• Hi Guest - Sign up now for Secret Santa 2024!
    Click here to sign up!
  • Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

The Letters - Update December 21, 2008

Mindflux said:
Ginseng said:
Mindflux said:
According to the trading with the enemies act, anything to come out of the countries listed in the act is illegal. Even an ashtray. Why Customs is now releasing cigar boxes to the recipient is beyond me, since they were manufactured in Cuba henceforth they are illegal for a US citizen to own, just as an ashtray made in Cuba would be.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that in the "old days" Customs would slit the cigars lengthwise with a knife and then send the mutilated cigars on to the recipient. Sending through empty boxes is perhaps a bit less provocative, but the objective is the same: to personalize and drive home the fact that you have committed a no-no.

Since you mentioned it, I should clarify that to date, I have been banned from exactly one cigar forum. In that case, apparently the admins believed I was not appropriately supportive of a poster's use of the term "n*gg*r". I'm proud to have been cast out.

Wilkey
Click to expand...

Wilkey,
I didn't know you were banned, I thought you had requested removal (as a few other members did). I had mentioned I felt that losing you was a bad thing. I value your input even if we don't see eye to eye.

On the slit cigars, or empty boxes. Both of these are 'no-no's for government officials. They are 'technically' not doing their job by allowing contraband from a country on that act on to US Soil. None of us can guess why it happens other than some seedy Custom's agents are getting a rise out of it. I bet if it was known fact by someone who cared they'd get their hand slapped for letting items come through, dismembered or not.
Click to expand...

Good for those guys! :thumbs:

Rob
 
Ginseng said:
UPDATE: September 25, 2007
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
Click to expand...

Can the online payment provider be identified or is that bad form? Thanks!
 
[quote name='Smok'em' post='550778' date='Oct 3 2007, 10:00 AM'][quote name='Ginseng' post='411744' date='Dec 20 2006, 09:53 PM']UPDATE: September 25, 2007
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[/quote]

Can the online payment provider be identified or is that bad form? Thanks!
[/quote]


The payment provider has no problem giving up the people that use their service.
 
[quote name='Smok'em' post='550778' date='Oct 3 2007, 07:00 AM']Can the online payment provider be identified or is that bad form? Thanks![/quote]
The payment provider has been identified...go back a few pages and read the posts. :D

I'm not going to write the name, it will be bad kama for me.. :laugh:

Brian
 
Until he starts indicating that he's done got horizontal with Ms. Alba, I'll continue to take Wilkey's word as Gospel.

If he says he's seen something, then he has. No need to post copies of things that the recipients probably don't want posted, redacted or not.
 
I missed the back and forth with Mindflux on this subject. The purpose of this thread was to inform our community of the issue some are experiencing. If Wilkey stated that he had definitive proof then that is what it is. Will posting a document make you feel better about the situation?

I don't need to see the letter(s) in question to know what is happening out there. One of my friends did in fact receive a letter from the time frame in question and I believe him like I believe Wilkey. I cautioned about this discussion in an early post as I thought that some people don't learn even when informed. That's why the Darwin Awards are out there. I think the thread has reached its end as an educational tool. For those that don't understand the warning then there is nothing more Wilkey or CP can do for you!
 
tone-ny said:
I missed the back and forth with Mindflux on this subject. The purpose of this thread was to inform our community of the issue some are experiencing. If Wilkey stated that he had definitive proof then that is what it is. Will posting a document make you feel better about the situation?

I don't need to see the letter(s) in question to know what is happening out there. One of my friends did in fact receive a letter from the time frame in question and I believe him like I believe Wilkey. I cautioned about this discussion in an early post as I thought that some people don't learn even when informed. That's why the Darwin Awards are out there. I think the thread has reached its end as an educational tool. For those that don't understand the warning then there is nothing more Wilkey or CP can do for you!
Click to expand...
Anthony,

Thanks for saying what I've been thinking. This is the most compact, comprehensive, high content/BS ratio thread out there on the net. If that's not enough there isn't a thing I can do to make it any better.

