T. McVey: “Dealing With Violations In Export And Import Transactions – Part II”
[Editor’s Note: The following is Part II of Thomas McVey’s article “Dealing With Violations In Export and Import Transactions”. Part I of the article was included in the Daily Bugle of Wednesday, 26 April 2017, and is available here .]
You are the general counsel or CEO of your company. Your compliance manager comes into your office and tells you that he/she may have discovered an export violation within the company. Or perhaps you have received a directed disclosure from the State Department requesting information, an administrative subpoena from BIS, or an informed compliance letter from Customs. You are aware that export and import violations can result in significant civil and criminal penalties, so a lot is at stake. The following are a number of issues that you might present to your company in responding to this hypothetical situation under the Export Administration Regulations, International Traffic In Arms Regulations, U.S. sanctions laws and U.S. import laws. The details of your response, of course, will vary depending upon the company and violations involved. A lot will have to happen quickly so it is important for you to be prepared in advance for this situation.
(6) Other Issues In Export and Import Enforcement Actions
Enforcement actions for export violations are different than those of many other federal agencies due to the special rights of the government based on national security and limited judicial review. Customs cases also present specialized issues involving import administration, port security, border security and appeals to a specialized court. Consequently the defense of these cases raises a number of unique and challenging issues.
In the export area, each of the three export agencies has its own procedures for adjudicating civil enforcement cases. [FN/1] For ITAR violations, the Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance within DDTC has a highly specialized enforcement staff that conducts investigations and resolves many of its major civil enforcement cases through a negotiated settlement process. BIS’ Office of Export Enforcement, on the other hand, maintains a broad enforcement operation including agents in eight field offices across the U.S. with authority to bear firearms, make arrests, execute search warrants, serve subpoenas, detain and seize goods and investigate both civil and criminal violations. OFAC also has a highly specialized enforcement division engaged in investigations and administrative settlements. [FN/2] The agencies rely on multiple investigative agencies and intelligence services for support, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Defense Security Service and various intelligence agencies.
If criminal export matters are referred to the Justice Department, such cases are typically handled by Justice’s National Security Division, Counterintelligence and Export Control Section. In addition, individual U.S. Attorneys’ Offices often pursue criminal export control and sanctions prosecutions – some of these are in conjunction with agency enforcement actions while others are initiated independently by Justice or individual U.S. Attorneys’ offices. [FN/3]
The agencies also often consult with the Defense Technology Security Administration (“DTSA”) within the Defense Department to assess the potential injury to national security that has occurred as a result of an export violation. The issue of injury to national security is one of the most important factors considered by the agencies in assessing the seriousness of an export violation. In addition, the Export Enforcement Coordination Center, an interagency office directed by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), coordinates the investigation and prosecution of export violations among intelligence and law enforcement agencies on a government-wide basis. [FN/4]
Customs has a more traditional adjudicative process for civil enforcement actions. Customs serves multiple roles including enforcing U.S. import laws (such as merchandise classification, valuation, duty collection) as well as enforcing the regulations of over one hundred other federal agencies in import transactions. [FN/5] Civil actions initiated by Customs are frequently brought under 19 USC§1592 (so-called “592 actions”) for entry of merchandise through fraud, gross negligence or negligence. Such cases are initially adjudicated through an administrative process with appeal to the U.S. Court of International Trade and eventually to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If Customs is enforcing the laws of other agencies in the context of an import transaction (for example regulations administered by the Consumer Protection Safety Commission), such other agencies may bring enforcement actions directly or refer matters to the Department of Justice. [FN/6]
In some cases, one wrongful action or series of actions can result in violations of multiple sets of regulations. This can result in a number of agencies conducting separate concurrent investigations of the same activity. [FN/7] Also, if a company incurs a significant penalty for a compliance violation, this can be followed by a civil shareholder derivative suit against the company’s officers and directors for failure to properly supervise the company. Investigations by multiple agencies and private parties can complicate the defense of an enforcement action – the company must deal with multiple agencies, sets of regulations and legal standards at the same time. In attempting to resolve such cases counsel will often need to make complex decisions of whether to settle with one agency while other investigations continue, or wait to obtain a “global” resolution that includes all of the agencies involved.
