The Letters - Update December 21, 2008

[interleukin2]

Thanks Wilkey for your dedication to the group. If you are ever around the Boston Area I will buy you a cigar
Cheers
-H

 

[jfields]

Thanks for all of your hard work on this Wilkey. I have learned a lot from this thread. :whistling:
And, from you in general.

 

[mmburtch]

It seems that the article could have been written by someone who read this thread.

It still does not say HOW they are obtaining the information.

Thanks for your work, Wilkey!

I agree with what Grateful1 has said. The article seems to be a broad generalization of the facts and a general "heads up" tone associated with the reporting.

Furthermore, there were a couple of loose ends not tied up (I believe Wilkey was in the process of finding out some answers):

1) what order are the OFAC folks using to send letters. For example, there are various offenders who have been caught between the years of 2002 and 2006, however the list shows inconsistencies in when those penalized purchased their cigars.

2) as stated above, HOW did OFAC come upon these transaction lists? This seems to be the most mysterious aspect of all the occurrences to date. Was it from third party payment institutions?

I suppose more information could be gleaned from hard work, but in the end I'd like to personally thank Wilkey for all that he's personally done on this most informative thread.

Darren

Gary,
I agree.

Darren,
There are a few fundamental questions that remain unanswered. You've identified some of the hottest. Rest assured, I won't stop digging. I'm simply saying that unless and until I learn anything significant, this thread will remain as it is. We're reverting to a condition of greater discretion.

Wilkey

The question I would add, is "why now?" What changed that the OFAC chose to, and was able to dig up this kind of information. Somehow I think some cigar smokers have become bonus causalities of the war on terror.

 

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

It seems that the article could have been written by someone who read this thread.

It still does not say HOW they are obtaining the information.

Thanks for your work, Wilkey!

I agree with what Grateful1 has said. The article seems to be a broad generalization of the facts and a general "heads up" tone associated with the reporting.

Furthermore, there were a couple of loose ends not tied up (I believe Wilkey was in the process of finding out some answers):

1) what order are the OFAC folks using to send letters. For example, there are various offenders who have been caught between the years of 2002 and 2006, however the list shows inconsistencies in when those penalized purchased their cigars.

2) as stated above, HOW did OFAC come upon these transaction lists? This seems to be the most mysterious aspect of all the occurrences to date. Was it from third party payment institutions?

I suppose more information could be gleaned from hard work, but in the end I'd like to personally thank Wilkey for all that he's personally done on this most informative thread.

Darren

Gary,
I agree.

Darren,
There are a few fundamental questions that remain unanswered. You've identified some of the hottest. Rest assured, I won't stop digging. I'm simply saying that unless and until I learn anything significant, this thread will remain as it is. We're reverting to a condition of greater discretion.

Wilkey

The question I would add, is "why now?" What changed that the OFAC chose to, and was able to dig up this kind of information. Somehow I think some cigar smokers have become bonus causalities of the war on terror.

Well that and the current admin is grandstanding on enforcement of the embargo to impress the Florida vote....

 

[Lkyman]

Thanks for all the research and information Wilkey

 

[Mike33]

I guess what I am most surprised about is the amount and number of fines. Only two all of last year and seven so far this year? Granted that's almost a 400% increase, but it still is the proverbial drop-in-the-bucket. I, like the others, sure would like to know how they get their information and on what legal grounds they have come up with it.

Thanks Wilkey for all your efforts :thumbs:

 

[audilicious]

shouldn't names and sources also be published as public record?

not sure how they're getting away with this and not releasing anything other than threatening fine amounts through a newspaper.

 

[Mindflux]

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
OFAC has assessed a penalty against the following entity:

INDIVIDUALS – 31 CFR 501.805 (d)(1)(ii)
One individual has agreed to a settlement totaling $10,000 for alleged travel-related transactions
incident to travel to Cuba: From May through December 2002, the individual engaged in travelrelated
transactions, including the purchase of food and lodging. The individual traveled to and from
Cuba through a third country.

One individual has agreed to a settlement totaling $2,892.75 for allegedly dealing in property in
which Cuba or a Cuban national had an interest: On December 30, 2004, May 29, 2005, February
28, 2006, March 28, 2006, August 21, 2006, and September 14, 2006, the individual purchased Cubanorigin
cigars offered for sale on the Internet. The individual did not voluntarily disclose this matter to
OFAC.

One individual was assessed a penalty totaling $200.00 for allegedly dealing in property in which
Cuba or a Cuban national had an interest: On or about October 14, 2003, February 27, 2003, May
23, 2003 and November 3, 2003, the individual sent four payments for the purchase of Cuban-origin
cigars offered for sale on the Internet. The individual did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC.


This stuff popped up today on OFAC's page. Some of it is for purchases made in 06.

