Archive for the ‘Iran Sanctions’ Category


Sep

10

General License F Is a Grand Slam for OFAC


Posted by at 10:55 pm on September 10, 2013
Category: Iran SanctionsOFAC

Arthur Ashe Stadium, photo by Clif Burns

I don’t normally talk about cases that I have been involved in on this blog, but I’m going to make a rare exception today to talk about OFAC, tennis and the new General License F announced today. The new general license permits the importation of Iranian origin services into the United States in connection with “professional and amateur sporting activities . . . including, but not limited to, activities related to exhibition matches and events, the sponsorship of players, coaching, refereeing, and training.”

The story begins with an email I received several weeks ago from Adel Borghei, a respected tennis referee from Iran who had been invited to referee at this year’s U.S. Open in New York, but the invitation had been withdrawn after he arrived in the United States due to U.S. sanctions on Iran. Section 560.505 of the Iran Transaction Regulations limits U.S. employment of persons ordinarily resident in Iran to those holding certain visas and, in the case of Mr. Borghei, appeared to preclude his being a referee at the Open.

I easily convinced Bryan Cave to take on Mr. Borghei as a pro bono client, and we filed a license application with OFAC requesting permission for him to referee in this year’s Open. And, believe it or not, we got a license in record time on the Friday before the Labor Day Weekend. Mr. Borghei, as a result, was able to referee at the Open after all. This article in the New York Times tells the story in more detail, with a great picture of Mr. Borghei arriving at the Open to get started.

Clearly the U.S. sanctions on Iran were never meant to prohibit the participation of Iranians in athletic events. Cultural and athletic interchanges involving ordinary citizens of both countries may do as much or more to further U.S. diplomatic goals as prohibitions placed on those involved in proliferation activities. And I’d like to think that the license application filed for Mr. Borghei caused OFAC to realize the good that could be accomplished by issuing General License F.

Last week I went up to the Open to watch Mr. Borghei act as a line ref for a tennis match. Regular readers have probably surmised that I enjoy what I do, but I have to admit that this one little success made all the poring over OFAC, BIS and DDTC regulations worth it. Mr. Borghei is a good guy who has always wanted to work the Open, and there he was on the line doing what he enjoyed most.

Permalink Comments Off on General License F Is a Grand Slam for OFAC

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2013 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

5

Let Them Eat (Yellow)cake: The Effect of Stretching U.S. Sanctions Too Thin


Posted by at 10:59 pm on September 5, 2013
Category: Criminal PenaltiesEconomic SanctionsICEIran SanctionsSanctions

Yellowcake Uranium source:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uranium_conversion_1.jpg [Public Domain]On August 22nd, Patrick Campbell of Sierra Leone was arrested by ICE agents at JFK Airport and charged with violating the Iranian Transactions Regulations. Campbell’s arrest made global headlines because he concealed raw uranium inside shoes in his luggage. According to an affidavit attached to the criminal complaint against Campbell, he had communicated for over a year prior to his arrest with an undercover ICE agent about selling Uranium 308 (or yellowcake) from Sierra Leone to Iran. In 2013, apparently without any assistance from ICE, Campbell was able to obtain on his own a U.S. travel visa in order to meet with the agent in the United States about the sale of uranium. He was arrested after clearing U.S. Customs.

It would appear that Campbell could be charged with any number of crimes under U.S. law because of his possession of uranium and, as the AP reported last week, his travelling on a fake passport. The only offense alleged in the criminal complaint, however, is “[b]rokering the supply of goods which the defendant knew were destined and intended for supply to Iran.” The affidavit alleges that Campbell impermissibly furthered the brokering by “flying into JFK” to finalize the sale and “bringing with him a sample of Uranium [and] a contract for the sale.”

Prosecuting Campbell for violating U.S. sanctions is a case of compelling facts making shaky law. It does not appear that Campbell met, spoke or even texted with the undercover ICE agent once he entered the United States. Had he done so, a federal prosecutor would be in a much better position to show Campbell attempted to “act as broker” in the United States as required under the Regulations.

U.S. sanctions’ severe penalties are obviously enticing for law enforcement to use wherever a case could be made. But what if a foreign person is attempting to fly out of the United States to conduct business relating to Iran and has on his laptop contract documents evidencing such business? Under the logic of the Campbell complaint, the foreign person could be arrested for his attempt to leave the United States in order to conduct eventual business relating to Iran. While prosecution under such circumstances alone is unlikely, it would not seem so unlikely after the Campbell case for the government to prosecute someone under such circumstances if the foreign person faced other charges and sanctions violations carried the largest penalty.

The United States has been recently expanding its reach over foreign persons’ dealings with Iran, most notably foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies. As the stretch of sanctions includes more foreign individuals and their subsequent imprisonment, the United States may find itself retreating from expanding prosecution after a successful defense or even international criticism that U.S. sanctions as so applied are too attenuated for a reasonable interpretation of the sanctions’ purpose or the laws themselves.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2013 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

25

OFAC v. ATP: Game, Set, Match to OFAC


Posted by at 9:27 pm on June 25, 2013
Category: Iran SanctionsOFAC

J. Edmond Barre http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J._Edmond_Barre.jpg [Public Domain]In its quest to keep the world safe from an Iranian nuclear bomb, the Office of Foreign Assets Control has focused its laser-like scrutiny on an Iranian tennis referee. Obviously, the same skills required to call a ball out or to halt a match for rain are critical to the process of uranium enrichment.