Tolling of Statutes of Limitations. As part of an investigation, the agency may ask if the company will enter a tolling agreement to extend the statute of limitations for violations that are the subject of the investigation. This is a complex legal decision. Statutes of limitations, of course, provide valuable rights to the company, especially if activities being reviewed in the investigation occurred prior to the time limit under the relevant statute. However, in certain instances there may be benefits to the company for cooperating with the agency, including obtaining credit as a mitigating factor to reduce penalties. Assessing the risks and benefits of tolling a statute of limitations is similar to assessing a voluntary disclosure – every case is different and the company should review the issue carefully with its counsel based upon the specific facts of its case.
Protection of Sensitive Information. The agencies address protection of sensitive information in different ways. For administrative proceedings under ITAR, 22 CFR §128.14 provides that proceedings under 22 CFR Part 128 are confidential except for items referenced in §128.14. [FN/8] For proceedings under the EAR, 15 CFR §766.11(a) provides that the administrative law judge may limit discovery or introduction of evidence or issue protective orders to prevent undue disclosure of the sensitive information. BIS is also permitted to withhold information from the respondent that is classified or sensitive. [FN/9] If a case is adjudicated in a court (such as a criminal prosecution or a judicial appeal of an agency action) or an arbitration where there is a risk that sensitive information such as export-controlled technical data will be released to the public, courts can issue protective orders. In addition, if there is a risk of disclosing export-controlled information to foreign nationals who are parties, witnesses or experts, the parties can apply to DDTC or BIS for a license or other authorization for such disclosure and the agencies will consider such request based upon the merits of the request.
Appeals and Judicial Review. Each of the three export agencies has appeals procedures for reconsideration of lower agency determinations. For example, under ITAR §128.13 parties have the right to appeal a determination by DDTC to the
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Similarly, under the EAR §§766.21 and 766.22 parties have the right to appeal agency actions by BIS to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration. (Appeals of OFAC determinations are discussed separately below.) Many observers believe that a right of appeal to an Under Secretary of the agency bringing the enforcement action does not provide the same level of objectivity and independent review as an appeal to a more independent reviewer, and litigants should recognize this as they embark on this process.
The issue of judicial review of agency determinations in export cases is more complex in light of the national security, foreign affairs and emergency powers issues involved. Under most areas of federal administrative law, parties are afforded significant rights of procedural protections and judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). [FN/10] However DDTC and BIS have attempted to shield themselves from the provisions of the APA – ITAR §128.1 provides that administration of the AECA is expressly exempt from various provisions of the APA, and EAR §766.1 has similar restrictive language. [FN/11] Notwithstanding the absence of these protections, however, some litigants have found the opportunity to challenge the validity of DDTC and BIS actions in judicial fora, including challenges based upon the constitutionality of agency actions under the first, second and fifth amendments. [FN/12]
Appeals and judicial review of OFAC civil enforcement actions are addressed in multiple places throughout the OFAC sanctions regulations, including in regulations for a number of the individual sanctions programs. See, eg, 31 CFR.§560.704 under the Iran Transactions and Sanctions Regulations. While IEEPA, the enabling legislation for most of the sanctions programs, is silent on the issue of judicial review except for determinations based upon classified information, many of the OFAC regulations for IEEPA-authorized programs provide that the issuance by OFAC of a penalty notice constitutes a final agency action and respondents are entitled to judicial review of agency actions “in the federal district courts,” [FN/13] and lawsuits have been brought against OFAC in such courts. [FN/14] (Appeals under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations under the Trading With the Enemy Act are subject to a different procedure set forth in 31 CFR §501.741 – see generally 31 CFR Part 501, Subpart D.) It should be noted, however, that in judicial review of OFAC actions, courts have afforded great deference to the agency in light of the national security and foreign policy issues involved. [FN/15]
