Writing
Technical write-ups and analysis across Korean forensic finance, US export controls, and public-data tooling — how the work is done, what data it uses, and the decisions behind it.
Showing 1–5 of 17 articles
$252.5 Million and a Korean Subsidiary: How the AMAT Case Resets the Compliance Map for Korea–China Semiconductor Supply Chains On 11 February 2026, Applied Materials and its Korean subsidiary settled with BIS for $252,500,300 over ion-implant equipment routed to SMIC through Pyeongtaek. The press reported the number. This is what the order actually says — the jurisdictional theory, the killed 'substantial transformation' defense, and the July 2027 audit clock that every Korean equipment maker with a Chinese customer should now be reading. Read article The BIS Warning Letter: A Practical Guide for Korean Manufacturers The 'is-informed' letter is the most dangerous document a Korean exporter can receive — and most compliance teams don't know what it triggers. It can require a license for items you thought were uncontrolled, including EAR99 goods, and it can be the first step toward a license universe that expands to everything. Here is what the letter does, what it does not, and what to do when one arrives. Read article After Cadence: Why Korean Design Houses Are Now in BIS's Compliance Perimeter The July 2025 Cadence settlement — $95M to BIS, plus a DOJ criminal resolution that brings the total to roughly $212M — established that licensing EDA software to Entity List parties is the same category of offense as shipping physical equipment. Korean design-service bureaus and fabless IP vendors using Cadence, Synopsys, or Siemens EDA tools on Chinese projects are now in the same perimeter as the equipment makers. Read article The Jusung Engineering Problem: What Export Dependence Looks Like When Your Chinese Customer Buys Local Jusung Engineering (KOSDAQ 036930) rode a China boom to roughly 85% overseas revenue at its FY2024 peak — then total revenue fell 24% in FY2025 as Chinese fabs substituted domestic equipment. This is a compliance-risk case study, not investment advice: a U.S. export-control designation would compound a China-revenue decline that is already underway for commercial reasons. Read article Your Korean Factory Doesn't Shield You from US Export Law The February 2026 Applied Materials settlement is the clearest proof yet that finishing a U.S.-origin tool in Korea does not remove U.S. export jurisdiction. 54 charges, $252.5 million, and a Korean subsidiary named in the order. 'Made in Korea' is not a compliance defense — here is why, in the words of the order itself. Read article