(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