Appeals and judicial review of Customs civil enforcement cases for import violations are also resolved through a specialized process. In such cases, parties are typically entitled to judicial review of agency determinations in the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”), a specialized federal court that sits in New York, with appeals from the CIT to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
(7) Personal Liability For Export and Import Violations
Individuals have long been subject to personal civil and criminal liability for violations of export laws. See, for example, cases involving Timothy Gormley, [FN/16] Peter Gromacki, [FN/17] LeAnne Lemeister, [FN/18] John Reese Roth, [FN/19] Mozaffar Khazaee, [FN/20] Guerman Goutorov and Eric Carlson, to name just a few. In some instances the individuals were acting in their capacities as employees (Gormley) or officers (Goutorov and Carlson) of exporting companies, and in others they were acting alone (Gromacki). In one instance the employee was a senior export compliance officer and empowered official of a major U.S. defense contractor (Lemeister). Many of the cases against individuals are criminal prosecutions with significant financial penalties and prison sentences (Timothy Gromley was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment). (See Corporate Officers Charged Personally For Export Violations).
Individuals are also subject to personal liability for import violations in certain instances. In one recent noteworthy case, United States v. Trek Leather, Inc. et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a company’s president can be personally liable for civil Customs violations under 19 USC §1592. [FN/21] Similarly, many of the recent criminal prosecutions for Customs violations cited above have targeted individual officers and directors of importers. See, eg., United States v. Wolff et al, (cited above).
In 2015, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates issued the now famous “Yates Memorandum” directing federal prosecutors to focus on individuals personally involved in corporate wrongdoing in federal enforcement cases. In the recent Volkswagen auto emissions case, involving the largest Customs penalty to date, six Volkswagen executives were also personally indicted and one arrested for their roles in the case, signaling that the Yates mandate to prosecute business executives personally would continue. [FN/22] While at the time of this writing it is unclear if the Yates mandate will continue in the new Trump administration, regardless of the Yates policy it is expected that individuals will continue to be subject to personal liability for export and import violations as was the case prior to the Yates memorandum. Consequently individuals should continue to use great care in their export/import compliance activities to protect both their organizations and themselves.
The above are just a number of the issues to consider in an enforcement situation and there may be additional issues depending on the facts of your case.
ENFORCEMENT LEGAL AUTHORITIES FOR EXPORT AND IMPORT VIOLATIONS OVERVIEW
The following are some of the principal enforcement legal authorities under U.S. export and import laws.
INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS
* Compliance, Registration and Enforcement Division, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State
Enforcement Legal Authority:
– §2778(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”) (22 USC § 2778(c))
– 22 CFR §127.3
– §2778(e) of AECA (22 USC §2778(e))
– 22 CFR §127.10
* Criminal: Fines of up to $1 million and imprisonment of up to 20 years, or both, per violation
* Civil: Civil monetary penalties of up to $500,000 per violation (as adjusted under Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 to $1,094,010 per violation)
Other Available Sanctions
* Statutory and administrative debarment, seizure, forfeiture and disposition of defense articles, vessel, vehicles and aircraft involved, under 22 USC §401
* In addition to DTCC, multiple investigative agencies and intelligence services including Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Defense Security Service and various intelligence agencies; the Defense Technology Security Administration (“DTSA”) also may be involved in assessing injury to national security
EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS
* Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”), Office of Enforcement Analysis (“OEA”) and Office of Antiboycott Compliance (“OAC”), Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce
Enforcement Legal Authority
– §206(c) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (22 USC §1705(c)), as amended by §2(a) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act. Note: The EAR was previously authorized by the Export Administration Act (“EAA”) but the EAA has expired and the EAR is currently authorized under IEEPA.
