Aug

25

OFAC Trifecta


Posted by at 9:59 pm on August 25, 2010
Category: OFAC

Department of Treasury[This is the third post in a row on OFAC, which is just a coincidence. The blog is not about to be renamed OFACLawBlog.]

Last week the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) announced a settlement with Colombian bank Colpatria S.A. under which Colpatria agreed to pay $91,849 to settle allegations of 26 violations of the Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions Regulations (“NTSR”). The violations occurred in 2004 and 2005 at Colpatria’s now closed Miami branch office. Although the Miami branch checked beneficial owners of accounts against the SDN list prior to opening the account, it did not do so thereafter and only checked the name of the account holders against SDN list updates. As a result, it processed transactions for an account after the beneficial owners had been designated under the NTSR.

OFAC said that the base penalty amount was $229,623. It was reduced to $91,849 because Colpatria voluntarily disclosed the violation, had no previous OFAC violations, revised its procedures for checking the SDN list, and signed a tolling agreement. Interestingly, OFAC mitigated the penalty because

Colpatria Miami revised its software configuration to review automatically the names of authorized signatories and beneficial owners of accounts rather than just the names of the account holders when performing account opening and periodic name checks against OFAC’s SDN List

This suggests that Colpatria was checking accounts at regular intervals rather than each time the SDN list was updated. This seems inconsistent with the position that OFAC took back in June in its settlement with GEICO in which it seemed to insist that companies must rescrub their customer list each time the SDN list is updated and not simply periodically.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


3 Comments:


Some of the compliance software peddlers out there promise “dynamic screening” (which I suggest is too generic to be trademarked) or some such service that will recheck all searches made in the past against all changes in The Lists. I would think that a financial institution that used such software should be reasonably innoculated. My problem with the most of the software peddlers as well as with the software peddled is the number of false positives, which far outnumber by orders of magnitude the overlooked changes. I realize that the false positives are a result of an overabundance of caution in writing the code, but I think they are proof of the difficulty of writing code that will cope with the difficulties presented by romanization of names and addresses from non-Roman languages, various dialects and variations in spelling even within the “same” language, and the general lack of identifying data given the terseness of the SDNL designations. Nothing beats a trained human being, albeit computer assisted, eyeballing the names and addresses and making reasoned, often intuitive judgments, about who is on The List. Thank goodness Santa hasn’t computerized his list, but then again, OFAC ain’t Santa.

Comment by Hillbilly on August 26th, 2010 @ 10:32 am

And remember, Santa only gives naughty children lumps of coal….

Comment by John Pisa-Relli on August 26th, 2010 @ 12:26 pm

And you think OFAC makes decisions in separate cases that maintain a precedent?? OFAC Enforcement and Civil Penalties have a long history of doing one thing in one sanctions case and another the following year in a different sanctions case….

Comment by Tony Gonzalez on August 26th, 2010 @ 10:50 pm