What members in good standing here at CP understand is that I have worked hard to establish a reputation based on trust and competence. Competence I seek to demonstrate whenever I post. Trust that I use to bring information to the community while minimizing risk to myself, my fellow members, or the providers of that information. That means I make judgments about what information to present and how to present it. I'm keenly aware of the double-edged sword that comes with trust: power and responsibility. I would rather give it all up than violate that trust.

I do think it's time to close the thread. I've been fielding inquiries pretty much every week this thread has been up and I think it's time to take a break from it. I'm going to ask Rod to lock this thread and leave it up as a record. If I know you, then please feel free to contact me to find out if anything new has come up. If you are recently registered and/or have 0 posts, please read the thread but do not PM me unless you have verifiable information to add. Anything I feel safe in publicly presenting is already here.

Thanks, everyone, for your indulgence. I toyed with writing a summary statement but I just don't have the time. The bottom line is that if one does not buy or has not bought, then one is safe. There is no other way. If one has bought or continues to buy, then one is at risk. Of course there are details and nuances, but that is the heart of it.

Best,
Wilkey
 
Wilkey,
Anyway to ask Rod to lock it to everyone other than you? Just for the reason that I find this a very informative thread, and I look foward to seeing the occasional update from time to time. I would hate to see it shut down due to the last bit of posting. The way I see it if Rod agrees to this....You can either choose to read, or not to read.



BTW, I would question you, but never your reputation, so please don't take too long of a break. ;)
 
Just came across a letter from:

The Department Of Treasury Dated June 23 2008.
Letter is pertaining to an Asia-Pacific region vendor who has been the prime target of the OFAC actions with exact dollar amount from a transaction that happened in 2005.


This is the W-letter as it is referred to originally in this post.

It appears that they are continueing to issues these letters.

Just a heads up to anyone who had dealings with this particular vendor. Dont't be surpised if you receive someting in the next cple months.

Hopefully this witch hunt dies down after the elections!
gallery_1349_634_191.gif
 
Ahhh, I didn't notice this before:

"was reported to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "

It's these departments that are gathering data! Hmmmm.

Here's an interesting report from last year by the GAO.

Page 49 has some interesting info!

"
Although the Cuba embargo is one of more than 20 sanctions programs that the agency administers, OFAC data show that from 2000 through 2005, Cuba embargo cases— most involving unlicensed travel and imports of Cuba cigars—accounted for over 70 percent of the agency's total penalty cases. However, in 2006, the number of fines collected fell to 290 and Cuba embargo cases accounted for 29 percent of total penalty cases (see fig. 5.). OFAC said that this decline reflected a decision to focus more resources on penalizing violations of other sanctions programs. Similarly, according to OFAC, the decline in the average value of fines collected for Cuba embargo cases after 2001 reflects a decision to better utilize agency resources by issuing warning letters rather than penalties or by informally settling with offenders for lower fines than might have been assessed through the formal penalty process"​
​
​
​
...and pg50:​
"However, OFAC said that compared with violations of other sanctions, most Cuba embargo violations involving individual travel or imports are simpler and involve repetitive fact patterns, resulting in more efficient processing and requiring fewer resources. "​
 
tone-ny said:
Cohibacigars said:
Any new info?
Click to expand...


I hear they are knocking on doors, looking for everyone that has Cohiba in their screen name. :0
Click to expand...

:sign:

Your comment inspired me to look up all the members with Cohiba in their screen name, and I was surprised to only find 10. Interestingly enough, 50% of those with Cohiba in their screen name have never made a single post. They must be locked up for a good long time :0
 
Seems to be an uptick in the number of W-letters in the past month or two. No new reports of R-letters in any of the communities I frequent.

Same purchase timeframe as they were targeting at the end of last year, mid-late 2005.

Wilkey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top