– 15 CFR §764.3(b)
– §206(b) of IEEPA (22 USC §1705(b))
– 15 CFR §764.3(a)
– See Also BIS Guidance On Charging and Penalty Determinations In Settlement of Administrative Enforcement Cases, 15 CFR Part 766 Supplement No. 1, and Guidance On Charging and Penalty Determinations In Settlement of Administrative Enforcement Cases Involving Antiboycott Matters, 15 CFR Part 766 Supplement No. 2
* Criminal: Fines of up to $1 million and 20 years imprisonment, or both, per violation
* Civil: Civil monetary penalties of the greater of $250,000 (as adjusted under Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 to $284,582 per violation) or an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to the penalty imposed, per violation
Other Sanctions Available
* Denial of export privileges, seizure and forfeiture, exclusion from practice, cross-debarment and statutorily-mandated sanctions related to weapons proliferation. See 15 CFR §764.3
* Protective Administrative Measures under 15 CFR §764.6 including: license exemption limitations, revocation or suspension of licenses, issuances of temporary denial orders and issuance of orders of denial for conviction of an offense specified in EAR §11(h)
* Conduct that constitutes a violation of the EAR may also be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. 1001 (false statements), 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, and 1346 (mail and wire fraud), and 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957 (money laundering)
* OEE has both civil and criminal investigative authority; in addition Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Defense Security Service and various intelligence agencies; DTSA also may be involved in assessing injury to national security
OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
* Assistant Director For Enforcement, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), U.S. Department of the Treasury
Enforcement Legal Authority
* Criminal: Various statutory authorities – OFAC’s principal enforcement authority is under IEEPA and the Trading With the Enemy Act (see below)
– §206(c) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (22 USC §1705(c)), as amended by §2(a) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act
– §16 of the Trading With the Enemy Act (“TWEA”)
– 31 CFR Part 501 generally and regulations governing various
individual OFAC sanctions programs
– §1705(b) of IEEPA (22 USC §1705(b)), as amended by the International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act
– 31 CFR Part 501 generally
– Regulations governing various individual sanctions programs
– Appendix A to 31 CFR Part 501 – Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines
– Under IEEPA, fines of up to $1 million and 20 years imprisonment, or both, per violation
– Under TWEA, fines of up to $1 million and 20 years imprisonment, or both, per violation
– Under IEEPA and most sanctions programs, greater of $250,000 (as adjusted under Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 to $289,238) or an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to the penalty imposed, per violation
– Under TWEA $50,000 (as adjusted under Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 to $85,236 per violation)
Other Sanctions Available
– Denial, suspension, modification or revocation of licenses or other authorizations
– Cease and desist orders
– Other administrative powers
– In addition to the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Defense Security Service and various intelligence agencies
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
* Customs and Border Protection; also Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Enforcement Legal Authority
* Customs enforces multiple U.S. statutes and regulations in the context of import transactions, border security and other areas; the principal enforcement legal authority for import transactions is as follows:
– 18 USC §541 (false classification, underpayment of duty), §542 (entry by means of false statements), §544 (relanding of goods), §545 (smuggling), §550 (false claims for refunds of duty), §551 (concealing or destroying invoices or papers); see generally 18 USC Chapter 5
– Other available provisions: 18 U.S.C. §1001 (false statements), 18 USC §1519 (destruction, alteration or falsification of records) and 18 USC §§1956 and1957 (money laundering),
– The principal civil enforcement authority for Customs import violations is 19 USC §1592 for fraud, gross negligence and negligence
– 18 USC §541 (false classification, underpayment of duty) – fines or imprisonment of up to 2 years or both
– 18 USC §542 (entry by means of false statements) – fines or imprisonment of up to 2 years or both
– 18 USC §544 (relanding of goods) – fines or imprisonment of up to 2 years or both
– 18 USC §545 (smuggling) – fines or imprisonment of up to 20 years or both, forfeiture of merchandise
– 18 USC §550 (false claim for refund of duty) – fines or imprisonment of up to 2 years or both; forfeiture of merchandise
– 18 USC §551 (concealing invoices) – fines or imprisonment of up to 2 years or both
– 19 USC §1592(c)(1) (Fraud) – an amount not to exceed the domestic value of the merchandise
– 19 USC §1592(c)(2) (Gross Negligence) – (A) the lesser of: (i) the domestic value of the merchandise, or (ii) four times the lawful duties, taxes, and fees of which the United States is or may be deprived, or (B) if the violation did not affect the assessment of duties, 40 percent of the dutiable value of the merchandise.
