Archive for the ‘OFAC’ Category


Oct

30

Designation by OFAC Can Be Dangerous to Your Health


Posted by at 8:18 pm on October 30, 2014
Category: Cuba SanctionsOFAC

Bupa booth via http://www.bupa.com/media/704558/bupa-corp-brochure_hires_singles.pdf [Fair Use]Global health care consortium Bupa agreed to cough up (sorry!) $128,704 to the Office of Foreign Assets Control to settle allegations that it provided health insurance to individuals on the SDN List and, in one instance, re-imbursed a policy holder for medical treatment received in Cuba. You might have assumed that there were limits to the injury that OFAC might try to inflict on SDNs or non-SDNs traveling in Cuba but you would, apparently, be wrong.

The SDN involved was designated under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin sanctions. Unlike the Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions Regulations, the Kingpin Sanctions regulations do not provide an exception even for emergency medical services. (Of course, even though emergency medical services can be provided to SDNs under the Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions, the hospital or doctor cannot be paid for those services without an OFAC license authorizing such payment. Good luck getting treated in those circumstances.)

So the penalties for being a Narcotics Kingpen  extend far beyond simply having your bank account blocked and, potentially, can include dying from lack of needed medical care. I have no special sympathy for narcotics kingpens, but this seems a little harsh.

Trying to interfere with the health care of people traveling Cuba seems even harsher. Moreover, penalizing the reimbursement of a non-Cuban outside Cuba for services previously provided in Cuba seems not to further the U.S. policy of depriving Cuba of resources given that the payment in Cuba was already made. It also illustrates the strained reading that OFAC gives to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations in its effort to penalize anything and everything that has any connection with Cuba.

The fundamental prohibition of the Cuba sanctions prohibits U.S. persons from participating in “transactions [that] involve property in which … [a Cuban] national … has at any time … [or] had any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect.” Of course, no Cuban national has an interest in the insurance policy under which the reimbursement payment was made. The only such property in that case would have been the funds paid by the policy holder to the Cuban health care provider. To say that the reimbursement transaction “involves” that property obviously stretches the meaning of “involves” to the breaking point, but it shows how broadly OFAC reads these regulations to assure that if you blow your nose and someone in Cuba hears the noise, you’ve violated the rules.

Permalink Comments (0)

Bookmark and Share



Oct

2

Newest Sanctions Crime: Buying a Condo while Iranian-American


Posted by at 11:12 pm on October 2, 2014
Category: Iran SanctionsOFAC

By Don-vip (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AU.S_Treasury_Department_in_Washington%2C_D.C..jpgOne of the possibly unintended consequences of the heavy fines imposed on banks by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) for violations of the vaguely and confusingly written Iran sanctions regulations is that banks overreact, exhibiting a Pavlovian response to anything with the word Iran involved and blindly blocking everything in sight. As a result, Iranian-Americans often have a difficult and unpredictable relationship with their own banks here in the United States. As recently reported by the Arizona Republic, Neda Tavassoli, an Iranian-American, had difficulty closing her purchase of a condominium when one of the banks involved needlessly blocked the account holding her funds for the down payment.

The story begins, improbably enough, when her ex-husband, who is also a U.S. citizen, was visiting his family in Iran and checked their joint account from a computer in Iran. The bank then froze that account. Subsequently the bank even froze an unrelated escrow account to which Ms. Tavassoli’s parents, also U.S. citizens, wired the down payment for the condo in issue. Neither Ms. Tavassoli, her ex-husband,  her parents nor the U.S. bank from which the parents wired the funds are on the SDN list, so there is no conceivable reason for these accounts to be blocked. None of these parties are even in Iran so there was not even a reason to reject the wire transfer to the escrow account, much less to block it.

Most importantly, checking the account from Iran, which got the whole business started, would not serve as a basis for blocking the account. Whether the bank broke any rules by providing the information back to Iran in response to the account query depends on whether that communication was “incident to the exchange of personal communications over the Internet” and therefore permitted by section 560.540 of the Iran regulations. But even if the exception in section 560.540 for Internet communications does not apply, the proper response by the bank was simply not to respond to the request, not to block the account.

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share



Sep

22

Texas Man Charged with Smuggling for Forwarding One Email


Posted by at 10:10 pm on September 22, 2014
Category: Criminal PenaltiesIran SanctionsOFAC

BlackBerry email on the BB 8330 by Ian Lamont(Own work) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilamont/4329363938/A criminal information was filed last week against Patrick Jean Zuber, a U.S permanent resident and former Weatherford International Vice-President, charging him with conspiracy to violate the anti-smuggling statute, 18 U.S.C. § 554. How did he get into such trouble? Actually, he didn’t do anything more than push the forward button to send an email from a company in Thailand seeking to purchase equipment for an oil project in Iran. That’s right: he is being charged not with sending any equipment to Iran; he is being charged with sending an email forwarding that inquiry from the potential customer in Thailand.  Zuber forwarded that inquiry to a Canadian employee of Weatherford.  This cold-blooded and heinous act of clicking “forward”  was deemed to be facilitation of an illegal export to Iran. The criminal information is silent as to whether any export actually occurred

Whether the Canadian to whom the email was sent was employed by a U.S. or foreign subsidiary of Weatherford is not made clear by the criminal information. If it was a foreign subsidiary, then at the time Zuber forwarded the email, it would have been perfectly legal, under section 560.205 of OFAC’s Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, for the Canadian citizen at a foreign company to export EAR99 items to Iran even if they were originally manufactured in the United States. In that case, showing criminal intent by Zuber, who may well have thought that Canada could legally fulfill the order he forwarded, is going to be extremely difficult.

