Archive for the ‘Enforcement’ Category

Swedish Telecom Company Pays Penalty for Sanctions Violation

2018/08/30

By: Thad McBride on July 19, 2018

Thad McBride is a member at Bass, Berry & Sims PLC (Washington, DC) and leads the firm’s International Trade Practice Group. He regularly counsels clients on compliance matters related to economic sanctions and embargoes, export controls, CFIUS, US anti-boycott controls, customs, and other import controls. In addition, he guides clients through internal audits and investigations and represents companies facing government investigations and enforcement actions. He is a regular contributor to the firm’s Government Contracts and International Trade blog and can be reached at tmcbride@bassberry.com

POSTED IN INTERNATIONAL TRADESANCTIONS (OFAC)

  • Ericsson Caused Violation by Having U.S. Party Ship Equipment to Sudan
  • U.S. Employee Facilitated Sudan Business
  • OFAC Expects Parties Conducting International Business to Have Robust Compliance Processes

In June 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced that Ericsson, a Swedish telecommunications company, agreedto pay approximately $145,000 for violating U.S. sanctions on Sudan.  Among other things, this is one of the few OFAC enforcement actions explicitly premised on a non-U.S. actor causing a U.S. company to violate U.S. sanctions.

Non-U.S. Companies Can Violate Sanctions If They Cause a Violation

According to OFAC, the violations involved Ericsson, AB (EAB), which is based in Sweden, causing a U.S. seller of a satellite hub to export that hub from the United States to Sudan.  Interestingly, in connection with EAB’s purchase of the satellite hub, an EAB employee communicated about the matter with Ericsson’s compliance department.  In those communications, the EAB employee was informed that the purchase of the satellite would violate Ericsson’s sanctions compliance policy.

Yet the EAB employee proceeded with the acquisition, with support from an Ericsson employee in the United States.  OFAC asserted that the two Ericsson employees agreed to identify “Botswana” as the destination of the satellite hub.  The EAB employee then structured the acquisition so that the satellite hub was shipped through several other countries, including with help from a third party in Lebanon, before eventually arriving in Sudan.

U.S. Employee Facilitated Transaction by Supporting the Sudan Business

It appears that, when the Ericsson U.S. employee was first contacted by his counterparts at EAB, he informed them that he could not be involved in any Sudan business.  But subsequently, he did assist his EAB counterparts by providing technical guidance related to the Sudan project.  (The U.S. employee sent one e-mail related to Sudan in which “East Africa” was listed as the subject of the e-mail.)  The U.S. employee also met in person with an EAB employee to discuss the project.

There is no indication that the U.S. employee had any role in purchasing or shipping the satellite hub to Sudan.  Nonetheless, by providing guidance and advice about the Sudan project, the U.S. employee facilitated that project and thereby violated U.S. sanctions on Sudan.  Like other U.S. sanctions programs, under U.S. sanctions on Sudan, U.S. persons were prohibited from indirectly supporting (or facilitating) a project in Sudan that the U.S. person could not engage in directly.

Conduct Occurred Well Before Recent Lifting of U.S. Sanctions on Sudan

As we have discussed in prior blog posts (see this January 2018 blog post), it typically takes a long time for OFAC to impose penalties for sanctions violations.  The conduct at issue in the Ericsson matter occurred in 2011 and 2012.  Ericsson tolled the statute of limitations during OFAC’s investigation of the matter.

In fact, by the time Ericsson agreed to settle the matter, U.S. sanctions on Sudan had been lifted.  However, the U.S. government does maintain export controls on Sudan under the Export Administration Regulations.  As a result, an export license is needed to export most U.S.-origin items to Sudan, even though economic sanctions have been lifted.

This illustrates one of the practical challenges for U.S. companies considering business in Sudan.  Discussions about that business and even the provision of business services are generally permitted without a license.  Actual exports of products still usually require a license.  So Sudan is not entirely open for business from a U.S. perspective.

Compliance Is Complicated, Appropriate Resources Are Needed

The compliance narrative in this matter is jumbled.  As detailed above, the Ericsson compliance department advised the EAB employee – correctly – about the potential liability associated with Sudan business.  The U.S. employee of Ericsson originally responded to requests related to Sudan by stating his inability to work on a Sudan project.  Yet both the EAB employee and the Ericsson U.S. employee proceeded with the Sudan business.

