E6-19609. Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; Statutory Debarment Under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that persons convicted of violating or conspiring to violate Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, (“AECA”) (22 U.S.C. 2778) are statutorily debarred pursuant to Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA and Section 127.7(c) of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) (22 CFR parts 120 to 130).

DATES:

Effective Date: Date of conviction as specified for each person.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Trimble, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State [phone].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA, 22 U.S.C. 2778(g)(4), prohibits the Department of State from issuing licenses or other approvals for the export of defense articles or defense services to be issued where the applicant or any party to the export, has been convicted of violating certain statutes, including the AECA. In implementing this provision, Section 127.7 of the ITAR provides for “statutory debarment” of any person who has been convicted of violating or conspiring to violate the AECA. Persons subject to statutory debarment are prohibited from participating directly or indirectly in the export of defense articles, including technical data, or in the furnishing of defense services for which a license or other approval is required.

Statutory debarment is based solely upon conviction in a criminal proceeding, conducted by a United States Court, and as such the administrative debarment procedures outlined in Part 128 of the ITAR are not applicable.

The period for debarment will be determined by the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs based on the underlying nature of the violations, but will generally be for three years from the date of conviction. At the end of the debarment period, export privileges may be reinstated only at the request of the debarred person followed by the necessary interagency consultations, after a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the conviction, and a finding that appropriate steps have been taken to mitigate any law enforcement concerns, as required by Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA. Unless export privileges are reinstated, however, the person remains debarred.

Department of State policy permits debarred persons to apply to the Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, for reinstatement beginning one year after the date of the debarment, in accordance with Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA. Any decision to grant reinstatement can be made only after the statutory requirements under Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA have been satisfied.

Exceptions, also known as transaction exceptions, may be made to this debarment determination on a case-by-base basis at the discretion of the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, after consulting with the appropriate U.S. agencies. However, such an exception would be granted only after a full review of all circumstances, paying particular attention to the following factors: whether an exception is warranted by overriding U.S. foreign policy or national security interests; whether an exception would further law enforcement concerns that are consistent with the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States; or whether other compelling circumstances exist that are consistent with the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States, and that do not conflict with law enforcement concerns. Even if exceptions are granted, the debarment continues until subsequent reinstatement.

Pursuant to Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA and Section 127.7(c) of the ITAR, the following persons are statutorily debarred following the date of their AECA conviction:

(1) Victor Moscoso, July 26, 2002, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 01-966-CR-SEITZ/001.

(2) Romolo Martinez, February 5, 2004, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 1:02-20923-001-CR-MOORE.

(3) Stephen Jorgensen, January 15, 2001, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 1:00CR00998-001.

(4) Gerald Morey, August 11, 2003, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 1:02-20923-001-CR-MOORE.

(5) Ziad Jamil Gammoh (a.k.a. Al Gammoh; a.k.a. Jamil Gammoh; a.k.a. Ziad Al Gammoh; a.k.a. Ziad Al J Gammoh; a.k.a. Ziad Jamil Salem, Gammoh; a.k.a. Ziad Al J Gammon; a.k.a. Ziad Al Jamil; a.k.a, Al Jamil Ziad), November 7, 2005, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case #: SA CR04-97 DOC.

(6) Naji Antoine Abi Khalil, February 2, 2006, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Case # 4:05CR00200-01,

(7) Martin Armando Arredondo-Meza, January 25, 2006, U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas, Case #: 7:05CR00754-001.

(8) Tomer Grinberg, April 24, 2006, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Foley Square), Case # 04cr573-02,

(9) Kwan Chun Chan (a.k.a. Jenny Chan), May 4, 2006, U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, Case # 05-660-01.

(10) Xiu Ling Chen (a.k.a. Linda Chen), May 4, 2006, U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, Case # 05-659-01.

(11) Hao Li Chen (a.k.a. Ali Chan), May 4, 2006, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Case # 05-658-01.

(12) Xu Weibo (a.k.a. Kevin Xu), May 4, 2006, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Case # 05-657-01.

(13) George Charles Budenz, II, July 17, 2006, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case # 05CR01863-LAB.

(14) Richard Tobey, June 26, 2006, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case # 05CR1462-LAB.

(15) Kellen Lamon Johnson, June 1, 2006, U.S. District Court, District of Montana, Case # CR 05-170-GF-SHE-03.

(16) Dwain Rouse, June 12, 2006, U.S. District Court, District of Montana, Case # CR 05-170-GF-SHE-01.

(17) Erika Jardine (a.k.a. Eriklynn Pattie Jardine; a.k.a. Erika Pattie Jardine), February 22, 2006, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case # CR-2005-446.

(18) Kal Nelson Aviation, Inc., August 9, 2006, U.S. District Court, Central, District of California, Case # CR05-1158.

(19) Ko-Suen Moo, July 24, 2006, U.S. District Court, Southern District of, Florida, Case # 06-200006-CR-GRAHAM.

(20) Michael P. Murphy Surplus Materials Inc., May 16, 2006, U.S. District, Court, Southern District of California, Case # 06CR0209-BTM.

As noted above, at the end of the three-year period following the date of conviction, the above named persons/entities remain debarred unless export privileges are reinstated.

Debarred persons are generally ineligible to participate in activity regulated under the ITAR (see e.g., sections 120.1(c) and (d), 127.1(c) and 127.11(a)). Also, under Section 127.1(c) of the ITAR, any person who has knowledge that an other persons is subject to debarment or is otherwise ineligible may not, without disclosure to and written approve from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, participate, directly or indirectly, in any export in which such ineligible person may benefit therefrom or in which he has a direct or indirect interest.

This notice is provided for purposes of making the public aware that the persons listed above are prohibited from participating directly or indirectly in activities regulated by the ITAR, including any brokering activities and in any export from or temporary import into the United States of defense articles, related technical data, or defense services in all situations covered by the ITAR. Specific case information may be obtained from the Office of the Clerk for the U.S. District Courts mentioned above and by citing the court case number where provided.

Dated: November 2, 2006.

Stephen D. Mull,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, Department of State.