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 
 
¶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