 

[mrtapes]

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
OFAC has assessed a penalty against the following entity:

INDIVIDUALS – 31 CFR 501.805 (d)(1)(ii)

One individual was assessed a penalty totaling $200.00 for allegedly dealing in property in which
Cuba or a Cuban national had an interest: On or about October 14, 2003, February 27, 2003, May
23, 2003 and November 3, 2003, the individual sent four payments for the purchase of Cuban-origin
cigars offered for sale on the Internet. The individual did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC.

Makes you wonder what the guy who got fined over 6K purchased?
He must have bought a ton of smokes!

 

[Turk10mm]

Hello, and this is my first post here. I just wanted to say thanks for the information gathered in this post. I'm a new cigar smoker, who found the passion while traveling in Central America. I've recently purchased a Humidor and I've begun stocking it with legally procured cigars of varying brands and types, trying to find my "favorites." Enough of the introduction, I just wanted to give a little background about myself before members noticed that I'm a brand spanking neophite to this website, and the culture.

If this post is out of context, or inappropriate, I apologize ahead of time and will modify it without a question.

Considering the types of fines has increased to include travel and other forms of purchase, my assumation only, would be that the information must be coming from the method of payment. I'm fairly confident that any business run outside of the United States would not give information to US government authorities, damaging their own potential sales market. That would lead back to the proverbial "Shooting yourself in the foot."

I'm also fairly certain that major monetary transaction corporations will fully cooperate with federal requests for private information. These companies are not being damaged by doing this, and if anything are probably viewed favorably in the eyes of the government for their cooperation.

New Homeland Security laws have given the government much more power for internal investigations in matters that were once considered private and protected. It is unfortunate that these laws are being used in ways that weren't intended, but it is part of the culture of America in the 21st century.


EDIT.. I'm sure all of this is fairly obvious, but I haven't seen anyone say as much..

 

[Ginseng]

The hammer has dropped.

Recent reports are coming to light regarding multiple seizures of packages from the Asia-Pacific region vendor who has been the prime target of the OFAC actions.

This vendor should be regarded as a permanent "no buy" option.

Wilkey

 

[badhangover]

Agreed. It seems that PCC has finally realized their wish of tighter control over their region.

 

[grateful1]

The hammer has dropped.

Recent reports are coming to light regarding multiple seizures of packages from the Asia-Pacific region vendor who has been the prime target of the OFAC actions.

This vendor should be regarded as a permanent "no buy" option.

Wilkey

That's what I'm hearing! Thanks Wilkey!

 

[vortex]

The hammer has dropped.

Recent reports are coming to light regarding multiple seizures of packages from the Asia-Pacific region vendor who has been the prime target of the OFAC actions.

This vendor should be regarded as a permanent "no buy" option.

Wilkey

Reminds me of the supermarket checkout lane! No matter which lane I pick, it's the one with the price check.

I'll let you know in a few days if I jinxed this lane, if you can read between the lanes!

 

[grateful1]

I wonder if there's a correlation:
Listen to the music play...

 

[Fia]

I guess what I am most surprised about is the amount and number of fines. Only two all of last year and seven so far this year? Granted that's almost a 400% increase, but it still is the proverbial drop-in-the-bucket. I, like the others, sure would like to know how they get their information and on what legal grounds they have come up with it.

Thanks Wilkey for all your efforts :thumbs:

Im beginning to hear of more and more letters and fines that BOTLs are getting on the boards so I think it is becoming more than just a drop in the bucket!

 

[vortex]

The hammer has dropped.

Recent reports are coming to light regarding multiple seizures of packages from the Asia-Pacific region vendor who has been the prime target of the OFAC actions.

This vendor should be regarded as a permanent "no buy" option.

Wilkey

Reminds me of the supermarket checkout lane! No matter which lane I pick, it's the one with the price check.

I'll let you know in a few days if I jinxed this lane, if you can read between the lanes!

Just reporting back that all went well - this time. However, I will heed the advise of my steamed colleague.

BTW, I don't for one second think the HS laws weren't intended to nullify the Bill of Rights. Since that "law" was passed, many others of it's ilk have sailed through congress unchallenged. Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. It wasn't read by a single member of congress.

 

[fragle2]

So basically the moral of the story is do not buy from the asian pacific region. Right?

 

[Ginseng]

So basically the moral of the story is do not buy from the asian pacific region. Right?

I think that would be a prudent move.

I have finally received definitive evidence that the premier online payment provider with which we are familiar and which has been shown to be aggressively anti-tobacco in any incarnation is turning customer transaction information over directly to OFAC. This came in the form of an R-letter from OFAC citing this provider specifically and by name as the intermediary between the buyer and the vendor (also cited by name). The exact amount of the purchase was also detailed down to the penny.

Confiscations of the original type are still occurring and R-letters are still being received. Public awareness and attention, however, seems to have waned. I would not take the recent decrease in publicly reported actions by OFAC to be an indicator that their rate of actions has decreased.

Wilkey

 

[Mindflux]

Still seems more like a payment processor thing than a vendor thing. I ordered from the Asia Paccific a few weeks ago (ashtray *cough*) and it got here fine.