Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06MINSK599
2006-06-09 04:44:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Minsk
Cable title:  

BELARUS: 2006 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND

Tags:  CASC EFIN EINV KIDE OPIC PGOV BO 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0009
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHSK #0599/01 1600444
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 090444Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY MINSK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4511
INFO RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC
UNCLAS MINSK 000599 

SIPDIS

FOR EB/IFD/OIA/JPROSELI, AND L/CID/EDAUGHTRY

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CASC EFIN EINV KIDE OPIC PGOV BO
SUBJECT: BELARUS: 2006 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND
EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS

REFS: (A) STATE 60294, (B) 05 Minsk 582

Sensitive but Unclassified; Protect Accordingly

UNCLAS MINSK 000599

SIPDIS

FOR EB/IFD/OIA/JPROSELI, AND L/CID/EDAUGHTRY

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CASC EFIN EINV KIDE OPIC PGOV BO
SUBJECT: BELARUS: 2006 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND
EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS

REFS: (A) STATE 60294, (B) 05 Minsk 582

Sensitive but Unclassified; Protect Accordingly


1. (SBU) Post submits its annual contribution for the 2006
Report on Investment Disputes and Expropriation Claims.
During the year the Belarus Government continued with its
policy of fundraising through confiscation of transiting
goods, although this process appears to be declining. The
State Customs Committee reported 22 American owned cargos
transiting through Belarus were seized in the first nine
months of 2005, down from 133 in all of 2004. The 2006
state budget also anticipated only USD 42 million in revenue
from border confiscations, down from USD 84 million in the
2005 budget. That number, however, should be viewed with
caution as most revenue from confiscations appears to go to
off-budget governmental funds. Only a few of these cases
were brought to Post's attention by the affected company.


527 Report
--------------


2. (SBU) The United States Government is aware of seven (7)
unresolved claims of United States persons that may be
outstanding against the Government of Belarus (GOB). Under
the second heading are provided, as last year, six (6) other
incidents in which property owned by the US Government was
seized and expropriated.

a. Claimant A

b. July 2005

c. Claimant A is a US corporation which had a hydraulic
pumping unit worth $23,552 seized by Belarusian Customs.
The claimant was shipping the unit from Poland to Russia.
Polish Customs had added the cost of transport to the unit's
price on the shipping invoice, but provided a notarized
statement to this effect. Nonetheless, Belarusian Customs
claimed this represented a discrepancy in the paperwork and
referred the case to court for seizure by the Belarusian
Government. Knowing the Belarusian Government's daily
practice of confiscating transiting goods and reselling them
for profit, the US Embassy sent letters to and called the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, and

Customs. The US Embassy also arranged for additional
supporting documents to be provided by the nearest Polish
Consulate. The hydraulic unit was released back to the
American company in October. The Belarusian Government did
not provide compensation for legal costs or losses the
American corporation incurred over this delay.

a. Claimant B

b. August 2005

c. Claimant B is a US corporation which had $8,200 worth of
sheetrock and other construction materials seized by
Belarusian Customs. Customs claimed the US corporation had
gone out of business in 2001, and used this as legal grounds
to formally confiscate this cargo. The Belarusian
Government did not provide compensation for this
confiscation.

a. Claimant C

b. February 2005

c. Claimant C is a US corporation which owns 9.35% of the
Kommunarka candy company. In 2000, the Belarusian
Government used a Golden Share mechanism to take full
control of Kommunarka for five years. The state used this
control to grant itself majority ownership over the company.
In February 2005 the Belarusian State Food Industries
Concern (Belgospischeprom) extended its Golden Share control
over the company for another five years. The Belarusian
Government has not provided any compensation for this
action.

a. Claimant D

b. January 2004

c. Claimant D is a US corporation which had a shipment of
second-hand clothing evaluated at $13,600 seized by
Belarusian Customs. The Claimant was shipping the clothes
from the U.S. to Ukraine through Lithuania and Belarus. The

Belarusian government seized the shipment because it alleged
the US corporation was not registered to do business at the
time of the shipment, even though the US company provided
information from the State of New York to prove they were
registered. The US Embassy provided the company with a
letter of support and the US Ambassador raised this case,
along with several others, in meetings with the Foreign
Minister. The Belarusian government has not compensated the
US corporation for the seizure.

