Tag Archives: Michael Huneke

Avoid Kicking the Hornet’s Nest: A Fresh Look at How to Anticipate, Avoid, and Respond to BIS Administrative Subpoenas (Part 2)

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of authors.

Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (photos courtesy of authors)

In Part 2 we pick up where we left off in Part 1 to continue our discussion of how best to avoid an administrative subpoena. We then discuss how best to respond, if and when they cannot be avoided, and conclude with some practical guidance.

Avoid:  How to Dissuade BIS from Resorting to Administrative Subpoenas (Continued)

Prepare well for outreach visits

Companies should prepare for outreach visits. Persons who will be meeting or speaking with OEE agents should be well prepared to do so with an eye toward and an awareness of the implications of the information and representations they are providing to BIS. Any and all information that company representatives provide to BIS representatives is fair game for future enforcement and for sharing with other U.S. agencies.

Continue reading →

Avoid Kicking the Hornet’s Nest: A Fresh Look at How to Anticipate, Avoid, and Respond to BIS Administrative Subpoenas (Part 1)

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of authors.

Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (photos courtesy of authors)

Anticipating, avoiding, and responding to administrative subpoenas pose the next in a long line of challenges facing U.S. companies and their legal and compliance teams as the new wave of export controls enforcement unfolds.

The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry & Security (“BIS”) has primed the corporate enforcement engine[1] through (1) public guidance identifying “red flags” indicating a “high probability” of diversion in violation of U.S. export controls, (2) successful criminal prosecutions in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the Disruptive Technology Strike Force of intermediaries facilitating diversion,[2] and (3) “supplier list” and “red flag” letters warning companies of the risks of diversion posed by certain counterparties.[3]

Continue reading →

It May Not Be Worth the Paper (or Pixel) It’s Written On (Part 2): A Fresh Look at Common Responses to Bolster Export Controls Compliance Programs as BIS Primes the Corporate Enforcement Engine

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors

Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (photos courtesy of authors)

Amid reports of continued export controls diversion[1] to entities in locations including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) has been priming the corporate enforcement engine.[2] This dynamic increases challenges for in-house legal and compliance teams to respond to BIS’ latest moves and bolster compliance program effectiveness. In this new environment, the greatest compliance risks revolve around explaining and defending relationships with distributors and resellers in the face of allegations and reports of product diversion or other “red flags” indicating the same—a task made more nuanced under the “high probability” standard of “knowledge” recently highlighted by BIS in new guidance issued on July 10, 2024 (the “July 10 BIS Guidance”).[3]

In Part 1 we previously discussed the practice of using letters of assurance—and the problems of relying solely upon them without resolving related red flags—to bolster export controls compliance programs in response to the new BIS enforcement playbook.[4] In Part 2 we now examine other common responses based on legacy approaches to export controls and why they are ineffective—and even detrimental—in today’s new and evolving enforcement environment.

Continue reading →

It May Not Be Worth the Paper (or Pixel) It’s Written On (Part 1): A Fresh Look at Letters of Assurance Used to Bolster Sanctions and Export Controls Compliance

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

photos of the authors

Left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of the authors)

“The world has changed. And we must change with it.” So stated Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement Matt Axelrod at a recent summit in California.[1] This simple statement reflects the increasingly complex challenges companies now face in navigating export controls and sanctions in a world driven by new geopolitical realities.

These challenges call into questions past assumptions about compliance programs. The foundation of a robust compliance program starts with the reliability of the inputs relied upon to make informed, risk-based decisions. In the halcyon days of the post-Cold War era, export controls took on an administrative character. In that environment, certifications from counterparties—themselves the targets of the due diligence—were taken largely at face value. Yet today passive reliance, without more, carries profound risks because export controls and sanctions enforcement has already become more of a white-collar corporate enforcement environment driven by Russia’s continued ability to secure U.S.-brand microelectronics (both legacy and new production). Certifications alone accordingly may not be worth the paper they are written on—or the pixels of which they are made—especially when other data includes “red flags” that cast doubt on certifications’ veracity.

Continue reading →

BIS Primes the Corporate Enforcement Engine: A Fresh Look at What Recent BIS Actions & Statements Mean and a Proposed Framework for How U.S. Companies Can Best Prepare

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke 

Photos of the authors.

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

The risk of corporate criminal enforcement actions for export controls evasion or diversion is significantly increasing. Recent actions and statements by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry & Security (“BIS”) suggest that, beyond saber-rattling, BIS is deliberately priming the corporate enforcement engine with the fuel for an enforcement wave that will follow the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) “playbook” that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has successfully deployed for the last two decades.

