## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3000 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D O LI S YAR IE F P UL UNG AN, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07- CR-144-BBC

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D M AY 15, 2009

— D ECIDED J UNE 15, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judge, a nd B AUERa nd F LA UM, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . F ede r al l aw pr o hibi ts the exporto f“ de fe ns e a r t i c l e s ” wi tho uta l i c e ns e . 2 2 U. S
. C. §277 8. A “defense ar ti cl e” i s an y item o n the U ni ted S ta tes M uni ti o ns Li st, whi ch§ 27 78 ( a) a utho r i ze s th e Pres i dent to p ro m ulg ate
. The Pre si dent has del ega ted that pow erto the St ate Dep ar tm ent’ s Di re cto ra te ofDefense Trade Contro l s. The M unit i ons Listi ncl ud es “[ r] i fl esco pes2 N o. 08

- 3000

m an u fac tu re d to m ilita ry sp ec ifica tio n s.” 22 C .F.R . § 1 21 .1 Catego ry1( f )
. Desi gnati ons ar e no t s ubj ect to j u d icial review
. 22 U
. S. C
. §2778 (h). D oliPu lun gan tri ed in 2007 to ex p ort 100 L eu p old M ark 4 CQ /T r i fl esco pe s ( mad e i n Or e g o n b y Le up o l d & ® ® S t e v e ns , I nc . )
. He p l a nn e d t o t r a ns s hi p thr o ugh S a ud i Arabi a to I ndo ne si a in ordert o c o nc ea l the de st i na ti o n, because hi s cl i ents tol d hi m that the U ni ted Sta te s had an em bar go on m i l i tar y e xports to I nd ones i a. There had been suc h an em b a r go betw een 1999 an d 2005, but th ere w as no ne w he n P ulu n g a n tried to acq uire an d exp ort th e ‘scop es. H e w as ch arged w ith viol ation of §2778(c), how ever, on the th eory th at th e L eu p old M a r k 4 CQ /T ri fl esco pe i s “ m anufa cture d to m i l i tar y s p eci fi cati ons. ” A j ury f ound him gui l ty of atte m pti ng to expor t defense ar tic les w ith ou t a lice n se , an d th e ju d ge se n te n c ed h im to 48 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. S e c t i o n 2 7 7 8( c) m a k e s i ta c r i me t o v i o l a t e ( o r a t t e mpt to vi ol ate ) any part of §277 8 “w i l l fully”. The parti es agr ee th at “w illfu lly” m ea n s w ith kn ow led ge th at a lice n se is re quir ed. Pul ungan conce des thathe att em pted to acqui re and exportLeup ol d M ar k 4 CQ/T ri fl esco pes to I ndo ne si a wi th o ut a l i ce ns e. But he co nt en ds th at th e pr o se cut i o n di d n ot p ro ve tha t th es e ‘ sc o pes a r e “manuf a c t ur e d t o mi l i t a r y s pe c i fi c a t i o ns ”

— an d th at, eve n if they ar e s o m anufa cture d, he di d not know i t a nd ther ef or e l acke d the r equi re d m entalst ate
. Pulungan c ont en ds that the pr ose cuti on m ust pro ve, beyon d a reas ona ble d ou bt, th at th e L eu p old M ark 4 C Q /T ri fl esco pe w as “m anufa cture d to m i l i tar y s peci fi ca-N o. 08

- 3000 3 ti ons”

—j ust a s the pro secuti on m ust pro ve i n a pr ose cuti on f o r di st r ibut i ngc o ca i ne tha t th e su bs ta nc e i s co ca i ne ra th er th an s u g ar . Th e p ro se c u to r ad d re ss ed th is t op ic thro ugh the tes ti m ony ofA nthony Dear th, wh o tes ti fi ed th at th e Di r ec to r at e o f Defen se Tr ade Con tr o l s ha s concl ud ed that the Leupol d M ar k 4 CQ/T i s “ m anu factur ed to m ilita ryspeci fi cati ons”

