NRI CEO jailed 35 months to sell US missile technology to India

Washington, June 16, 2008
Ashok Mehta

NRI Parthasarathy Sudarshan,47, the CEO of Cirrus Electronics, offices in South Carolina, Singapore and Bangalore, was sentenced 35 months in jail for exporting computer technology and electronic parts to Indian defence company involved in development of ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles and fighter jets. Sudarshan was arrested on March 23 and held without bail.

The prosecutors said:

• Sudarshan ordered computer equipment from U.S. manufacturers using falsified documents about their destination.
• The parts were allegedly shipped to India through Cirrus offices in South Carolina and Singapore.
• The computer equipment included heat-resistant memory chips, capacitors, microprocessors and semiconductors used in missile guidance systems and firing systems. The electronics equipment shipped to three companies:
  • The Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, which researches spacecraft and ballistic missiles
  • Bharat Dynamics Ltd., a key agency in the nation's guided missile program
  • The Aeronautical Development Establishment, which is developing the Tejas combat jet. Sudarshan admitted to acquiring microprocessors and illegally exporting 500 of them in 2004 and 2006.

He took direction from a coconspirator who was identified only as an Indian government official in Washington, according to the case filed . He also admitted to a scheme to conceal the true destination for electronic parts.

NRI Akn Prasad, the head of Cirrus at its office in Bangalore and NRI Sampath Sundar, director at Singapore office, were indicted and have not been arrested

The State Department of Commerce must license and require prior authorization to export of the products, because the microprocessors are on the US Munitions List.

 

---

Federal Register: June 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 32279-32281]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12jn07-23]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

Action Affecting Export Privileges; Cirrus Electronics LLC et al.

In the Matter of: Cirrus Electronics LLC, 201 Huddersville
Drive, Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681-3703; and 22 Redglobe
Court, Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681-3615; Cirrus Electronics
Pte Ltd., Level 3, ECON Building, No. 2, Ang Mo Kio Street 64, Ang
Mo Kio Industrial Park 3, Singapore; Cirrus Electronics Marketing
(P) Ltd., 303 Suraj Ganga Arcade, 332/7, 15th Cross 2nd
Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, India; Parthasarathy Sudarshan,
Managing Director, CEO, President, and Group Head of Cirrus, 201
Huddersville Drive, Simpsonsville, South Carolina 29681-3703; and 22
Redglobe Court, Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681-3615; Mythili
Gopal, International Manager of Cirrus, 201 Huddersville Drive,
Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681-3703; and 22 Redglobe Court,
Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681-3615; Akn Prasad, CEO of India
Operations of Cirrus, 303 Suraj Ganga Arcade, 332/7, 15th
Cross 2nd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, India; Sampath Sundar,
Director of Operations of Cirrus, Cirrus Electronics Pte Ltd., Level
3, ECON Building, No. 2, Ang Mo Kio Street 64, Ang Mo Kio Industrial
Park 3, Singapore, Respondents.

Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges

Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations
(``EAR''),\1\ the Bureau of Industry and Security (``BIS''), U.S.
Department of Commerce, through its Office of Export Enforcement
(``OEE''), has requested that I issue an Order temporarily denying the
export privileges under the EAR of:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The EAR are currently codified at 15 CFR Parts 730-774
(2007). The EAR are issued under the Export Administration Act of
1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420 (2000)) (``EAA''). Since
August 21, 2001, the EAA has been in lapse and the President,
through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp.
783 (2002)), as extended by the Notice of August 3, 2006 (71 FR
44551 (August 7, 2006)), has continued the Regulations in effect
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701-1706 (2000)) (``IEEPA'').

(1) Cirrus Electronics, doing business as Cirrus Electronics
LLC, 201 Huddersville Drive, Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681-3703
and 22 Redglobe Court, Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681-3615
(``Cirrus U.S.A.'').
(2) Cirrus Electronics Pte Ltd., Level 3, ECON Building, No. 2,
Ang Mo Kio Street 64, Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 3, Singapore
(``Cirrus Singapore'').
(3) Cirrus Electronics Marketing (P) Ltd., 303 Suraj
Ganga Arcade, 332/7, 15th Cross 2nd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore,
India (``Cirrus India'').
(4) Parthasarathy Sudarshan, Managing Director, CEO, President,
and Group Head of Cirrus, 201 Huddersville Drive, Simpsonville,
South Carolina 29681-3703 and 22 Redglobe Court, Simpsonville, South
Carolina 29681-3615.
(5) Mythili Gopal, International Manager of Cirrus, 201
Huddersville Drive, Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681-3703 and 22
Redglobe Court, Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681-3615.
(6) Akn Prasad, CEO of India Operations of Cirrus, 303
Suraj Ganga Arcade, 332/7, 15th Cross 2nd Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore, India.
(7) Sampath Sundar, Director of Operations of Cirrus, Cirrus
Electronics Pte Ltd., Level 3, ECON Building, No. 2, Ang Mo Kio
Street 64, Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 3, Singapore.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as the ``Respondents'') for 180
days.
In its request, BIS has presented evidence that shows that the
Respondents knowingly engaged in conduct prohibited by the EAR and took
actions to evade the EAR by shipping items through Singapore and
concealing the true identity of the end-users. The Respondents
participated in the export of items subject to the EAR to two end-users
on the Entity List set forth in Supp. 4 to Part 744 of the EAR without
the export licenses required by Section 744.1 of the EAR.
Specifically, the evidence shows that on at least five occasions
between on or about September 30, 2005 and on or about April 17, 2006,
the Respondents exported items subject to the EAR from the United
States to the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (``VSSC'') and Bharat
Dynamics Ltd. (``BDL'') in India without the license required by
Section 744.1 of the EAR. VSSC and BDL are