The fuel comes in the form of official, multiagency guidance documents and other actions that describe circumstances indicating a “high probability” of misconduct, which as we have previously written is a freestanding basis for enforcement actions under both the FCPA and the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”).[1] Such agency actions by BIS notably include the issuance to U.S. companies of lists of counterparties under cover of what BIS officials describe as “red flag” letters. Since our prior analysis,[2] BIS has reemphasized the significance of such letters and underscored the importance of how U.S. companies respond.

Continue reading →

A Whole New National Security Ballgame: Key Practical Takeaways for Export Control Compliance from the 2024 BIS Update Conference

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors.

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

On March 27–29, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry & Security (“BIS”) hosted an Update Conference on Export Controls & Policy. The event was a major outreach effort by the U.S. government. Nearly 100 BIS and other U.S. agency officials engaged with 1,200 attendees over three days.

As was appropriate for an event coinciding with Opening Day of the U.S. Major League Baseball season, BIS officials emphasized that they—and those they regulate—are playing a whole new national security ballgame. This theme ran through every topic. It also drives the key practical takeaways that we highlight below for in-house compliance professionals assessing evasion and diversion risks and responding to reports of the same—particularly reports that some U.S. companies recently received directly from the U.S. government. Continue reading →

Monitoring What Matters: A Fresh Look Proposal to Government and Industry for How Post-Resolution Oversight Can Best Deny Hostile Actors the Means to Cause Deadly Harm

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors.

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

U.S. economic sanctions and export controls serve a wide range of national security interests. When hostile actors rely on U.S.-designed or -manufactured components in weapons used in fatal attacks on U.S. and coalition military personnel and civilian populations, there is an acute need to quickly identify the illicit trade flows and stop those components from reaching the battlefield. Continue reading →

“Expect Some Illumination”: A Fresh Look at U.S. Congressional Hearings in the Era of Sanctions and Export Controls as the New FCPA

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors.

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

The 118th U.S. Congress has taken an active and bipartisan interest in U.S. sanctions and export controls. With reports that U.S. executives have been asked to testify before the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party[1] and recent hearings before a U.S. Senate subcommittee previewing further questions for both companies and regulators,[2] U.S. companies whose products might require a license for export to China or that might be found in Russian or Iranian weapons should prepare for congressional scrutiny—and congressional pressure on the U.S. Executive Branch departments to deliver enforcement results. Continue reading →

How Not to Stand Out Like a Sore Thumb (Part 2): A Fresh Look at the “High Probability” Definition of Knowledge Applied to Export Controls and Sanctions Enforcement

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors.

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

Media coverage concerning the widespread use of U.S. or Western microelectronics in recovered Russian- or Iranian-manufactured missiles and drones is putting pressure on governments, manufacturers, and exporters to consider ways to reduce more effectively the flows of such items to prohibited end-users. Even considering that many of the items are ubiquitous consumer electronics, the discovery of such items after mass-casualty events—including fatalities—on the front lines puts manufacturers and exporters on the front pages and in the crosshairs of U.S. regulators, prosecutors, media, and congressional committees. However the items arrived on the battlefield, their presence begs the questions of how and through whom they arrived. Continue reading →

How Not to Stand Out Like a Sore Thumb (Part 1): A Fresh Look at the “Willful” Intent Standard for Criminal Liability in Export Controls and Sanctions Corporate Enforcement

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors.

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

“The ‘willfulness’ standard for criminal prosecutions appears nearly insurmountable to reach.”

So concluded a “90-Day Review Report” issued January 2, 2024 by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, following congressional hearings in May and December 2023.[1] The report further contended that “the statutory requirement to prove ‘willfulness’” for there to be a criminal violation of U.S. export controls (and sanctions) is a “high bar” that “often results in [the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry & Security (“BIS”)] export enforcement personnel pursuing administrative enforcement actions with lower penalties,” compared to the alternative (unstated but implied by the report) of U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) personnel pursuing criminal penalties.[2]

This conclusion is not accurate. BIS is not itself responsible for criminal enforcement, yet it has partnered closely with the DOJ’s National Security Division—including by co-leading the inter-agency Disruptive Technology Strike Force launched on February 16, 2023—to bring several high-profile convictions or resolutions. Nor is the requirement to prove willfulness “insurmountable” for U.S. federal prosecutors, whose cases achieve the standard regularly and can do so not only with direct evidence of intent but also indirect evidence, i.e., the relevant facts and circumstances. Such facts and circumstances often—especially in the eyes of jurors—make the willful nature of criminal evasion schemes stand out like a sore thumb. Continue reading →