– 19 USC §1592(c)(3) (Negligence) – (A) the lesser of: (i) the domestic value of the merchandise, or (ii) two times the lawful duties, taxes, and fees of which the United States is or may be deprived, or (B) if the violation did not affect the assessment of duties, 20 percent of the dutiable value of the merchandise.
Other Sanctions Available
* Seizure and forfeiture of merchandise involved in violations
* Multiple investigative agencies and intelligence services including Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and various intelligence agencies
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
* Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, National Security Division, Department of Justice (for export control and sanctions cases)
* Individual U.S. Attorneys’ Offices
* See “Criminal” penalties for each agency above
[FN/1] For ITAR, see 22 CFR Part 128; for EAR see 15 CFR Part 766, for OFAC Sanctions Programs see 31 CFR Part 501 and provisions in regulations for each of the individual sanctions programs, and for Customs see 19 USC §1592(b).
[FN/2] The OFAC Sanctions Compliance and Evaluations Division handles enforcement for financial institutions and the Enforcement Division handles other enforcement matters.
[FN/3] The National Security Division attorneys in Washington also often provide specialized expertise to individual U.S. Attorney offices in handling these cases.
[FN/4] The office is administered by DHS, with a team that includes officials from DHS, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Departments of Commerce, State, Justice, Defense, Treasury, Energy, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Postal Inspection Service.
[FN/5] This includes regulations administered by the Food and Drug Administration, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Federal Trade Commission, International Trade Commission and the enforcement of federal intellectual property laws.
[FN/6] See United States of America v. LM Import-Export, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-20765 (S.D. Fl.) and United States of America v. Hung Lam, et al., Case No. 12-20048-CR (S.D. Fla.).
[FN/7] For example, in a recent case involving National Oilwell Varco, Inc. (“Varco”) for violations involving Cuba, Iran and Sudan, Varco was subject to investigations by OFAC, BIS and the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Texas. See here
[FN/8] See 22 CFR §§ 128.14 and 128.17.
[FN/9] However where the administrative law judge determines that documents containing the sensitive matter need to be made available to a respondent to avoid prejudice, the judge may direct BIS to provide an unclassified summary of the documents to the respondent. The judge may provide the parties opportunity to make arrangements that permit a party or a representative to have access to such matter without compromising sensitive information. Such arrangements may include obtaining security clearances, or giving counsel for a party access to sensitive information and documents subject to assurances against further disclosure, including a protective order, if necessary. See 15 CFR 766.11.
[FN/10] Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC §§551 to 559.
[FN/11] ITAR Section 128.1 provides that administration of the AECA is expressly exempt from various provisions of the APA. This section provides: “The administration of the Arms Export Control Act is a foreign affairs function encompassed within the meaning of the military and foreign affairs exclusion of the Administrative Procedure Act and is thereby expressly exempt from various provisions of that Act. Because the exercising of the foreign affairs function, including the decisions required to implement the Arms Export Control Act, is highly discretionary, it is excluded from review under the Administrative Procedure Act.”
Similarly, EAR Sec. 766.1 provides: “This part does not confer any procedural rights or impose any requirements based on the Administrative Procedure Act for proceedings charging violations under the EAA, except as expressly provided for in this part.”
