Defendant is a Chinese citizen who worked as an engineer in Beijing developing photoelectric technologies. Defendant's friend and accomplice, Chao, was a U.S. citizen who owned a printing business in California. On defendant's instructions, Chao purchased three export-controlled thermal imaging cameras, called FLIR systems, and had them shipped to China. Defendant paid Chao a $900 commission. The export compliance staff at FLIR thought it strange that a printing company was purchasing such highly developed equipment and they notified the Department of Commerce. The defendant then came to Los Angeles, purchased ten additional cameras, hid them in his baggage, and was arrested by federal agents while attempting to board a return flight to China. Both were charged with knowingly and willfully conspiring to export, and attempting to export, controlled items without a license. Chao pled guilty, and the defendant was convicted at trial of violating the criminal provisions of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act applicable to violations of the Export Administration Regulations. The defendant appealed, arguing that compliance was impossible because the regulations were too vague and too complex.
1. From the limited facts presented here, do you think a reasonable juror could conclude that the defendant knew his conduct was illegal? Why or why not?
2. In addition to penalties faced during the sentencing in this case, what administrative or civil penalties did the defendant face?