In this regard, OFAC has just fined ATP Tour, Inc. $48,600 as part of a settlement of charges that ATP had made “salary payments to an individual who is ordinarily resident in Iran … for services rendered and expenses incurred in connection with ATP tournaments the individual officiated.” The settlement documents do not reveal the individual involved but it almost certainly has to be Ali Nili, a well-known Gold Badge tennis umpire who has frequently officiated ATP and other international tennis matches.

One of the things that probably, and somewhat justifiably, hacked off OFAC is that apparently ATP made 8 payments to the Iranian referee after it had received a warning letter from OFAC about the payments. That was probably a bad idea, since even OFAC admits in the settlement papers that paying Iranian refs “represent[s] relatively low harm to the sanctions program.” You think? OFAC also indicates that the payments were probably licensable.

Another interesting area of speculation, not directly revealed in the settlement documents, is what is currently being done with Ali Nili who is still officiating ATP matches, like this one at the Shanghai Rolex Masters in 2012. I’m assuming that ATP has now in fact applied for, and received,  an OFAC license.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2013 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

17

FCPA Totally Useful As a Secondary Sanctions Program


Posted by at 6:14 pm on June 17, 2013
Category: Criminal PenaltiesDoJEconomic SanctionsFCPAIran SanctionsOECDSEC

Total Gas Station in France http://www.total.com/MEDIAS/MEDIAS_INFOS/1564/FR/station-service-morinvilliers-France-media.jpg [Fair Use]

The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced that Total, S.A., the French oil and gas company, agreed to pay $245.2 million to resolve charges that it paid bribes to an Iranian government official by way of purported consulting agreements from 1995 to 2004 in order to secure, among other things, oil and gas rights in Iran. The Justice Department described the case against Total as “the first coordinated action by French and U.S. law enforcement in a major bribery case.” The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also reached a settlement with Total pursuant to which Total agreed to pay $153 million to resolve related FCPA allegations.

There is a lot to be said about Total’s settlement. At almost $400 million combined, Total’s payments are in the pantheon of largest payments ever for FCPA matters, along with Siemens, KBR and BAE. Another interesting component to the Total case, however, is its potential effectiveness for economic sanctions enforcement vis-à-vis Iran.

In the past few weeks, Congress and the White House have been busy expanding U.S. economic sanctions against foreign persons for their dealings with Iran. We reported recently on the current House bill that would expand sanctions against foreign banks engaging in certain transactions with Iranian banks. The President last week issued an executive order expanding secondary sanctions against, for example, foreign banks’ rial-based transactions as well as certain dealings by anyone with most persons on the SDN List pursuant to sanctions against Iran.

These secondary sanctions, however, provide U.S. enforcement authorities with a great deal of discretion on if and when to designate foreign persons to the SDN List. Pushing the bounds of secondary sanctions beyond those against foreign persons with substantial ties to the Iranian government, of course, runs the risk of offending other countries who continue to permit their companies to do business with Iran.

Given these limitations, the FCPA would appear to be an effective tool the United States can use in applying pressure against foreign persons doing business with Iran. Although the FCPA carries its own extraterritorial criticisms, corruption is a global issue that many countries have committed itself to address whether by national law or membership to groups like the OECD.

While the United States differs with other countries on precisely what sanctions policies to adopt against Iran, Sudan, Syria or North Korea for current conflict or human rights concerns in those countries, there would seem to be a common allegiance to combat corruption there. It just so happens all four countries are among the most corrupt countries in the world as annually ranked by Transparency International. The Total case at least sends the message to foreign companies that business as usual in Iran can result in significant FCPA penalties and possible cooperation from authorities in the companies’ home countries in bringing them about.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2013 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

2

iOFAC iOkays iPhones for iRan


Posted by at 9:03 am on June 2, 2013
Category: Iran SanctionsOFAC

iRanPhone www.apple.com [Fair Use]Not long ago, I posted on an announcement by Samsung that it was closing its app store for Iranian customers. I speculated that  paid apps were at least part of the problem because they were not covered by the 2010 OFAC general license permitting export of “services and software incident to the exchange of personal communications over the Internet.”

Well, that problem has just gone away. On Friday, OFAC issued General License D which expands the aforementioned general license to cover both fee-based services and software.  It covers personal communications hardware as well, specifically mentioning, not surprisingly, “smartphones.”

That is all well and good, and certainly looks good on paper, but don’t imagine that the folks at Apple are giving each other the iFives over the prospect of selling iPhones in Iran. Nothing in General License D gets over the slight problem of how anyone actually gets paid for goods and services exported to Iran no matter how permissible those exports might be. U.S. banks cannot deal directly with Iranian banks and foreign banks, scared of potential sanctions under CISADA, increasingly refuse to deal with Iranian banks.

But if anyone wants to give away smartphones in Iran, have at it.

Permalink Comments Off on iOFAC iOkays iPhones for iRan

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2013 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)