This seems on its face like a situation in which company employees went rogue.  Notably, the company disclosed the violation to OFAC, which is one reason that OFAC imposed a penalty well below the statutory maximum amount (roughly $360,000).

Yet in imposing any penalty, OFAC indicates that Ericsson could have done better.  In particular, in the press release related to the matter, OFAC states the following:

This enforcement action highlights the importance of empowering compliance personnel to prevent transactions prohibited by U.S. economic and trade sanctions.  Entities should ensure their sanctions compliance teams are adequately staffed, receive sufficient technology and other resources, and are delegated appropriate authority to ensure compliance efforts meet an entity’s risk profile.

The Bass, Berry & Sims international trade team works closely with clients to assess their risks and put in place effective, cost-efficient measures to prevent and detect trade compliance violations.  OFAC clearly expects such measures.  Feel free to contact us anytime if we can assist in developing and implementing them.


Company Fined $155,000 for Screening Related Violations

2018/08/30

By: Danielle Hatch

Mohawk Global Logistics Corp. has been fined $155,000 for 3 violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) related to exporting to companies on the Entity List.

Around August 2012 Mowhawk exported an LNP-20 Liquid Nitrogen Plant (EAR99 and valued at $33,587) to the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Experimental Physics (VNIIEF). The company had a screening process in place and when they screened VNIIEF they got a hit and the shipment was initially flagged. During the BIS investigation Mowhawk acknowledged that the export supervisor accidently overrode (or ignored) the red flag and the shipment was processed. Mowhawk filed EEI and listed the shipment as No License Required (NLR) which would have been accurate had the end user not been on the Entity List. Since VNIIEF is a denied party a license is always required to export any items subject to the EAR. This was the 1st of 3 total charges.

In February 2014 and August 2015, Mokhawk once again exported to an organization on the Entity List, but this time they were in China. The company exported Real-Time Back Reflection Laue Camera Detectors and Accessories (EAR99 and valued at $177,156) to the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (UESTC). Once again, Mowhawk used screening software, but this time it failed to flag the transaction because Mowhawk didn’t screen UESTC’s full, unabbreviated name. This could be a common mistake, however, all of the documents that UESTC provided to Mowhawk clearly identified UESTC’s full name as it was listed on the Entity List along with an almost exact matching address. The shipment was processed in February 2014 and they filed EEI as NLR. As with the first charge, had the export not gone to someone on the Entity List a license likely would not have been required.

In August 2015 Mowhawk exported the same exact items to UESTC after they had been returned for warranty repair. This time, Mowhawk didn’t screen the transaction at all using their screening software and there was no EEI filed in connection with this particular export to UESTC. These transactions were charges 2 and 3.

Settlement Agreement:

  • Pay $135,000 in 3 separate payments
  • Payment of the remaining $20,000 is suspended as long as the company pays the $135,000 on time.
  • If payments are not received on time, BIS may issue an order denying all of Mowhawk’s export privileges
  • Mowhawk can’t take any action or make any public statement denying the allegations in the BIS Charging Letter or Order

Order and Charging Letter: https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/export-violations/export-violations-2018/1193-e2561/file


ZTE Chairman Promises No MORE Violations & US Imposes Most Severe Penalty to Date

2018/06/29

By: Danielle Hatch

ZTE Chairman Yin Yimin released a letter in the first part of June to customers and employees promising that there would be no further compliance violations. He apologized to customers for the disruption that the violations of US export controls caused and apologized to ZTE’s 80,000 employees whose jobs were in jeopardy after ZTE was put on the US denial list and no longer had access to US technology which suspended most of the company’s operations. **An employee who asked not to be identified further confirmed Yin sent a letter but would not confirm its contents.

The US did agree to restore ZTE’s access to US components in hopes of reducing the likelihood of a prolonged escalation of tensions over tariffs.

Yimin’s letter did say that the issue will not be fully resolved until the US government approves the agreement and unspecified conditions are met. Below you will find the conditions specified by BIS.

