The International Enforcement Law Reporter

The International Enforcement Law Reporter is a monthly print and online journal covering news and trends in international enforcement law.

Since September 1985, the International Enforcement Law Reporter has analyzed the premier developments in both the substantive and procedural aspects of international enforcement law. Read by practitioners, academics, and politicians, the IELR is a valuable guide to the difficult and dynamic field of international law.

U.S. Antitrust Division Heads Discuss Efforts to Achieve Multilateral Framework on Procedures in Competition Law Investigation and Enforcement

Friday, June 15, 2018
Author: 
Bruce Zagaris
Volume: 
34
Issue: 
6
Abstract: 

On June 1, 2018, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim described to the Council on Foreign Relations efforts of the United States, in partnership with leading antitrust agencies around the world, to introduce and invite the global antitrust enforcement community to help finalize and join the Multilateral Framework on Procedures in Competition Law Investigation and Enforcement (MFP). This article also highlights remarks made by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Andrew Finch on May 31, 2018 in international antitrust cooperation.

Germany Charges Syrian Air Force Intelligence with Crimes against Humanity

Friday, June 15, 2018
Author: 
Bruce Zagaris
Volume: 
34
Issue: 
6
Abstract: 

On June 8, 2018, Germany’s chief prosecutor issued an international arrest warrant for Jamil Hassan, who has lead Syria’s Air Force Intelligence since 2009.  The filing of charges against Hassan marks an important milestone for victims and governments who are trying to hold senior members of the Assad security apparatus liable for their alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes.

 

Trump Reverses ZTE Penalties in Exchange for Trade Concessions

Friday, June 15, 2018
Author: 
Bruce Zagaris
Volume: 
34
Issue: 
6
Abstract: 

On June 7, 2018, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced that Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, of Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Corporation”) and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. of Hi-New Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Kangxun”) (collectively, “ZTE”) has agreed to severe additional penalties and compliance measures to replace the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (VIS) denial order imposed as a result of ZTE’s violations of its March 2017 settlement agreement.  The new agreement requires ZTE to pay $1 billion and place an additional $400 million in suspended penalty money in escrow before BIS will remove ZTE from the Denied Persons List.  The penalties are in addition to the $892 million in penalties ZTE has already paid to the U.S. government under the March 2017 settlement agreement.

Russia’s Existing and Anticipated Measures in Response to the U.S., E.U. And Other States’ International Economic Sanctions

Friday, June 15, 2018
Author: 
Alexander Vaneev and Denis Durashkin
Volume: 
34
Issue: 
6
Abstract: 

On June 4th, 2018 the President of the Russian Federation (“President”) signed into Federal Law No 127-FZ “On measures of reaction (counteraction) to adversarial actions of the United States of America and other foreign states” (“Anti-sanctions law,” “Law”) which became effective the same day.

Russian and Syrian Nationals Charged with Laundering Money Earned in Violation of Syrian Sanctions

Friday, June 15, 2018
Author: 
Bruce Zagaris
Volume: 
34
Issue: 
6
Abstract: 

On June 12, 2018, an indictment charges eight businessmen, including five Russian nationals and three Syrian nationals, for conspiring to violate U.S. economic sanctions against Syria and Crimea, by sending jet fuel to Syria and making U.S. dollar wires to Syria and to sanctioned entities in Syria without receiving a license  from U.S. Treasury Department.  The indictment was returned in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Fugitive Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Defrauding U.S. Government After Honduras Returns Him

Friday, June 8, 2018
Author: 
Bruce Zagaris
Volume: 
34
Issue: 
6
Abstract: 

On June 4, 2018, Eric Christopher Conn, 58, of Pikeville, Kentucky, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, one count of conspiracy to escape, and one count of conspiracy to retaliate against an informant.

U.S. Charges Former Armenian Ambassador and Russian National in Rolls Royce Related Bribery and Money Laundering Scheme

Friday, June 8, 2018
Author: 
Bruce Zagaris
Volume: 
34
Issue: 
6
Abstract: 

On May 24, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a superseding indictment charging two employees of an international engineering consulting firm for their alleged participation in a scheme to launder briber payments to foreign government officials for the benefit of a Columbus, Ohio-based subsidiary of Rolls-Royce plc, to obtain a contract to supply equipment and services to power a gas pipeline from Kazakhstan to China.

European Court of Human Rights Rules Against Lithuania and Romania in CIA Rendition Cases

Friday, June 8, 2018
Author: 
Michael Plachta
Volume: 
34
Issue: 
6
Abstract: 
On May 31, 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg delivered its judgments in a case of Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania (application no. 46454/11) and Al Nashiri v. Romania (application no. 33234/12). These rulings are extremely comprehensive and well-researched – each spans over 300 pages.

Turkish Immunity and the Defense of American Ideals

Friday, June 8, 2018
Author: 
Maximilian Raileanu
Volume: 
34
Issue: 
6
Abstract: 

On May 11, 2018, Kasim Kurd and several others filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Republic of Turkey and five other defendants (two American citizens and three Canadian citizens) for the assault on allegedly peaceful protestors in D.C.  The two Americans are Sinan Narin and Eyup Yildirim, and the Canadians are Mahmut Ellialti, Alpkenan Dereci, and Ahmet Dereci.  The incident raises the following issues: (1) whether the Turkish government can be subjected to jurisdiction within the United States for the alleged incident, (2) whether the security guards involved in the incident could be added to this suit, and (3) what would the diplomatic ramifications be for allowing a U.S. court to have jurisdiction over these security guards?

Pages

Subscribe to International Enforcement Law Reporter RSS