—but he w oul d not s ay w hat thos e s peci fi cati ons ar e o r w hy the Dir ecto ra te bel i eve s th atthe M ar k4 CQ/T i s “manuf ac tu r ed to” the m . The de c i s i o n i t s e l fwa s n o tp r o du c e d. A fterDear th test i fi ed, the pros ecuto r ask ed the j ud ge to ins tr u c t t h e jur y t h at, as a m at te r of law , th e L eu p old M ark 4 C Q /T riflescop e is “m an ufac tu red to m il itary spe ci fi ca ti o ns . ” The j udg e g av e th e r eque sted ins truct i o n, tak i ng the i ssue out of the j ury’ s hand s. The j u d ge ag r ee d wi ththe pr o se cut o r tha t §2 77 8( h) pr ev ent s an y i nquir y, byei therj u dge o r j ury, i nto the pr opri etyo fan i te m ’ s cl as si fi ca ti o n. The j udg e co nfi r m ed th i s r ul i ng aft er tria l w h en d en yin g P u lu n ga n ’s m ot ion for a c q u itt al. 561 F. S up p. 2d 10 19 ( W
. D. W i s. 20 08)
. Pul ungan dis pu tes thi s unde r st an di ngo f§ 27 78 ( h) a nd a dds th at, i fthe pr o s e c ut o r i s r i g ht, the n the d efe nd a nt ’ s s i xth a men dm en t ri ght t o tr i albyj ury superse des the sta tute. S ee U nite d State s v. G audin , 5 15 U. S
. 5 06 ( 19 95 ) ( i n a pr o se cut i o n f o r f r a ud , the j ud g e mus t a l l o w the j ury to de c i de w hetherthe f als e statem ents w er e m ate ri al ; the j ud ge m ay not treat m ateriali ty as a m atter of l aw ). S ec ti o n 2 77 8( h) pr o vi des : “ The de si g na ti o n b y the Pres iden t (or by an offici al to w hom the P res id e n t ’s fun ctions
. . . h a ve bee n d uly d elegated ), i n regul at i ons4 N o. 08

- 3000 i ss ue d un de r thi s s e c t i o n, o f i t e ms a s de fe ns e a r t i c l es or defe nse s ervi ces f orpurposes o fthi s s ecti on s hal l notbe subj ect to j u d icia l r evi ew . ” ( Em phasi s a dd ed. ) S o i f22 C.F
. R. §1 21. 1 Cate gory 1 ( f ) r ead “a ny Leupol d M ark 4 C Q /T rifles c op e” , th at d es ign at ion w ou ld be inc on te st ab le ( ev entho ug h made b y the Di r ec to r at e r athe r th an the Pres i dent), and the questi on fo r the j ury w oul d be wh ether the i t e m that P ul un g a n t r i e d t o e xp o r twa s i nd e e d a Leu po l d M ar k4 CQ/T r i fl es co pe. I fPulung anha d c o nce ded th atthe Le upo l d M ar k4 CQ/T r i fl es co pe i s “manuf ac tu red to defe nse s peci fi cati ons”, he c oul d not av oid liab ility by arg u in g t h at th e M u n itio n s L istsh ou ld not re quir e l i censes f orthes e i tem s. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. M a rtinez , 90 4 F
. 2d 601 ( 11th Cir
. 19 90)
. But he does not c on c ed e t h at th e L eu p old M ar k 4 C Q /T ri f l e s c o p e is w ithin th e d om ain of 22 C.F. R
. §121.1 Ca tegory 1(f)

. The on ly regul at i on i s that “ [ r] i fl esco pes m anufa cture d to m ilita ry sp ec ifica tio n s” req u ire ex p o r t l ice n se s. It is eas y t o see w hy the r egul ati on’ s l anguage deal s with att ributes ra therthan nam es; an effor t t o enum er ate each i t e m w ou ld be futile, not on ly bec au se som e are bound to be o ver l oo ked ( i m agine a re gul ati on that tr i ed to lis t allbicycles by m an ufac tu rer and m od el num ber) but al so because m anufa cture rs change thei r desi gnati ons. T he M a r k 4 m ay be su cce ed ed by a M ark 5, or the C Q /T m odelm ay beco m e the CQ/X. But w hi l e a nar ra ti ve d es c rip tio n m ay be th e m os t s e n s ible w ay to p ro c ee d , i t a l s o l i mi t s the e ffe c t o f § 2 7 7 8 ( h)

. On l y mat e r i a l “ i n re gulations ” is cove red by tha t statu te. T he Directora te’s c on c l u s ion th at th e L eu p old M ar k 4 C Q /T rifles c op e is “manuf ac tu r ed to mil i ta r y sp eci fi ca ti o ns ” i s no t i n a regu lation and so i s un affected by §2778 (h).N o. 08