BIS will remove ZTE from the DPL Denied Persons List after ZTE makes the required payment and deposit into escrow. Under the new agreement, ZTE must pay $1 billion and place an additional $400 million in suspended penalty money in escrow before BIS will remove ZTE from the Denied Persons List. These penalties are in addition to the $892 million in penalties ZTE has already paid to the U.S government under the March 2017 settlement agreement.Within 30 days of the date of the order, BIS will select and ZTE shall retain at its expense an independent Special Compliance Coordinator (“SCC”) to coordinate, monitor, assess, and report on compliance by ZTE and its subsidiaries and affiliates worldwide. This team of Special Compliance Coordinators will be answerable to BIS for a period of 10 years. Their function will be to monitor on a real-time basis ZTE’s compliance with U.S. export control laws. This is the first time BIS has achieved such stringent compliance measures in any case. These collectively are the most severe penalty BIS has ever imposed on a company.

ZTE must also:

  • Replace the entire board of directors and senior leadership for both entities
  • Complete and submit nine audit reports of its compliance with U.S. export control laws;
    Ensure that all records required to be kept or retained under the Regulations are stored in or fully accessible from the United States;
  • Publish on its website all Export Control Classification Numbers as necessary to determine applicable requirements;
  • Hold two public symposia in China regarding compliance with applicable U.S. export control regulations.
  • Suspended Debarment: 10 years from the date of this order, unless ZTE completes the full and timely payment as described above.

BIS Press Release: https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/06/secretary-ross-announces-14-billion-zte-settlement-zte-board-management

Order: https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/export-violations/export-violations-2018/1181-e2556/file

Details: https://www.mytwintiers.com/news/report-zte-chairman-promises-no-more-violations-apologizes/1225834182


Trilogy International Associates, Inc. and William Michael Johnson Each Receives $100,000 Civil Penalty for Export Violations

2018/04/04

By: Ashleigh Foor

On or about January 23, 2010, April 6, 2010, and May 14, 2010, Trilogy International Associates, Inc., of Altaville, CA exported an explosives detector and a total of 115 analog-to-digital converters to Russia. These items are subject to the EAR and controlled on national security grounds. The items were classified under Export Control Classification Numbers 1A004 and 3A001, respectively, and valued in total at approximately $76,035. Each of the items required a license for export to Russia pursuant to Section 742.4 of the EAR.

Between, on, or about January 20, 2010 and May 14, 2010, William Michael Johnson of Angels Camp, CA, caused, aided, and/or abetted three violations of the EAR, specifically three exports from the United States to Russia of items subject to the EAR without the required BIS export licenses.

Charges include:

  • Three Charges of 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(a) – Engaging in Prohibited Conduct
  • Three charges of 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(b) – Causing, Aiding, or Abetting a Violation

Penalty:

  • Civil penalty of $100,000 against Trilogy International Associates, Inc.
  • Civil penalty of $100,000 against William Michael Johnson
  • Debarred: Both Trilogy International Associates, Inc. and William Michael Johnson are denied export privileges for a period of 10 years from the date of this Order, until 26 February 2028.

Date of Order: 26 February 2018


Miltech, Inc. of Northampton, MA Receives 18 Charges of Alleged Export Violations

2017/11/15

By: Ashleigh Foor

On September 25, 2017, Miltech, Inc. of Northampton, MA was charged a civil penalty of $230,000 due to engaging in conduct prohibited by the EAR when it exported items subject to the EAR from the United States to China and Russia without the required BIS Licenses. On eighteen separate occasions between, on, or around October 14, 2011 and July 14, 2014, Miltech exported active multiplier chains, items classified under Export Control Classification Number (“ECCN”) 3A001.b.4 and valued in total at approximately $364,947, without seeking or obtaining the licenses required for these exports pursuant to section 742.4 of the EAR. These items are controlled on national security and anti-terrorism grounds.

Miltech received 18 charges of 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(a) for engaging in prohibited conduct. $180,000 of the $230,000 penalty must be paid within 30 days, and the remaining $50,000 will be suspended and waived after two years if Miltech fulfills the terms of its settlement agreement and this order.  The company will not be debarred if penalty is paid as agreed and Miltech complies with other terms of this settlement.


