United States: ITAR Criminal Violations — Where The Less You Know Is Not Necessarily The Better

Last Updated: February 26 2014
Article by Mary Carter Andrues, Kay Georgi and Keith Huffman

For decades, courts have wrangled with the "state of mind" needed to establish a criminal violation of the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The question has been whether general knowledge of the illegality of the conduct is sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction or whether instead the government must prove that the defendant knew of the specific law or regulation that was violated. With the recent decision in United States v. Brian Keith Bishop, No. 13–4356, 2014 WL 292695 (4th Cir. Dec. 11, 2013), the Fourth Circuit joined its seven sister circuits, holding that proof of general knowledge of the illegality of the conduct is sufficient to convict a person of a willful violation of US export laws.

In Bishop, the defendant, a Foreign Service Officer in the US Department of State, was charged and convicted of attempting to ship small arms ammunition from Alabama to Amman, Jordan in violation of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 USC § 2778, when, as part of his move to his new State Department post in Jordan, he sent the ammunition together with his personal effects to the State Department's shipping company. Bishop appealed his conviction, arguing that the government failed to prove that he knew his conduct was illegal and that he knew that the ammunition he was attempting to export was listed on the United States Munitions List (USML). The government argued that it merely had to prove that Bishop knew that exporting ammunition was illegal as a general matter. Unfortunately for Bishop, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the government's argument that it was sufficient enough that Bishop believed that exporting ammunition was illegal, "even if unaccompanied by knowledge of the contents of the USML."

As other federal courts have done in the past, the Fourth Circuit relied heavily on the United States Supreme Court decision in Bryan v. United States (524 U.S. 184 1998) (in which the Supreme Court held that specific knowledge of a firearms licensing requirement under Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 921–929, was not required to find a criminal violation of FOPA), stating that "to establish a 'willful' violation of a statute, the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful." In doing so, the Court distinguished the AECA from other "highly technical" statutes or regulations, finding instead that using a heightened standard of intent would be a step toward "an unregulated system and undermine congressional intent."

Notably, the Bryan Court distinguished its holding from two previous decisions that suggested that a heightened intent standard should apply to prove willfulness when complex statutory or regulatory schemes are implicated. See, e.g., Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) (holding that criminal convictions for willfully structuring currency transactions in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324 could be maintained only when the government proved that the defendant knew he was violating the structuring laws at the time he committed the offense); Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (holding that a good faith misunderstanding of the law could negate the willfulness requirement of the crimes of willful tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201, and of willful failure to file a tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7203). The Bryan Court distinguished these cases in which "willfully" required a showing that the defendant was aware of the specific statutory violation, where the statutes concerned tax and currency restructuring, because "the complexity of these statutes presented the danger of ensnaring individuals engaged in innocent conduct." In other words, the Bryan decision regarding what scienter level is required to prove a criminal violation turned on what the Court perceived as the complexity of the underlying regulations governing the conduct.

The government quickly seized on the reasoning in Bryan and consistently has taken the position that the complex regulatory structure governing US export laws is readily distinguishable from complex tax and money laundering regulations. With the recent holding in Bishop, the government has increased its tally to seven federal circuits, namely the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and the DC District Court that have adopted the lower intent standard. See, e.g., United States v. Murphy, 852 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1022 (1989) (upholding a jury instruction that "made clear that conviction [under the AECA] would not require evidence that defendants knew of the licensing requirement or were aware of the munitions list"); United States v. Homa Int'l Trading Corp., 387 F.3d 144 (2nd Cir. 2004) (quoting Bryan in holding "to establish a 'willful' violation of [IEEPA] ... the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful"); United States v. Electro Glass Prods., 298 Fed. Appx. 157 (3d Cir. 2008) (stating, "[T]he willfulness element of the AECA is established only if the defendant knew that the export was in violation of the law. The Government does not need to prove the basis of that knowledge, or that the defendant was aware of the licensing requirement."); United States v. Roth, 628 F.3d 827 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Bryan and invoking its standard in finding that the defendant did not need to know that particular items being exported are specifically listed on a "munitions list" prohibiting their export); United States v. Gregg, 829 F.2d 1430 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1022 (1988) ("all the Government needs to prove is that the item exported appears on the Munitions List or the Commodity Control List."); United States v. Mousavi, 604 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) ("willfulness" under IEEPA requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with knowledge "that his conduct was unlawful,"... but not that the defendant was aware of a specific licensing requirement."); United States v. Quinn, 403 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2005) (concurring "with the government's assertion that it need not prove to the jury that defendants had knowledge of the existence of a licensing requirement; it need only show that they knew their precise conduct was unlawful.") (vacated on other grounds).