- 3000 5 The Di r ec to r at e’ s cl ai m o fa utho r i tyt o c l as si fy a ny ite m as a “d efe n se art icle ,” w ith ou t re ve alin g t h e b a s is o fthe de ci sion an d wi th o uta l l o wi nga ny i nqui r y b y the j u ry , w ou ld cr ea te se riou s c on st it u tio n al p ro b lem s. It w oul d al l ow the so rto fse cre t l aw thatPanam a Re f i ning Co. v. Ryan , 29 3 U
. S. 38 8 ( 1935 ) , co nd em ned. ( That cas e d ea lt w ith an u n p u b lish ed re gu lat ion th at re m ai n e d “in th e h ip pocketo fthe adm i ni str ato r, ” a se ri ous pr obl em apartfro m the nondele gat i on hol ding usual l y a sso ci ate d w i thPanam a Re

f i ni ng .) A r e g u lat ion is p u b lish ed for a ll to se e. Peopl e ca n adj ust thei r conduct to avo i d l i abi l i ty. A desi gnati on byan unnam ed offi ci al, usi ng unspeci fi ed cri ter i a, thati s put i n a deskdrawer, ta ken o ut o nl y for use a t a cr i m i nal tr i al, and i m m une fro m any eval uati on by the j ud i ci ar y, i s the so rto fta cti c usual l y a sso ci ate d w i th to tal i tar i an r égi m es. Governm ent m ust o perat e thro ug h publi c l aw s a nd r egul ati ons. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Farine ll a , 55 8 F
. 3d 695 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. Thus the U ni ted St at es m u st p ro ve , an d n otj u st as se rt, th at th e L eu p old M ark 4 C Q /T riflescop e is “m an ufac tu red to m il itary sp ec ifica tio n s.” I td o e s n o tn e c e s s a r i l y f o l l o w th a tp r o o fmu s tc o me i n o penco ur t. Cong r es s ha s m ade s o m e spe ci alpr o vi si o ns f orcl ass i fi ed i nfo rm ati on

— and b o ththe manuf ac tu r i ng det a i l s o fth e L e u p o l d Ma r k4 C Q /T r i fl e s c o p e a n d the preci se speci fica tio ns f orm i l i tar y ‘ sco pes m ay be c l a s s i fi e d a s s t a t e s e c r e t s ; s o me de t a i l s a l s o ma y b e t r a de secr ets
. U nti l Congr ess enac ted the Cl ass i fi ed I nfo rm ati on Proc ed ures A ct, 18 U
. S. C. A pp . 3 §§ 1–16 , defendants f re q u en tly en ga ge d in “ gr ey m ail”

— they thre ate ned to expose secr ets as the pri ce o fsucce ssful pros ecuti on, wh i ch6 N o. 08

- 3000 i nd uced the g ove rnm ent t o d i sm i ss the ind i ctm ents or pros ecute f orl ess se ri ous c ri m e. The Cl ass i fi ed I nfo rm ati on Pr oce du re s A c t is desi gned to al l ow d i sputes invol vi ngmate r i all eg i ti m at ely k epts ecret to be r es o l ve d wi th

out unnecessary publ i c di scl osur es. Pu l u n g a n ’ s l a wy e r s a i d a t o r a l a r g u me n t th athe h ad n otas ke d for a h ea rin g u n d er th is s ta tu te . N or d id th e pr o se cut o r o fferone. Both t o o ka n a l l

- o r - no th i ng appr o ac h: Pul un gande m an ded a publ i c j ur y t r i al, a nd the pr ose cutor t ot al s ecr ecy. W e nee d not deci de w hether ei ther l i ti gant has w ai ved or f or fei ted i ts posi tio n by di sda i ni ng the s ta tu to r y middl e g r o und

— o r whethe r a ny er r o r i s ha r m l es s ( Pul ung anha s n ever ar g ue d tha t th e M ar k 4 CQ/T ‘ sco pe i s no t a ctual l y a m i l

- spec pro du ct and didn’t askf oran e xpert to explo re thatsubj ect)