Beware of Contracts Signed by Specially Designated Nationals

2017/08/03

(Source: Commonwealth Trading Partners)

By: Chalinee Tinaves, Esq., Commonwealth Trading Partners, ctinaves@ctp-inc.com.

On July 20, 2017, the Office of the Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $2 million penalty against ExxonMobil Corporation and two of its subsidiaries for violating the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC, ExxonMobil violated the sanctions when its execs dealt in services with Igor Sechin, President of Rosneft OAO, when they signed eight legal documents relating to oil and gas projects in Russia between May 14, 2014, and May 23, 2014.

If you’ll travel back in time to March 2014, as tensions were heating up regarding Russian deployment of military forces in the Crimea region of Ukraine, President Obama issued Executive Order 13661, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine,” in response to actions deemed to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the U.S. Section 1(a)(ii) authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to designate officials of the Government of the Russian Federation, block any property or interests in property, and prohibit dealing in any property and interests in property of a person listed on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). Section 4 of E.O. 13661 prohibited US persons from making “any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order” as well as receiving “any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services” from a designated person.

On April 28, 2014, OFAC designated Igor Sechin as an official of the Russian government, thereby generally prohibiting US persons from conducting transactions with him. Although Rosneft OAO is:

  • designated on the Sectoral Sanctions Identifications List (SSI List) pursuant to Executive Order 13662 “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine;”
  • subject to Directive 2 (prohibiting transacting in, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in new debt of greater than 90 days maturity if that debt is issued on or after the sanctions effective date by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the persons operating in Russia’s energy sector); and
  • subject to Directive 4 (prohibition against the direct or indirect provision of, exportation, or reexportation of goods, services, or technology in support of exploration or production for deepwater, Arctic offshore, or shale projects that have the potential to produce oil in the Russian Federation or in maritime area claimed by Russian Federation and extending from its Territory); nonetheless, Rosneft OAO is not designated on the SDN List and is therefore not subject to blocking sanctions.

As you can see, the conflict lies in how to conduct business transactions with an organization that is not blocked with an executive who is. According to the release, OFAC rejected ExxonMobil’s position that Sechin was acting in his professional capacity as President of Rosneft OAO when they signed the legal documents. Specifically, ExxonMobil referenced comments by a Treasury Department spokesman in April 2014 allowing BP Plc Chief Executive, Bob Dudley, to remain on the board of directors of Rosneft OAO so long as he did not discuss personal business with Sechin. In rejecting this argument, OFAC indicated that statement did not address ExxonMobil’s conduct nor did the plain language of Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations include a distinction between “personal” or “professional.” Further, OFAC has not interpreted the Regulations to create a carve-out for designated parties acting in their professional capacity.

Interestingly, in support of its position, OFAC pointed to its Frequently Asked Question #285 published on March 18, 2013, regarding the Burma Sanctions Program. Although conveniently now removed from OFAC’s FAQs and website following the termination of the Burma Sanctions Regulations, an archived link detailing FAQ #285 captured the full text of OFAC’s response to ministry dealings with a designated Burmese Government minister. According to OFAC:

A government ministry is not blocked solely because the minister heading it is an SDN. U.S. persons should, however, be cautious in dealings with the ministry to ensure that they are not, for example, entering into any contracts that are signed by the SDN.

However, in Treasury’s restatement of FAQ #285 in the ExxonMobil announcement, OFAC indicated that US parties should “be cautious in dealings with [a non-designated] entity to ensure that they are not providing funds, goods, or services to the SDN, for example, by entering into any contracts that are signed by the SDN.”

Rejecting ExxonMobil’s rebuttal that OFAC regulations state that different interpretations may exist among and between the sanctions programs that it administers, FAQ #285 “clearly signaled” that OFAC views the signing of a contract with an SDN as prohibited, even if the entity on whose behalf the SDN signed was not sanctioned in situations where sanctions programs also involve SDNs. These reasons, in addition to the definitions of “property” and “property interest” in the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations, E.O. 13661, and statements issued by the White House and the Department of Treasury, served to provide ExxonMobil with notice that signing the legal documents with Sechin would violate the prohibitions in the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations.

