Was the defendanst argument a good argument in the following case? Pursuant to exectutive order no 12,543, the president identified Libya as a country to whom shipment of goods from the U.S. was prohibited. A U.S. resident arranged to ship fifty trailers to Italy, and from there another company would ship to Libya. Custom agents discovered the plan and confiscated the trailers.The defendant was charged with illegal sale of goods to Libya, and defended by contending he could not be convicted because the goods never arrived in Libya. See 316 F. 3d 1095 - United States v. Soussi
This is very interesting. Executive Order 12,543 prohibits shipment of goods to Libya. The defendant, although not by a direct route, shipped trailers to Libya. He shipped to Italy first, apparently in an attempt to avoid detection. Then he switches the company and the trailers continue their trip to Libya. Apparently, he was delivering on a paid sale, or we can assume so. i.e. the trailers were paid for. the above does not clarifyy at what point the trailers were taken. Were they already in Italy? So, the delivery was intercepted, but the defendent is still guilty of making the attempt with the intent of shipping to Libya in disregard of the Executive Order.