—be ca us e Pul ung ani s en ti tl ed t o pr ev ai l e ve n i fthe cri m i nal

-j usti ce s yst em m ust pro c ee d on the ass um pti on th at th e M ar k 4 C Q /T rifles c op e is a “d efe n se art icle .” I t i s no t e no ugh f o r the Le up o l d Ma r k4 CQ /T r i fl e s c o pe to bea “defense ar ti cl e. ” Pul ungan cannotbe convi c ted unl es s he kn ew thati t i s o ne, and th at l i censes ar e nec essa r y t o e xpo r t th em. The Uni te d S ta te s co nc ede s tha t th e wor d “ wi l l ful l y ” i n § 27 78 ( c) r equi r es it to pr o ve tha t th e defen dan t k ne w no t only th e m at er i alf ac ts b uta l so the l ega l rul es. ( W e need not deci de w hether th e concess i on i s co rr ect. “W i l l fu l l y” i s a not or i ousl y pl ast i c word. S ee B rya n v . U nited Sta tes , 524 U .S. 18 4 (1 99 8).) That the Dir ecto ra te’ s deter m i nati on about the s tatus of the Leupol d M ar k 4 CQ/T ri fl esc op e w as unknow n to the g en er alpubli c unti l Pul ungan’s tr i alm ake s i t har d toN o. 08

- 3000 7 show h is kn owledge

. S om e peo ple i n the busi ness kn ew th e D ire c to ra te ’s v iew . L eu p old & Ste ve n s its elf as k ed afte r b r i ng i ngth e ‘sc o pe to mar k eti n 2 00 2, a nd the Dir ecto ra te re pli ed i n 200 3 that the M ar k 4 CQ/T i s co ver ed as a “d efense articl e.” Bu t Pu lun gan w as no t an ind us try i nsi der, norw er e hi s pot enti alcusto m er s ( he sa ys that hi s cl i ents w er e ci vilian pol i ce depar tm ents)
. The U ni ted S ta te s do es no t co nt en d tha t Pul ung ankne w w ha t th e Dir e c t o r a t e t o l d L e up o l d & S t e v e ns i n 2 0 0 3 , o r i nd eed knew that the fi rm had eve n m ade an inquir y. The Uni te d S ta te s o ffer ed th r ee k i nds of pr o o fo n the subj ects o fkno w ledge and i ntent. I t obser ved, fi rs t, that Pulungan had i n hi s pos ses si on printouts o fweb pages at th e s ite T ele sc op es .co m th at lim it t h e c o u n tr ies av ailabl e forshi pm ent. I t s how ed, se cond, thatP u lu n gan l i ed to hi s business ass oci ate s about how m any r i fl es copes he wanted and wh er e they woul d be sent. The pro secuto r conte nd s that the se lie s, co up l ed w i th a w i l l i ngness to pay ab ove - m ar ketpri ces ( $1, 000 per Leup ol d ‘s cope, wh en r e t a i ler s c h ar ge on ly $ 70 0), sh ow th at h e k n ew th at h is propos ed tr ansact i on o f10 0 r i fl esco pes to I nd ones i a was un lawful

. Thi r d, Pulung ans en t emai l mess ag es a nd m ade no t e s e v i nc i ng a b e l i e f tha t muni t i o ns e xp o r t s t o I nd ones i a were unlawful ; the pros ecuto r subm i ts that Pulungan has effecti vel y c onceded i ntending to vi ol ate th e l a w. Le tu s s t a r twi th the fi r s to fthe s e . T e l e s c opes. com ad vis ed its cu st om e rs th at “[w ]e a re allow ed to sh ip ri fl esco pes , l ase r si ghts and ri fl esco pe acce sso ri es onl y t o cer tai n countr i es. ” A n d o ne o fthe w eb pag es devote d to8 N o. 08

- 3000 the Leupol d M ar k 4 CQ/T ri fl es c op e conta i ned thi s t ext, i n b o l d r e d t y p e : “ We c a n n o t e x p o r t th i s i t e m o ut s i de the U. S. ” The pro secuto r say s that a j ury coul d i nfe r f r o m Pulung an ’ s po ss es si o n o fthe se st at ement s th athe k n e w t h at a lice n se w as req u ire d to ex p or t t h e L eu p old M ar k 4 CQ/T riflescope. The pro bl em with thi s infe re nce i s obvi ous: Tel esco pes. com d id n ot saywhyth e a va ilab le desti nati ons ar e l i m i ted. Its w eb pages se em ed to sa y th at th e Leu po l d M ar k 4 CQ/ T r i fl es co pe ca nno t be expo r te d ( atl ea st no t byTe l es co pes . co m ) e ve n i fthe buyerhas a l i cense. And the r e ma y b e a v e r y g o o d r e a s o n. P e r ha ps Tel esco pes. com had a r est ri cted t er rit or y. I t i s co m m on f o r a manuf ac tu r ert o a utho r i ze a de al ert o s el l i n o ne c ou ntrybut not anothe r. Leupol d & S tev ens m ay sh ip d ire c tly to d ea ler s in fore ign n at ion s (g et tin g lice n se s if ne c es sa ry) and f orbi d any o fi ts deal er s t o shi p acr oss i nter nati onalbo rder s. S uch l i m i ts can be enf or ced throu gh tradem ar k a nd patentl aw s, wh ethero r not a gi ven nat i on’ s co ntra ct o r anti tr ust l aw s r eco gni ze ver ti calr est ri cti ons on deal er s’ sa l es ter rit or i es. To s ee th e ab se nc e o fa l i nkb etwee n n o - ex p ortno ti ce s an d m i l i tar y tec h n olo gy, l oo k a t a l m ostany w eb pag e a t A m azo n. com devot ed to el ectr oni c equip m ent. The web p age f orev er y USB fl ash- m em or y s ti ck