Of course, there may be other facts not mentioned in the criminal information which justify this prosecution. But if the basic crime here is forwarding an email to someone that Zuber thought could legally fulfill the order, this really seems more suited for a civil, rather than a criminal, penalty. After all, section 560.205 of OFAC’s requlations does prohibit a U.S. person from facilitating a transaction by a foreign person that would be illegal if done by a U.S. person and so OFAC would clearly have the authority to fine Mr. Zuber for pushing the forward button.

Photo Credit: In 30 Minute Guides

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share



Sep

12

Maybe Their Phones Aren’t Working


Posted by at 3:27 pm on September 12, 2014
Category: Iran SanctionsOFACSudanSyria

By CFTC via https://www.flickr.com/photos/cftc/4406624868/sizes/z/ [Public Domain]Both the Commodity Futures Trading  Commission and the Office of Foreign Assets Control announced settlement agreements under which they imposed fines of $150,000 and $200,000 respectively on the oddly named Zulutrade, an online foreign exchange broker.  Zulutrade has nothing to do with Africa but is located in Pireaus, Greece, incorporated in Delaware and registered with the CFTC (which is how OFAC and CFTC got their hooks into a company located in Greece). The OFAC announcement is here and the CFTC announcement is here.

The reason for the fines is that Zulutrade allegedly maintained accounts for over 400 persons in Iran, Sudan, and Syria. On this much, the CFTC and OFAC agree. Beyond that the two agencies have different stories about how the violations, which were not voluntarily disclosed by Zulutrade, occurred. OFAC’s explanation is simply that Zulutrade had no idea it needed to comply with U.S. sanctions, perhaps not surprising in the case of a company sitting in Greece even if incorporated in Delaware.

Zulutrade failed to screen or otherwise monitor its customer base for OFAC compliance purposes at the time of the apparent violations. This failure was the result of a lack of awareness regarding U.S. sanctions regulations.

But to listen to CFTC the problem was that Zulutrade was aware of its responsibilities, tried to comply with them and botched it.  The Zulutrade compliance program, according to CFTC, provided that Zulutrade

may delegate implementation to third party service providers or agents. The procedure also says that if implementation is delegated, “Zulutrade shall have a written agreement with the other entity outlining the other entity’s responsibilities, and shall actively monitor the delegation to assure that the procedures are being conducted in an effective manner.” However, Respondent did not follow its procedure for OF AC screening. Specifically, Respondent relied entirely upon third parties to implement its procedures but Respondent did not have written agreements with all such third parties and OF AC screening was not performed.

I do not see any way to read these two narratives as consistent. OFAC says Zulutrade had no idea it needed to comply, but CFTC says that Zulutrade knew it need to comply but delegated the responsibility to third parties, although not in the fashion required by its compliance program and, apparently, without checking to see if the third parties were in fact screening. It’s hard to explain these two different accounts of what happened other than by the fact that OFAC and CFTC are in different parts of Washington and their telephones must not be working.

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share



Sep

10

Sen. Landrieu Attempts to Clarify the Record … But Doesn’t


Posted by at 8:28 pm on September 10, 2014
Category: Economic SanctionsOFACSDN ListVenezuela

Sen. Landrieu [Official Portrait, Public Domain]

On Sunday, in Lafayette, LA, The Advertiser printed an opinion from Sen. Mary Landrieu entitled, “Sanctions, as written, will hurt La. workers.”  While we hoped Sen. Landrieu was writing to clarify the record in response to our post last week, she was writing instead to respond to an earlier opinion in The Advertiser written by Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Bill Cassidy.

Sen. Landrieu began by referring to the Lake Charles, LA oil refinery as “owned by Citgo, a Venezuelan company with a strong and respected reputation in Louisiana.”  Citgo, however, is quite clearly a U.S. company, founded and incorporated in the United States over a hundred years ago.  It became wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, the Venezuelan national oil company, in 1990, but remained a U.S. company.  The hawkish view on U.S. sanctions is, of course, that Citgo, even though a U.S. company employing U.S. persons, is not immune from the conduct of its foreign parent if, in this case, Petróleos de Venezuela’s conduct were found to be at variance with U.S. economic sanctions and was added to the SDN List, its subsidiary Citgo would be equally blocked and unable to employ U.S. workers.

In her opinion, Sen. Landrieu continued to defend her opposition to the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014 because she believed that “the legislation as written was too vague” and “will continue to oppose it unless the language of this resolution makes crystal clear that there will be no threat to the [Lake Charles] refinery.”  But, as we pointed out last week, Sen. Landrieu’s references to amending the Act have led to no clear (crystal or otherwise) suggestions on how to do so.  We think we can help her out.

The Act, like other sanctions bills, already permits the President to waive the application of sanctions against a person if he determines that such waiver is necessary for the “national security interests of the United States.”  The amendment we recommend to Sen. Landrieu is to rewrite the waiver in Section 5(c)(1) to read, “The President may waive the application of sanctions under subsection (b) with respect to a person if the President determines that such a waiver is in the national security or economic interests of the United States.”  By adding simply “or economic” to the waiver condition, the President has another avenue to defend not imposing sanctions against otherwise sanctionable foreign persons.  Again, as we pointed out last week, the President would not take lightly a decision to block Citgo’s assets in Louisiana or anywhere else in United States.  Congress, moreover, would be hard-pressed to oppose a waiver if the President were able to show that imposing sanctions would have tremendous economic ramifications.

If Sen. Landrieu wants to take the position that U.S. economic sanctions against human rights violators can’t come with a cost that significantly harms the U.S. economy, there is a way to protect that interest.  Whether or not her position wins the day on the Senate floor, we think the only practical way to do so is to give the President more discretion in how he may choose not to impose sanctions.  A tidy addition of the two words “or economic” should do the trick and put to bed another odd episode of “How a Bill Becomes a Law.”

 

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share