselves, so I guess that's something. According to one article, the show:

[.., features the life-size lookalike of Mickey Mouse called Farfur, who sings about youngsters arming themselves with AK-47s and striving for world domination "under Islamic leadership".]

If anyone had any doubt about why the Palestinian Government was sanctioned by OFAC last year should check out the link above, or see if for yourself on youtube.

Well that was fast....

Michael Moore under investigation. Can we say "willful violation"?

I'm ready to do the service for my Godfather.

UPDATE: The letter from OFAC.

Non-Export Post

The first of many, actually. I intend to post about all sorts of "stuff" here, so you've been warned.


I wonder if other types of geekdom go hand-in-hand with export-geekdom? For me they certainly do.

For instance, if you're a fan of Robot Chicken, you'll be thrilled to learn that the funniest bit ever created for that show will soon have it's own 30 minute special.

June 17th, and I so can't wait.

I believe in America...

...so OFAC, please do me this one favor.


Throw the book at this creep. I know this story came out about a month ago, but I just recently saw it.


Under TWEA, you could give the guy some jail time...


Just saying.

I mean, Paris Hilton goes to jail, why not this guy?

Thanks in advance.

OMG did I win!? I never won anything before!

Kinda how I feel every time I have to call the OFAC "hot" line. You basically wait and wait and wait, and if you're really, really lucky someone might actually answer the phone (at this point I've forgotten why I called in the first place, and am sad to learn that I'm NOT the 10th caller and no I won't be getting those backstage passes to the Jimmy Buffett concert). Not to worry, though -- this almost never happens. More often than not, after waiting for an eternity, the "hot"line informs you that no one can take your call, please leave a message and someone will get back to you.

So this happened to me last week, and I think "Ok fine, I'll leave a message". What choice do I have?

One day goes by. Nothing. Why won't he/she call?

A second day. Nothing. Was it something I said? Maybe my message was cut off? Or maybe I came on too strong...

I take the next day off. Oops! They call. Ok, so three days ain't so bad. I can live with that. A nice guy from OFAC leaves me a message regarding my case, and identifies himself by his first name only, he predictably needs more information, and then leaves me a number to call.

Can you guess?

The hotline.

Get this guys: Businesses WANT TO COMPLY with the rules. What good can possibly come from a system that makes it so painful?

You say potato and I say po-tah-to

I noticed something odd in the May installment of OFAC's monthly enforcement update. Normally, each enforcement action ends with a statement that indicates whether or not the violation was voluntarily disclosed to OFAC. A violation that was not voluntarily disclosed normally reads as follows:

[Company Name] did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC.

However, this month there was a case involving Fleet National Bank and Suretrade and it concluded with this statement:

This matter was not the subject of a voluntary disclosure to OFAC.

Is this an intentional distinction? And if so, what the heck does it mean?

ITAR regulations prevent discovery of life on Mars

Some NASA scientists were on the Hill this week, moaning about the ITAR and its effect on the competitiveness of the US space program.

They're right of course.

Over at Clif Burn's website there was recently a debate about whether providing potatoes to a foreign navy was tantamount to the furnishing of assistance to a foreign military and thus constituted a defense service (because the navy can't run unless the sailors eat, and they're the ones that operate the ship...etc.). What is this world we live in where such an argument actually makes sense? However, the ITAR is crafted so broadly, one can make this argument and *almost* everyone will take it seriously. Or at least give it serious consideration.

Even absent the breadth of the ITAR in defining what is and isn't a defense article or service, when dealing with space applications nearly everything is under ITAR jurisdiction. So I can imagine NASA's frustration as they try to outsource to collaborate with India.

Of course, if you don't want to hassle with the US Government, you can buy your very own ITAR-Free satellite system.

OFAC returns to form?

At the Dec '06 PLI "Coping with Export Controls" seminar, OFAC touted its improvements to the website, posting of penalties, and its record for posting in the FR new additions to the SDN list. On this last point, OFAC has a history of taking for-freaking-ever to get their SDN designations into the Federal Register. They improved this record last year, and reduced the time delay significantly. We all applauded.

However, today's Federal Register entry lists SDNT entities that were sanctioned on March 7, 2007. Of course, the sanctions on these individuals were also effective on that date. Almost two months? Come on, guys.

Hopefully this is just an anomaly.

Welcome post - out of order

I should have had some sort of "Hey, I'm Export Boy, and welcome to my nifty blog" post. So here it is.

Pakistan getting serious about export controls, stands firm on smuggling

The Pakistani Government announced on Monday that it was finally going to enforce its 2004 export controls act by creating a new department -- the Strategic Export Control Division.

Good, albeit late, start.

Of course, in terms of imports, the smuggling network on which the Pakistani nuclear program relies will remain intact.

But this is an export blog....

Is there an OFAC exemption for "Mission Essentials"?

So it turns out that the Saddam's final days were not filled with wine, women, or song (at least, that story hasn't been printed yet). But they were apparently filled with some fruit that is currently forbidden to more than 300 Million Americans. According to this article, Saddam was provided Cuban Cigars while awaiting the hangman's noose in Bagdhad.

In September 2004, OFAC tightened, err, "clarified" the rules on purchasing Cuban Cigars in third countries. As a result, OFAC made it clear that not only can you not import your box of Cohibas into the United States, you can't even purchase and smoke them abroad without violating 31CFR§515.204 (or 410). For the last 3 years I have wondered why OFAC would feel the need to make such a clarification to rules that cannot possibly be enforced. I hadn't considered that it was targeted at US Military personnel providing stogies to deposed dictators.

The only applicable exemption I see in 515 is in section 562 but that only applies to US Government personnel actually travelling to, from, or in Cuba.

The military is deciding whether to court martial those involved; it will be interesting to see if OFAC decides to impose penalties on these individuals as well.