LinkedInFacebookInstagramXYouTube
305-456-3830|info@diaztradelaw.com

EAR

Call 305-456-3830 or email info@diaztradelaw.com.

ICYMI: Technology Company Pleads Guilty to Export Control Violations, Agrees to $140M Fine

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California and the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) of the Department of Justice’s (DoJ) National Security Division announced that Cadence Design Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California, agreed to plead guilty to resolve criminal violations of export controls. 

As part of the plea agreement, Cadence will pay criminal penalties of nearly $118 million. 

In addition to the charges, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) also announced the resolution of a civil enforcement action against the company in which Cadence agreed to pay over $95 million in civil penalties. 

The DoJ and BIS have coordinated the resolution of the parallel investigation, and each agreed to a partial credit against their fine for payments made to satisfy the other agency’s fine. Under the coordinated agreement, Cadence will pay criminal and civil penalties of more than $140 million.

Cadence committed criminal violations of the export control laws by selling hardware, software, and semiconductor design intellectual property to the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) in China. NUDT was added to the Department of Commerce’s Entity List in February 2015. The university was involved in the development of supercomputers with applications for military and nuclear explosive simulations. 

Cadence and its Chinese subsidiary engaged in a conspiracy to commit export control violations by exporting this technology to NUDT without obtaining the requisite licenses from […]

By |2025-08-07T11:02:32-04:00August 7, 2025|EAR, Enforcement, Export, International Trade, Technology, U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)|0 Comments
Read More

DoJ Declines Prosecution of Company That Self-Disclosed Export Control Offenses

The Justice Department announced that it will not be prosecuting Universities Space Research Association (USRA) for violations of U.S. export control laws, citing prompt self-disclosure and cooperation.

EAR Violation

In 2016, USRA was granted a contract with NASA to license and distribute aeronautics-related and U.S. Army-owned flight control software. Jonathan Soong was employed by USRA and was responsible for performing due diligence on prospective purchasers. Soong willfully exported software subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to Beijing University, knowing that an export control license was required for the export because it was on the Entity List.

Soong used an intermediary to avoid detection, and embezzled tens of thousands of dollars in software license sales. He ultimately plead guilty to willfully violating the EAR. He was sentenced to 20 months in prison.

Company Disclosure & Remediation

Within days of learning of Soong’s actions, USRA self-disclosed the violation to the Department’s National Security Division (NSD). The company fully cooperated with the ensuing criminal investigation, which eventually established that Soong had acted alone.

USRA’s cooperation included proactively collecting and disclosing evidence and providing detailed and timely responses to the government’s requests for information. USRA remediated the root cause of the misconduct by disciplining an employee who failed to appropriately supervise Soong, and by improving its internal controls and compliance program.

USRA also compensated the government both for the funds Soong embezzled, and for the time Soong had spent embezzling funds instead of performing his duties under the contract with NASA.

The DoJ cited the timely disclosure, cooperation, and […]

By |2025-05-29T12:48:05-04:00May 7, 2025|EAR, Export|0 Comments
Read More

Reporting, Requestor List, Penalties: Antiboycott Laws Explained

The United States enforces antiboycott laws designed to address foreign government’s economic boycotts of countries friendly to the U.S. Antiboycott laws have been on the books since the 1970s and are primarily enforced by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security.

What Are the U.S. Antiboycott Laws?

“Anti-boycott” refers to U.S. laws and regulations that discourage and, in certain cases, prohibit U.S. persons from participating in unsanctioned foreign boycotts, particularly those targeting countries friendly to the United States.

BIS is charged with administering and enforcing this policy under the Anti-Boycott Act of 2018, the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, and the Export Administration Regulations.

The antiboycott laws aim to prevent U.S. persons from advancing foreign policies of other nations that run counter to U.S. policy.

Prohibited Antiboycott Activities Under the EAR

Part 760 of the EAR specifies prohibited antiboycott activities including:

  • Refusals or agreements to refuse to do business with or in a boycotted country or with blacklisted companies.
  • Discrimination or agreements to discriminate against a U.S. person based on race, religion, sex, or national origin.
  • Furnishing information or agreements to furnish information about business relationships with or in a boycotted country or with blacklisted companies.
  • Furnishing information or agreements to furnish information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of a U.S. person.
  • Implementation of letters of credit containing prohibited boycott terms or conditions.
  • Taking actions with the intent to evade Part 760 of the EAR.

Required Reporting        

Section 760.5 of the EAR requires […]

By |2025-04-07T18:45:32-04:00April 7, 2025|EAR, Export, U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)|0 Comments
Read More

BIS Releases New Edition of “Don’t Let This Happen to You”

The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published an updated version of Don’t Let This Happen to You!, a list of case examples highlighting BIS enforcement efforts including criminal cases.

Case highlights:

The publication highlights over 100 cases covering various violations of export control laws.

Military Controls

The owner of BQ Tree Consulting in Jacksonville, Florida, along with the President and Manager of the company were indicted for conspiring to illegally export military-grade combat rubber raiding craft (CCRC) to China.

The scheme involved providing a U.S. company with false end-use and end-user information for a front company in Hong Kong, which was used to complete the transaction ultimately destined for China. The intention was to reverse engineer the CRRC and engines to mass produce them for the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy.

The company owner was sentenced to 16 months in prison, two years of supervised release, mandatory mental health screening, and a $200 special assessment. The company President was sentenced to 42 months confinement, three years of probation, a $50,000 criminal fine, and a $200 special assessment. The company manager was sentenced to 17 months in prison, one year of supervised release pending deportation, a prohibition on employment with any company that deals with the military, and a $100 special assessment.

National Security Controls

GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc., a semiconductor wafer manufacturing company headquartered in Malta New York violated the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by sending 74 shipments of semiconductor wafers, valued at approximately $17.1 million, to SJ Semiconductor (SJS), a company […]

By |2024-11-22T07:13:34-05:00November 22, 2024|EAR, Export, U.S. Department of Commerce|0 Comments
Read More

BIS Issues Final Rule on VSD Policies and Penalty Guidelines

BIS recently issued a final rule to amend the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), making several changes to their Voluntary Self Disclosure (VSD) policies, as well as updates to guidance on penalty determinations.

The rule codifies previously announced policy changes through several Policy Memoranda including an April 2023 memorandum on voluntary-self disclosures, and a June 2022 memorandum on strengthening administrative enforcement.

Revisions to Voluntary Self-Disclosures

The rule makes both substantive and procedural changes to the VSD policies:

  1. Addition of non-disclosure as an aggravating factor – the new rule makes clear that BIS will consider a deliberate decision to not disclose a violation as an aggravated factor when determining what administrative sanctions will be imposed.
  2. New dual track for processing VSDs – one track for minor or technical violations, the other for significant violations.
  3. Authorizes any person (not just the party submitting a VSD) to notify the Director of BIS’s Office of Export Enforcement (OEE) that a violation has occurred and to request permission to engage in corrective activities.

Revisions to Penalty Guidelines

This rule makes several changes to the BIS Penalty Guidelines, including:

  1. Changes the base penalty caps:
    1. Non-egregious VSD cases: was $125,000, now one-half of the transaction value.
    2. Non-egregious cases that are not initiated by a VSD: was $250,000, now the full transaction value.
  2. Permits BIS to use  non-monetary penalties to resolve cases that are not egregious and have not resulted in national security harm, but rise above the level of cases warranting a warning letter.
  3. Removes from the BIS […]
By |2024-09-26T16:04:14-04:00September 26, 2024|EAR, Export, U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)|0 Comments
Read More
This website uses cookies and third party services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the Privacy Policy. OK
Skip to content
Go to Top