— a co m m odi ty i te m that i s m an uf ac tu r ed o ut si de th i s na ti o n, a nd thus u n a ffe c t e d b y e x p o r t
- c o n t r o l l a ws

— contains the st ate
m en t: “ Cu rrentl y, i te m c anb e sh i pped o nl y wi th i n the U .S.” T h at ’s p re tt y m u c h w h a t T ele sc op es .co m to ld Pul ung anabo utthe Le upo l d M ar k4 CQ/ T r i fl es co pe. The sam e l ege nd can be found on A m azon ’s page s forN o. 08

- 3000 9

so m e m o vi e DVDs an d o th er co py r i g ht ed m at er i al

. And A m azo n’s page f orLara Bar J oca l at or ange m i l k c h oc ola te sa y s: “ Cur r en tly, i te m c anb e sh i pped o nl y wi th i n the U. S
. ” The mil i ta r y may r un o n coff ee a nd c ho co l at e, b ut th at d oe s n otm ak e e ith er a “d efe n se art icle .” A t the Tel esco pes. com web si te , q u i te a few pages f or bi nocul ar s s ay: “Onl y s hi ps i n c ontiguous U SA”. Te l es c o p e s . c o m n o l o ng er s el l s r i f l es co pes , b ut O p t i c s P l a n e t
. c o m, wh i c h d o e s , d o e s n o td i s p l a y a US Aon ly sh ip p in g r e s t ric tio n on its p ag e fo r th e L eu p old M ar k 4 C Q /T rif l e s c op e. W e c on c lu d e t h atn o re as on ab le j u r y c o u l d i n fe r fr o m th e p r e se nc e, orab s e n c e , o fa US Aonl y s hi p p in g legend on a com m er ci alweb si te that a w ou ld -b e b u ye r kn ow s t h at th e it em is, or is n ot, a “d efe n se art icle .” The pros ecuto r’s s eco nd and thi rd r eas ons m ay be taken to gether. They s how co nvi nci ngl y that Pul ungan believed thatwh at he was doi ng wa s illegal

. The pro bl em i s th atthe y e vinc e a be l i efi n a no ne xi st en t r ul e ( th e em bar go that had been l i fted two ye ar s ear lier) r ather than a bel i efthatan e xport l i cense w as necess ar y. As the pr o se cut o r s ee s th i ng s, a n intentt o v i o l at e o ne l aw i s as g o o d a s th e i nt en t to v i o l at e an y other. Th e Uni te d S ta tes’ appe l l at e br i efe ss en ti al l y i nv o k es the doctr i ne o ftr ansfer re d i ntent ( th ou gh i t doe s no t use th at n am e or ci te author i ty)
. I fyo u seto ut to ki l l A by poi soni ng hi s w hi ske y, and B dri nks fro m the gl ass fi rs t an d di es , y o u a r e g ui l tyo fB’s pr emedi ta te d m ur der : The i nten t to k illA i s “ tr ansfer re d” to B’s death. S ee Br ads haw v. Ri ch ey , 5 4 6 U .S. 74 (20 05 ); see als o W ay n e R . L aF av e, 1 Sub s t ant i veCr i m i nal La w § 5
. 2 ( c ) ( 2 d e d

. 2 0 0 3 ) ; An th o n y M.10 N o. 08

- 3000 D il lof, Tr ans

f e r r e d Int e nt : An Inq ui ry i nt o the N a tureof C ri m inal Culpabili ty, 1 Bu ff