The Seventh Circuit has not cited Bryan but has applied a similar standard. See United States v. Reyes, 270 F.3d 1158 (7th Cir. 2001) (finding that the defendant's "obvious disregard for his known legal duties in attempting to export items on the Munitions List without a license, provided more than sufficient grounds for the jury's finding of a willful violation of the AECA"). The Tenth Circuit has not reached the scienter issue as yet, as the issue of intent was based on the weight of the evidence and not the definition of "willfulness." See United States v. Soussi, 316 F.3d 1095, 1107 (10th Cir. 2002) (upholding deliberate ignorance instruction where government's evidence showed, among other things, that defendant had deliberately refused to read document on export ban, "presumably because he wanted to avoid unequivocal knowledge it was illegal for him to engage in the [illicit] transaction" that was the subject of the case).

As it stands now, only the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits still apply the higher intent standard. See, e.g., United States v. Covarrubias, 94 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 1996) ("government must prove defendant acted with specific intent to violate a known legal duty"); United States v. Macko, 994 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir. 1993) (concluding "the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendants] knew about the Cuban trade embargo and deliberately violated it through their own conduct or by aiding and abetting other individuals").

The zeal with which the government has methodically marched through the federal courts to establish a lower standard of intent to sustain a criminal export violation underscores its intent to vigorously pursue criminal cases against individuals and companies. Indeed, the US Government takes the position that companies can and should be held responsible for the acts of its employees, even if the conduct may be contrary to the company's stated policies and procedures.

This raises the interesting "sauce for the gander" question: Should the State Department be held legally liable at least on a civil basis for the acts of Mr. Bishop, a Foreign Service Officer (FSO) employed by the State Department?

Mr. Bishop was sending his personal effects in order to take a FSO post for the State Department in Jordan. The shipment in question, was, in fact a State Department shipment — carried out by the government contract carrier, Paxton Van Lines (Paxton) pursuant to the State Department's policy of shipping employees' personal effects overseas at government expense. The shipment was already on its way out of the country when it was stopped. Thus, as a technical matter, an ITAR violation had taken place and the shipment was to be made by the State Department at US taxpayer expense. Clearly the State Department did not want its employee to violate its own policy or the ITAR, but companies typically do not want their employees to violate their policies or the ITAR either. Yet, when it happens, companies can be (and are) sometimes held strictly liable for the acts of their employees, even when that conduct violates the company's own policies

But it is not a level playing field between the US government and US exporters when it comes to the export control violations of their respective employees. As a consequence, it is imperative that companies implement export compliance procedures, institute training programs which include the ramifications of "willfully" violating export regulations, audit the procedures to ensure compliance with its export procedures and policies, identify gaps or violations of the procedures, and swiftly remediate any gaps and violations which may include terminating or disciplining the violators and filing a voluntary disclosure with the State Department or the US Department of Commerce or both.

With the high costs that can result from a violation of the export laws, including prison-time, fines, penalties, denial of export privileges, and loss of revenue — just to mention a few — complacency is not an option and compliance cost savings are penny wise but pound foolish. Companies and compliance officers, and we would argue, US government agencies, must ensure that appropriate export procedures and implemented and followed.

Arent Fox has extensive experience in assisting companies in complying with US export control and economic sanctions regulations, including representing companies and individuals in both criminal and civil enforcement actions under the ITAR, Export Administration Regulations (EAR), Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), and many additional export related laws and regulations.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions