Opinion ID: 608147
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Applicable Regulation

Text: 49 1. Standard of Review. The court's holding that 31 C.F.R. § 515.201(b)(1) does not proscribe the defendants' conduct in providing equipment and goods for the Cuban cigarette factory is a question of law subject to plenary review. Cf. United States v. Lawson, 809 F.2d 1514, 1517 (11th Cir.1987) (holding that whether a defendant is properly prosecutable under a particular statute is a question of law subject to de novo review by this court). 50 2. Analysis. We hold that the court erred in determining that the defendants' conduct did not violate 31 C.F.R. § 515.201(b)(1). Macko and Van Ameringen traveled to Cuba and discussed the factory's needs with Cubans. Macko installed equipment at the Cuban factory. Van Ameringen wrote to Cuban government officials in Panama and in Cuba about the factory. Macko sent an invoice to the attention of a Cuban embassy official in Panama. In addition to their direct contacts with Cubans, the defendants worked in concert with Ortiz de Zevallos, who also dealt directly with the Cubans. As the district court noted, the defendants did not merely engage in an arms' length transaction with Ortiz de Zevallos. Ortiz de Zevallos, 748 F.Supp. at 1578. Macko and Van Ameringen not only knew that Ortiz de Zevallos would ship the packaging machinery to Cuba but also intended that the machinery go to Cuba. Id. at 1579 (emphasis added). The fact that the defendants attempted to conceal their activities by routing goods through Panama does not diminish the jury's conclusion that they engaged in dealings with Cubans within the meaning of § 515.201(b)(1). 5