. C rim
. L. Rev. 501 (1998); M o del Pen al Code§2.03 ( 1 9 6 2 ). So f ar as w e can tell, how ever, tr ansfer ring i ntent f ro m o ne ge nus of offense to anothe r has nev erbee n perm i tte d. Suppose Pu l ungan had bel i eve d ( w ro ngl y) that the U ni ted St ate s i m poses an exci se tax o n export s o fo pti calge arand had tr ied to avo i d paym ent; an in tent to ev ade a nonexi ste nt ta x w ou ld not t ra nsferto an intent to exportr i fl esco pes wi th o uta l i ce ns e; the c r i m es a r e to o di ffer en t f o r o ne inten t to suffi ce for the oth er. The cri m e that Pul ungan seto ut to co m m i t was unrel ate d to unli censed e xports
. A n em b ar go on s al es to In d on esi a would nothave pre vente d a shi pm ent t o S a u d i A ra b ia; it is on ly th e in te n t t o t ra n ss h ip in Saudi A rabi a that would have cr eat ed a lega l pro bl em ( had ther e be en an em bar go )
. I t would be a str etch to tr eat“int ent t o tr ansshi p l aw fully e xporte d ri fl esco pes” a s equi val ent t o “in te n t to exportr i fl esco pes witho ut a requ ired li cen se.” Both crim es are m a l um prohi b i t um ra therthan m a l um in se

— th at is, they are regulatory offe n se s ra th er th a n a c ts ev il in th em se lve s u n d er w id ely hel d m or al c odes

— an d the “ wi l l ful l ne ss ” el ementi n a re gul at or y o ffense such as §277 8( c) i s desi gned to re quir e kn owledge o ft his r ule , r atherthan ofso m e o ther actualo r potenti alr egul ati on. S ee Sta ples v . U nited Sta tes , 511 U
. S. 600 (1994); C heekv. U nited Sta tes , 4 98 U
. S. 19 2 (1991). N o m att er . S up pose that i nt en t can be tr ansfer re d fr om a no ne xi st en t emba r g o t o a l i ce ns i ng r equi r ement
. S ti l l, the U n ite d Sta tes has conceded that§2 778( c) r equi re s pro ofN o. 08

- 3000 11 ofkn owle dgeo fthe l aw ’ s co ver age , as w el l as i ntent to vi o l a t e th e l a w. P u l u n g a n a c t e d wi l l fu l l y o n l y i fhe knew that Leupol d M ar k 4 C Q/T ri fl esco pes ar e “ m anufa ctu r ed to mil i ta r y s pec i fi ca ti o ns . ” I t m ayb e a fo o l ’ s er r an d to try to l ist every ri fl escop e tha t is m ad e to m ili tary s p e c i fi c a t i o n s , b u tth e D i r e c t o r a t e c o u l d a v o i d p r o b l e ms su c h as th is b y p u t t in g in to th e t ex t o f th e re gu lat ion all r i fl e s c o p e s th a ti th a s t e s t e d a n d f o u n d t o b e c o v e r e d

. An “i ncl ud i ng but not lim ite d to
. . . ” l i sting would ta ke advantage o f§2 778( h), gi ve noti ce t o affected pers ons, y etno t r es tr i ctthe l i st i ng ’ s do m ain. As thi ng s stand, tho ug h, the o nl y b as i s f o r i nfer r i ng P u l u n g a n ’ s kn o wl e d g e i s th e l e g e n d o n th e web p a g e . We ex p lain ed ab ov e w h y t h at is ins u fficie n t. If In d on es ia had not so re centl y been subj ect to an a rm s e m bar go, then h u gg er -m u gg er alon e m igh t p er m it a ju r y t o in fer kn ow led ge thata l i cense w as re quir ed. Pul ungan’s eff or ts to w or k thro ugh i nter m ed iar i es, and to acqui re 10 0 ‘ sco pes w ithou t placin g one large orde r that m ig h t hav e set off w arn ing system s, d o n ot p oint in tha t d irection, how ever. T h e p ro se c u t o r d oe s n otco n te n d th at P u lu n ga n ’s e m ails and no tes about the em bar go w er e part of a ru se to cre ate a defe nse forso m eone wh o knew that the em bar go ha d b e e n r e s c i nd e d b uttha to the r l a ws mi g htb l ock ex po r ts
. S o the e vi den ce i s i ns uffi ci en t to s ho w, b ey o nd a r eas onabl e doubt, thatPul u n gan knew thatthes e ‘sc o pes wer e “de fen se a r ti cl es ” th atr equi r ed ex p ort lice n se s, an d th e c on vic tio n is RE VERS ED .
6- 15- 09