In assessing the penalty based on OFAC’s Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, among other aggravating factors, OFAC viewed ExxonMobil’s transaction to be a show of “reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements when it failed to consider warning signs associated with dealing in the blocked services of an SDN” and contributed “significant harm” to the objectives of the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Program. Following the announcement, ExxonMobil stood by its position that it acted in full compliance with the sanctions guidelines in 2014 and argued that the Treasury Department is “trying to retroactively enforce a new interpretation of an executive order that is inconsistent with the explicit and unambiguous guidance from the White House and Treasury issued before the relevant conduct and still publicly available today.”

What does all this mean for U.S. companies? While FAQ #285 was initially crafted to address contracts with a designated government official (which Sechin satisfied based on his designation as a Russian official), it is unclear whether this interpretation would also be applicable in situations involving non-government SDNs and their corporate dealings. Further, the prohibited conduct of entering into a contract signed by an SDN in FAQ #285 was listed as an example. It is entirely possible that a range of other contract activities are prohibited by SDNs like negotiating a contract. Companies must be aware of the risks associated with projects that would require authorization by an SDN. Further, companies can mitigate their risk by screening all the parties involved in a transaction to avoid potentially violating a sanctions program.


Florida Company Fined $27 Million for 150 Intentional EAR Violations

2017/03/30

By: Danielle McClellan

Access USA Shipping, LLC (Access) of Sarasota, Florida was charged with 150 violations beginning in April 2011 and spanning to February 2013. The company went out of its way to conceal the fact that foreign customers were purchasing products through them without their US merchants knowing who the end users of their items were. Access mis-described, undervalued, and destroyed and/or altered export control documents to conceal the illegal exports. They also made sure that their foreign customers had a direct employee to order through to avoid any export scrutiny. They went as far as allowing foreign customers to send “wish lists” to Access employees who would then purchase the products from their US merchants with US credit cards and PayPal accounts in the name of Eric Baird, Access’s founder and then-owner and CEO or cards opened in the name of the employee making the order. The foreign customer would then reimburse Access or the employee; there were even situations when the shipments were delivered to the homes of Access employees to ensure that the US merchants would not become suspicious of the order and the end user.

Access also exported (or attempted to) items classified as ECCN 0A987 which are controlled for Crime Control reasons to Argentina, Austria, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Libya, South Africa, and Sweden without a BIS export license. It was also found that the company exported (or attempted to) items classified as ECCN 5A990 and controlled for anti-terrorism reasons as well as EAR99 items to Transsphere Oy, a company on the Entity List.

The company is ordered to pay $10 million right away and the other $17 million will be suspended for two years and waived if the company does not commit any violations during the two year probationary period.

Charging Letter: https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/export-violations/export-violations-2015/1102-e2490/file


Justice Publishes Summary of Major U.S. Export Enforcement, Economic Espionage, Trade Secret, and Embargo-Related Criminal Cases

2017/03/30

2017/03/30

(Source: Justice)

The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) has published its Summary of Major U.S. Export Enforcement, Economic Espionage, Trade Secret, and Embargo-Related Criminal Cases, (January 2014 to the present: updated February 17, 2017), available at here.

The list contains a brief description of some of the major export enforcement, economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, and embargo-related criminal prosecutions by the Justice Department since January 2014. These cases resulted from investigations by the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) [formerly Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)], the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Pentagon’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), and other law enforcement agencies.


Pakistani National Extradited and Sentenced to 33 Months in Prison for Conspiracy to Export Gyroscopes to Pakistan

2016/10/12

By: Danielle McClellan

Syed Vaqar Ashraf (71) of Lahore, Pakistan (also known as Vaqar A. Jaffrey) was sentenced to 33 months in prison after being extradited from Belgium on July 31, 2015. According to court documents, in June 2012 Ashraf began asking a Tucson-based company, who shall remain nameless, for price quotes for unmanned aerial vehicles (drones). The company specializes in the design, development, and manufacturing of drones for the US military. The company immediately tipped off Homeland Security Investigations (HIS) agents about Ashraf’s requests.  HSI quickly assigned special agents to work undercover as employees of the Tucson-based company and they began dialoging with Ashraf directly.