[[Page 32280]]

organizations set forth on the Entity List set forth in Supplement No.
4 to Part 744 of the EAR. On two occasions on or about March 24, 2006
and on or about April 17, 2006, the Respondents exported Static Random
Access Memory computer chips, items subject to the EAR and classified
under Export Control Classification Number 3A001.a.2.c., to VSSC. These
items are controlled for national security reasons and required a
license for export to Singapore, India, and VSSC. On three occasions on
or about September 30, 2005, November 5, 2005, and January 14, 2006,
the Respondents exported semiconductors and capacitors, items subject
to the EAR (``EAR99'') to BDL. These items have applications in missile
guidance and firing systems and required a license for export to BDL.
In each instance, the items were shipped from the United States to
Singapore for subsequent shipment to VSSC and BDL. The Respondents were
aware of the Entity List licensing requirements and on at least one
occasion provided an end-user statement to a U.S. vendor that falsely
represented the end-user in order to conceal the intended actual end
user, VSSC, of the vendor's items.
I find that the evidence presented by BIS demonstrates that the
Respondents have knowingly violated the EAR, that such violations have
been deliberate and covert, and that there is a likelihood of future
violations, particularly given the nature of the transactions. As such,
a Temporary Denial Order (``TDO'') is needed to give notice to persons
and companies in the United States and abroad that they should cease
dealing with the Respondents in export transactions involving items
subject to the EAR. Such a TDO is consistent with the public interest
to preclude future violations of the EAR.
Accordingly, I find that a TDO naming Cirrus USA, its two offices
in Singapore and India, Cirrus Singapore and Cirrus India,
respectively, and its four officers, Parthasarathy Sudarshan, Mythili
Gopal, Akn Prasad, and Sampath Sundar, as Respondents is necessary, in
the public interest, to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR. This
Order is issued on an ex parte basis without a hearing based upon BIS's
showing of an imminent violation.
It is therefore ordered:
First, that the Respondents, CIRRUS ELECTRONICS LLC, 201
Huddersville Drive, Simpsonville, South Carolina, 29681-3703 and 22
Redglobe Court, Simpsonville, South Carolina, 29681-3615, and Cirrus
Electronics Pte Ltd., Level 3, ECON Building, No. 2, Ang Mo Kio Street
64, Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 3, Singapore, and Cirrus Electronics
Marketing (P) Ltd., 303 Suraj Ganga Arcade, 332/7, 15th Cross
2nd Block, Jayanagar, Banglalore, India, and Parthsarsathy Sudarshan,
Managing Director, CEO, President, and Group Head of Cirrus, 201
Huddersville Drive, Simpsonville, South Carolina, 29681-3703, and 22
Redglobe Court, Simpsonville, South Carolina, 29681-3615, and Mythili
Gopal, International Manager of Cirrus, 201 Huddersville Drive,
Simpsonville, South Carolina, 29681-3703 and 22 Redglobe Court,
Simpsonville, South Carolina, 29681-3615, and Akn Prasad, CEO of India
Operations of Cirrus, 303 Suraj Ganga Arcade, 332/7, 15th
Cross 2nd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, India, and Sampath Sundar,
Director of Operations of Cirrus, Cirrus Electronics Pte Ltd., Level 3,
ECON Building, No. 2, Ang Mo Kio Street 64, Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park
3, Singapore (collectively the ``Denied Persons''), may not, directly
or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any
commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to
as ``item'') exported or to be exported from the United States that is
subject to the Export Administration Regulations (``EAR''), or in any
other activity subject to the EAR, including, but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License
Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of,
forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way,
any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the
United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity
subject to the EAR; or
C. Benefiting in any way from any transaction involving any item
expected or to be exported from the United States that is subject to
the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.
Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the
following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Persons any
item subject to the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted
acquisition by the Denied Persons of the ownership, possession, or
control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be
exported from the United States, including financing or other support
activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Persons acquires
or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition
or attempted acquisition from the Denied Persons of any item subject to
the EAR that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Persons in the United States any item
subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will
be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR
that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is
owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Persons, or service any
item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the
Denied Persons if such service involves the use of any item subject to
the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For
purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance,
repair, modification or testing.
Third, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided
in section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or
business organization related to any of the Denied Persons by
affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the
conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the
provisions of this Order.
Fourth, that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or
other transaction subject to the EAR where the only items involved that
are subject to the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-
origin technology.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the EAR,
the Respondents may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full
written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the
Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40
South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR,
BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request with the
Assistant Secretary not later than 20 days before the expiration date
and serving the request on the Respondents. The Respondents may oppose
a request to renew this Order by filing a written submission with the
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement, which must be
received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the
Order.
A copy of this Order shall be served on the Respondents and shall
be published in the Federal Register.

[[Page 32281]]

This Order is effective upon date of publication in the Federal
Register and shall remain in effect for 180 days.

Entered this 1st day of June, 2007.
Darryl W. Jackson,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 07-2899 Filed 6-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M