a. Claimant E

b. January 2004

c. Claimant E is a US corporation which had a shipment of
38 tons of frozen fish seized by Belarusian Customs. The
Claimant was shipping the fish from the U.S. to Ukraine and
Moldova through Lithuania and Belarus. The Belarusian
government seized the shipment because it alleged the US
corporation was not registered to do business at the time of
the shipment, even though the US company provided
apostillized information from the State of Oregon to prove
they were registered. The US Embassy provided the company
with a letter of support and the US Ambassador raised this
case, along with several others, in meetings with the
Foreign Minister. The Belarusian government has not
compensated the US corporation for the seizure.

a. Claimant F

b. August 2002

c. Claimant F is a US corporation that has six restaurant
outlets in Belarus. In 2002 Minsk City authorities
physically blocked access to Claimant F's most popular
branch, ostensibly as a safety precaution while the city
performed construction work at a nearby building. However,
during the same time frame the Belarusian government made a
number of public statements hostile towards Claimant F,
including the Ministry of Health declaring Claimant F's food
was dangerous to Belarusian citizens. Claimant F's
employees are allowed access to the closed outlet, but are
not allowed to conduct business at the site. The city has
promised for the past several years to reopen the
restaurant, but has taken no positive action. Talks have
been underway for compensation for several years, with no
progress. Claimant F has plans to expand in Belarus, but
not until this outlet is returned to their control.

a. Claimant G

b. 1995

c. Claimant G is a US company that provided equipment and
services to Belarus for a demilitarization project.
Claimant G alleges that Belarus effectively changed the
agreed terms of the contract to exclude the company from
ongoing participation without compensating the Claimant for
the services and equipment it had provided. After failure
of direct negotiations with Belarus, Claimant G filed an
expropriation claim with OPIC.

On March 31, 1997, OPIC compensated Claimant G in the amount
of $5.9 million for expropriation of its investment, a joint
venture in Belarus, and the Claimant has assigned its claim
against the GOB to OPIC. Negotiations were suspended by
OPIC when the MFA formally requested in March 1999 that OPIC
cancel or withdraw its expropriation claim determination in
favor of Claimant G. OPIC has since informed Belarus that
it is willing to resume negotiations, assuming some common
ground can be found.

a. Claimant H

b. December 2004 to June 2005

c. Claimant H is a US company that owns a printing plant in
Belarus. In the first five months of 2005 the company paid
over $300,000 in arbitrary fines to the government. After
fourteen years of successful operations, the company was
first fined in December 2004 when they applied to renew
their import/export license eleven days before the previous
one expired. Customs responded the application must be
filed fifteen days in advance, and levied a fine of
approximately $200,000 (the amount of the fine varied by day
and by interlocutor). Customs also denied the license. The
claimant paid the fine and filed to receive this license
eight more times. Every time the application was rejected

by Customs and more fines levied. Many of the fines were
suspicious; for instance the company successfully argued
that one $15,000 fine was illegal, only to have Customs
agree and immediately fine them $15,000 for something else.
Some of these fines were also raised without explanation;
when the company attempted to pay a $27,000 fine, Customs
replied the fine was now $39,000. The Embassy protested
these fines to the MFA and Belarusian Customs, and the State
Department raised them with the Belarusian Embassy in
Washington. The company finally received its new license,
and was able to renew the license in 2006 without incident.


US Government Property

a. Claimant I (US Government)

b. July 12, 2001

c. Claimant I provided US Government-owned computer and
printing equipment to the Volny Gorod Newspaper in Krichev.
On July 12, 2001, the Police confiscated the equipment,
valued at $5,783. US Embassy officials observed the court
trial and State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher issued
a statement concerning the case on August 3, 2001. Post has
reached no resolution with Belarus on this issue.

a. Claimant J (US Government)

b. August 2001

c. Claimant J provided US Government-owned computer and
printing equipment to the Philon Kmita Regional Center for
Support and Development of Democratic Changes in Orsha. On
August 14, 2001, the Police confiscated four computers from
the center, citing a Presidential Decree as justification.
On August 17, 2001, the authorities returned and seized the
center's risograph printing equipment. The equipment was
subsequently confiscated by court decision. A still later
court decision returned the risograph equipment, but the
computers remain in Belarus' possession. Post has not
reached a resolution on this issue with Belarus.

