(S) GOS RESPONSE TO SOKKIA SINGAPORE PTE LTD

S E C R E T SINGAPORE 003180

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/04/2016
TAGS: PARM MTCRE PREL ETTC SN
SUBJECT: (S) GOS RESPONSE TO SOKKIA SINGAPORE PTE LTD
FOLLOW-UP

REF: STATE 153425

Classified By: Economic and Political Chief Ike Reed.
Reasons 1.4 (b) (c) and (d)


1. (S/NF) Econ/Pol Chief met on October 3 with Paul Koh,
Senior Deputy Director, International Organizations
Directorate, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to deliver reftel
points regarding possible transfers of dual-use items by
Sokkia Singapore Pte Ltd to Iran. Also present were Yvonne
Ow and Valerie Chua of the MFA's Counter Proliferation and
International Security Branch and Econoff.


2. (S/NF) Koh said relevant law enforcement agencies had
determined that transfer of the items in question would not
lead to successful prosecution under Singapore's Strategic
Goods Control Act. Nonetheless, when pressed, Koh
acknowledged that authorities were engaged in ongoing
surveillance of Sokkia Singapore. Koh suggested that
Singapore was willing to move forward if we could provide
evidence that the transferred goods would be used in Iran's
missile program. Koh reiterated that Singapore's lack of
expertise in dual-use items made it dependent on USG
intelligence. Without clear links between these items and
illicit programs, Singapore was unable to take action, he
concluded. Citing a previous case involving the seizure of a
graphite shipment in which Singapore allegedly "got burned,"
Koh stressed that the GOS wanted to avoid similar problems
involving the failure to have expert witnesses available to
testify in court.


3. (S/NF) We noted that our demarche did not specifically
request prosecution of the Singapore company concerned.
Rather, we hoped for an update on the GOS' investigation and
any useful information it might have uncovered. Koh said he
would see whether there were further details he could provide
us, but was non-committal.


4. (C) Comment: The GOS is reluctant to take action on other
than what appear to be "open-and-shut" cases. This stems in
part from its perception that we have not always come through
with the assistance they need in order to take action under
Singapore law, be it in terms of evidence, advice or
potential expert testimony. The GOS also is concerned about
possible legal and financial liabilities if it were found to
lack sufficient grounds for a seizure. We will continue to
encourage the GOS to be more forthcoming in its
investigations, and to seek ways to increase its comfort
level with regard to law enforcement cooperation. End
comment.
FERGIN