[FN/12] See for example, Bernstein v. United States Department of State, 945 F. Supp. 1279 (N.D. Cal. 1996), 974 F. Supp. 1288 (N.D. Cal. 1997); Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999); Bernstein v. Department of Commerce, No. 95-0582 (N.D. Cal. 2003); Junger v. Daley, et al, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000); U.S. v. Zhen Zhou Wu, Nos. 11-1115, 11-1141 (1st Cir. 2013); Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State, et al., No. 1:15-CV-372-RP (W.D. Tex..), and Micei International v. Department of Commerce, No. 09-1155 (DC Cir. 2010). Under §13(c)(3) of the Export Administration Act parties are entitled to judicial review of BIS determinations directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, however the EAA has expired. IEEPA, the current statutory authority for the EAR, is silent on issues involving judicial review except in connection with determinations based upon classified information. The EAR previously provided for judicial review pursuant to 15 CFR §766.22(e) which directed the parties to pursue an appeal as set forth in the EAA’s judicial review provision under §13(c)(3), however this provision (§766.22(e)) was deleted from the EAR in technical amendments in 2010.
 See eg., 31 CFR.§ 560.704 (Iran), 31 CFR §742.703 (Syria), 31 CFR §538.704 (Sudan) and 31 CFR §547.703 (Dem. Republic of the Congo).
[FN/14] In light of the important constitutional issues involved in unilateral presidential authority in national emergencies, IEEPA has been the subject of numerous court challenges. See, eg., Dames & Moore v. Regan. 453 U.S. 654 (1981), Kindhearts For Charitable Humanitarian Development, Inc. v. Timothy Geithner, et al, 647 F.Supp.2d 857 (N.D. Ohio 2009) and U.S. v. Ali Amirnazmi, No. 10-1198, (3d Cir. 2011). More recently, parties have been able to obtain judicial review of OFAC sanctions programs under the provisions of the APA. See for example Epsilon Electronics, Inc. v. United Stated Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, et al., 168 F.Supp.3d 131 (D.C. 2016).
[FN/15] For example, in Epsilon Electronics (see footnote above) Epsilon appealed OFAC’s determination that the company engaged in unauthorized exports to Iran in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The appeal was based upon violations of the APA and constitutional protections. The court upheld OFAC’s determination and its $4,073,000 civil penalty assessment. Of significance, the court stated that in reviewing OFAC actions courts are required to be “extremely differential” to the agency in reviewing agency actions in light of OFAC’s national security and foreign affairs functions: The court stated: ”
When reviewing agency decisions in the area of foreign relations, courts must be mindful that “[m]atters related ‘to the conduct of foreign relations . . . are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or inference.'” Regan, 468 U.S. at 242 (quoting Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 589 (1952)). Thus, “[a]s a general principal, . . . [a reviewing court] should avoid impairment of decisions made by the Congress or the President in matters involving foreign affairs or national security.” Glob. Relief Found. v. O’Neill, 207 F. Supp. 2d 779, 788 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (citing Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 292 (1981)). Accordingly, a review of a decision made by OFAC is “extremely deferential” because OFAC operates “in an area at the intersection of national security, foreign policy, and administrative law.” Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 728, 734 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Epsilon, p.8-9.
[FN/19] United States v. Roth, 628 F.3d 827 (6th Cir., 2011).
[FN/20] See also actions involving Mozaffar Khazaee in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut on October 23, 2015, here
, and Alexander Posobilov, Shavkat Abdullaev and Anastasia Diatlova in the Eastern District of New York on October 26, 2015, here
[FN/21] See United States v. Trek Leather, Inc. et al., No. 11-1527 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
[FN/22] In January 2017 Justice and CBP announced that Volkswagen had agreed to pay $4.3 billion in combined criminal and civil penalties in connection with the case. The $1.45 civil penalty component of this payable to CBP to resolve Customs civil fraud charges was described by CBP as the largest civil penalty collected by CBP. See here