Export

Bank accounts are more frequently being frozen or seized by the Federal Government.  The typical allegation by the Federal Government is that the money in those bank accounts were the proceeds of money laundering.  Often, the owners of the seized bank accounts were somehow connected to shipping cargo to, receiving cargo from, or doing business with Colombia.  The owners of the seized bank accounts then typically receive a letter from U.S. Customs and Border Protection advising of the seizure, and the procedure to attempt to get the money back.

Money laundering typically means that the money in the bank account was seized because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) believes it was generated from the sale of illegal drugs.  ICE refers to this type of financial crime as “Trade-Based Money Laudering.”  So, for example, if a company in Colombia received money from the sale of drugs, and then purchased some merchandise from a U.S. company, and paid that U.S. company, the money received by the U.S. company could be seized as the proceeds of certain unlawful activity set forth in the money laundering law at 18 U.S.C. 1956.  The allegation of money laundering is sometimes accompanied by an allegation of filing a false shipper’s export declaration or Automated Export System (AES) with U.S. Customs, in violation of 15 CFR section 30.7.

Persons who, or companies which have their bank accounts frozen or seized are entitled to know the reasons for such a severe action by the Federal Government. They are also entitled to challenge the […]

Lesson of the day – Don’t Lie to the government!

This case is about making an intentionally false or misleading statement to the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). Carol Wilkins, an export manager apparently did, and will now pay $15,000 to the BIS. Important to note is that this export manager was fined individually. RF Micro Devices, Inc., the company Carol worked for, was fined $190,000 separate and apart from Carol. I don’t know about you, but shelling out 15k would definitely put a huge dent in my shopping fund.
The BIS Charging Letter discussed Ms. Wilkins’ false or misleading statement to the BIS. During the course of a BIS investigation, she allegedly told a BIS Special Agent that all product classifications were confirmed by an outside consultant to be EAR99 (no export license required). Apparently the consultant disagreed, and even kept the documentation in which the consultant had specifically advised Carol that the items were not EAR99, but in fact required a license. Carol might not have realized that the BIS Agents would be resourceful enough to confirm her statements to them by double checking with the consultant. Even I was always taught “trust but verify”. Not surprisingly, BIS is no different.
Second lesson of the day, before making a statement you’ll regret to government officials, call an attorney first.