a. Claimant K (US Government)

b. February 2003

c. Claimant K provided US Government-owned risograph
printing equipment worth $6,735 to the Strike Committee of
Outdoor Market Stall Operators. The Police seized the
equipment on February 15, 2003, allegedly refusing to
produce a warrant or give the Strike Committee a copy of the
receipt confirming the seizure, as required under Belarusian
law. The equipment has not been returned, nor has Post been
able to secure compensation for the seized risograph.

a. Claimant L (US Government)

b. October 2002

c. Claimant L is the US Government's Army and Air Force
Exchange Service (AAFES). Due to an administrative error,
Customs documentation for an AAFES shipment bound for US
troops in Afghanistan was incorrect. At the Belarusian
border Customs officials inspected the shipment and noted
the discrepancy. As a result, Belarusian Customs
authorities seized government-owned cargo worth $16,240. An
October 29 court ruling formally expropriated the cargo.

The US Embassy formally protested the action twice in
writing and on numerous occasions verbally, offering
assurances that the goods were not for use in Belarus and
were not intended for commercial purposes. AAFES has
received no compensation for the confiscated property, nor
has Belarus shown willingness to negotiate a resolution on
the issue.

a. Claimant M (US Government)

b. March 2003

c. Claimant M loaned US Government-owned technical
equipment to Belarusian television stations through an
assistance program administered by the International
Research and Exchanges Board (IREX). In March 2003 an
oblast court in Gomel ruled that seven pieces of US
Government-owned equipment provided through the IREX program
should be expropriated. Although the US Government holds

title to the equipment, Embassy officials were not allowed
to participate in court proceedings.

Following the seizure, the Embassy formally protested the
court's ruling to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA),
requesting that the equipment be returned to the US
Government. The issue was a subject of frequent
interventions with the MFA, including with the Foreign
Minister. Belarus has shown no willingness to negotiate the
return of the government-owned equipment.

a. Claimant N (US Government)

b. December 2004

c. Claimant N provided US Government-owned computer
equipment and cell phones worth approximately $10,000 to the
NGO Business Initiative. Police and the BKGB seized the
equipment in April 2004 when they arrested the head of the
NGO. On December 30, 2004 a Minsk District Court judge
ruled the equipment should be returned to the Embassy. No
equipment has been returned; it remains in BKGB custody.


FYI Only

a. Claimant O

b. January 2004

c. Claimant O is a US company registered in Wisconsin but
based in Illinois that had a shipment of cars and limousines
en route to Kazakhstan detained by Belarusian Customs.
Initially, Belarusian Customs detained the shipment because
they doubted the listed value of the cargo. They then
extended the detention because they doubted the US
corporation's registration status. Eventually, however,
Customs discovered along with Interpol that the US company
was involved in altering stolen vehicles in the U.S., and
seized the goods as suspected stolen. While the US company
initially sought US Government assistance, after the closure
of Claimant O by Illinois police and the arrest of two
employees, no further assistance was sought or provided. In
October 2005, the Embassy raised with Belarusian Customs the
possibility of returning the vehicles to their legal,
original owners, but Customs showed no interest in
cooperating.


Claimants
--------------

Claimant A is Emerson Process Management, a US company based
in St. Louis, MO. EPM has not signed a privacy waiver.

Claimant B is Cartwright Trading Ltd. Post does not know
where Cartwright is registered, and Cartwright has not
signed a privacy waiver.

Claimant C is American MOL Corporation. Post does not know
where this company is registered, and American MOL has not
signed a privacy waiver.

Claimant D is P.I.N. Trade International, Inc., a U.S.
corporation registered in Brooklyn, New York. P.I.N. Trade
International, Inc. has not signed a privacy waiver.

Claimant E is Calls Capital, LLC, a U.S. corporation
registered in Oregon. Calls Capital, LLC has not signed a
privacy waiver.

Claimant F is McDonald's Corporation, headquartered in
Chicago, IL. McDonald's has not signed a privacy waiver.

Claimant G is Alliant Techsystems, a U.S. company
headquartered in Edina, Minnesota. Post has no information
that Alliant Techsystems signed a privacy waiver.

Claimant H is Printcorp, a U.S. corporation based in Dallas,
Texas. Printcorp has not signed a privacy waiver.

Claimant O is Apollo Motors, a U.S. company registered in
Wisconsin but based in Illinois. Apollo Motors has not
signed a privacy waiver.

Claimants I, J, K, L, M and N are the U.S. Government.

KROL