From June 2012 to August 2014, Ashraf negotiated with special agents. He represented himself as the head of I&E International, based in Lahore, Pakistan.  Most of the correspondence was done via email where he agreed to purchase 18 gyroscopes that were intended to help medium-sized drones fly longer distances as well as 10 optical receiver modules and laser diodes intended to be installed in the aircraft for approximately $440,000.

In September 2013, HSI agents met with Ashraf in Vienna, Austria to work out details regarding the sale. Ashraf explained during the meeting that Pakistan’s nuclear program had been developed using technology exported from the west without a license. This led the agents to believe that Ashraf was working for Pakistan’s Advanced Engineering Research Organization and the intended use for the electronics was for the Pakistani military UAV program.

From January to March 2014 Ashraf asked agents for suggestions to get around the US export controls after agents requested a license from the Commerce Department and were told that the items would require a special license because the optical receive modules could be used in “activities related to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or missile delivery systems.” Ashraf asked if there were any alternative descriptions that would appear to cover the items on documents, but would clear arms control hurdles from State and Commerce departments.  Secret agents offered Ashraf with a few different descriptions and asked him if the customer was aware that transaction was “being done without a license.” Ashraf told the agents that they (customer) were “absolutely aware of everything.” Later in an email, Ashraf wrote, “He (customer) is well aware that he cannot get these gyros in a normal way; he’s well aware of that.” The ultimate plan was to transship all of the items; they would be shipped to Pakistan through Belgium.

HIS agents met with Ashraf three more times in face-to-face meetings, including one in the US where they agreed on a series of wire transfers, including one for $67,000. On August 26, 2014 agents set up a final meeting with Ashraf in Belgium to deliver some of the technology. Before the meeting began Belgian police showed up and arrested Ashraf. A little less than a year later Ashraf was extradited to the US to face trial on charges of conspiracy to export defense controlled items without a license which he later pled guilty to.

Read more: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pakistani-national-extradited-and-sentenced-attempting-export-sensitive-technology-pakistani


Israel’s Defense Ministry Raises Export Violation Fines

2016/10/12

By: Danielle McClellan

Currently, the Ministry of Defense is capable of imposing a maximum fine of NIS 1 million for companies who violate the Defense Export Controls Act.  The head of Defense Control Agency, Dub Lavi, announced that Israel will be raising the maximum fine to NIS 5 million for violations by companies with sales exceeding NIS 80 million during 3 consecutive years.  The Ministry of Defense does require marketing permits as well as receipts of export permits before items are exported.

Dub Lavi explained that, “The vast majority of Israel’s defense industries are disciplined, responsible, and abide by the Defense Export Controls Act. During the decade in which the Ministry of Defense Exports Agency has been operating, both establishment and the companies themselves have matured: even the largest companies do not like reaching a situation in which they are invited to a hearing due to suspected violation.” Over the past few years, Israel has worked to simplify the exports of non-classified means and has continued to add to the current list of 98 states that can receive exports without a permit.  They are also doing the following to aid in simplifying rules for exporters:

  • Fast-tracking export and marketing licenses in special cases;
  • Exemption from further marketing permits for intermediate agents-an exporter with a marketing permit will not be required to file a further permit for a foreign company that will market its products abroad;
  • Extending the license duration from 3 to 4 years;
  • Updating non-controlled technologies in Combat Equipment Act to include unmanned aerial vehicles and satellites for civilian ends corresponding to the standards defined in the Wassenaar Arrangement on the Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies

Data shows that in 2015 the Export Control Agency received 40,000 new applications for marketing permits for arms, systems, and components to 190 states. They also received about 9,000 export permit applications which is the preliminary process preceding a marketing permit. In the past year they had 176 cases in which defense companies or exporters were suspected of violating the Defense Export Controls Act, but only a few exporters were fined with a total of NIS 2.8 million in penalties received. Israel’s defense exports totaled $5.7 billion last year.

Read more: http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-defense-ministry-mitigates-export-restriction-while-increasing-fines-1001150528