BIS advises financial institutions to guard against EAR violations through: (1) screening against export lists, (2) enhanced due diligence for high-risk transactions, (3) derisking, and (4) reporting and self-disclosing EAR violations. The BIS guidance reiterates FIs’ obligation to file suspicious activity reports (SARs) as directed in three prior FinCEN-BIS alerts.
MassPoint Principal Hdeel Abdelhady will participate in the American University Law Review Federal Circuit Symposium, as a panelist on international trade and technology.
Several pieces of legislation are pending in Congress to more comprehensively shore up the U.S. position in the U.S.-China technology race. The Strategic Competition Act of 2021 illustrates clearly the official U.S. view of academia’s role in the U.S.-China technology race, and the links between U.S. policies and legal measures to regulate foreign access to U.S. science and technology within and across the private, public, and academic sectors.
After the 2016 Presidential election, MassPoint PLLC published five issues to watch in 2017 (and beyond). We revisit our predictions on the five issues, which we expect to remain watch-worthy under the Biden Administration.
U.S. Controls Over Foreign Access to and Influence on Technology and Research in 2020: A Quick Guide U.S. companies, academic and research institutions,…
Perceiving China’s technological ascendance as a threat, the United States has imposed defensive legal measures, including export controls, to curb foreign access to U.S. technology by illicit and lawful means. The approach has bipartisan backing across the U.S. government.
After talks with China’s president at the G20 summit in Japan, President Trump announced on June 29 that “he would allow” U.S. companies to continue to sell “product” to Huawei. The statement, construed by some as a “concession” or “reversal” of U.S. policy toward Huawei, has generated confusion and disagreement from China “hawks” in Congress and elsewhere. This rundown of Huawei legal and policy issues discusses the presidential statement, its lack of legal effect to date, its context, and why technology industry stakeholders need to understand the complete U.S.-China technology picture to navigate developments and mitigate risk.
China might take a targeted approach to any restrictions on rare earth elements that echoes, or effectively duplicates, the approach of the United States, which is to control exports based on “end use” and “end user” where one or both conflict with or potentially undermine U.S. national security interests (which include technological leadership and economic security).
The U.S. government has adopted and is implementing a “whole-of-government” strategy to counter China. The whole-of-government approach entails a range of legal and policy measures to curb China’s access to U.S. technology, by lawful and unlawful means. These measures include, but are not limited to, stricter curbs on foreign investment in U.S. technology; restrictions on exports of “emerging technologies” like artificial intelligence; exclusions of Chinese firms from U.S. government and private supply chains through company bans; prosecutions of intellectual property theft; measures to counter “academic espionage” in American academic and research institutions; and, indirectly, and, indirectly, sanctions enforcement.