Aug

5

UK Export Agency Helps UK Companies Evade US Sanctions on Iran


Posted by at 6:06 pm on August 5, 2011
Category: Iran SanctionsOFAC

Mahmoud AhmadinejadThis article in Bloomberg Business Week details efforts by the U.K. Export Control Organization (“ECO”) to prevent U.K. companies that trade with Iran from becoming subject to U.S sanctions on Iran. Bloomberg filed a lawsuit in the United Kingdom seeking to force the ECO to reveal the names of companies that had applied for licenses to export controlled items to Iran. The United Kingdom observes UN sanctions, which prohibit exports of arms and materiel to Iran, but does not prohibit exports of controlled dual use items as long as licenses are obtained. In a court filing in that case, the ECO argued against releasing the information, saying that U.S. sanctions had caused banks to withdraw banking facilities from companies doing business with Iran.

Early versions of the Bloomberg story contained an interesting statement from a source at OFAC who wished to remain anonymous.

U.S. trade-secrets laws prevent the Treasury from disclosing the names of companies seeking licenses to export goods that would otherwise be prohibited by sanctions, according to a U.S. Treasury spokeswoman, who declined to be identified and said she couldn’t comment on the U.K. case.

That, of course, is simply not even close to being true, which may be why the spokeswoman wanted her name withheld. The spokeswoman seems to have forgotten somehow the release by OFAC to the New York Times of hundreds of names of corporations that received licenses to export items to Iran and other sanctioned countries. This blog reported on that release here. When I brought this to the attention of Erik Larsen, the reporter who wrote the story, the OFAC quotation was removed and a statement from me on the New York Times disclosures was substituted in its place.

The moral of the story: don’t believe everything that OFAC tells you during a phone conversation.

[Thanks to reader Russ VanDegrift, compliance director at Christie Digital Systems USA, Inc. for alerting me to the original Bloomberg story.]

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2011 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


2 Comments:


Thanks – interesting story. I’m not sure, though, that your own headline is strictly accurate either. I can’t really see how refusing to disclose the names of UK companies applying for or being legitimately granted UK export licences which are permissible under UK law, can be accused of “help[ing] UK Companies Evade US Sanctions”. Where’s the evidence that UK companies are evading US sanctions?

I’m not an export control lawyer. But even if we accept the legitimacy of the extraterritoriality of the OFAC Iran sanctions, there would surely only be an OFAC issue if
(1) US persons (natural or legal) were involved in the UK exports; or
(2) US-origin goods were involved in the prospective or actual transfers; or
(3) US persons or their foreign subsidiaries were involved in the financing?

On the other hand, the clear risk is that non-US banks are spooked into denying financial services to exporters or exports which meet none of these three tests, just because they’re scared of retaliatory threats against *their* US branches. Which is intimidation, not OFAC enforcement, and in my view BIS is quite right to be wary of helping it.

Comment by ML on August 7th, 2011 @ 3:00 am

It was my understanding that UK BIS would never entertain a request to supply company names under the Freedom of Information Act because the information was likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person. Did Bloomburg make the FOI request with this in mind so that the response could be spun to show UK BIS as pro-Iraninan?

Comment by Anna Madjeski on August 8th, 2011 @ 4:08 am