InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC announces several actions related to securities transactions involving Chinese military companies
On January 8, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License (GL) 1—“Authorizing Transactions Involving Securities of Certain Communist Chinese Military Companies.” This license permits transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 13959 involving “publicly traded securities, or any securities that are derivative of, or are designed to provide investment exposure to such securities, of an entity whose name closely matches the name of a Communist Chinese military company identified in the Annex to E.O. 13959” but does not appear on OFAC’s Non-SDN Communist Chinese Military Companies List. Authorization is granted through 9:30 am eastern standard time, January 28. The Non-SDN Communist Chinese Military Companies List was also updated the same day.
OFAC also recently published several new frequently asked questions related to E.O. 13959. Specifically, FAQ 862 states that U.S. persons are not required “to divest their holdings in publicly traded securities (and securities that are derivative of, or are designed to provide investment exposure to, such securities) of the Communist Chinese military companies identified in the Annex to E.O. 13959 by January 11, 2021.” FAQ 863 explains that U.S. persons are permitted to engage in activity related to the following services: “custody, offer for sale, serve as a transfer agent, and trade in covered securities.” Meanwhile, FAQ 864 clarifies that E.O. 13959’s prohibitions apply to “publicly traded securities (or any publicly traded securities that are derivative of, or are designed to provide investment exposure to, such securities)” of any entities with names that exactly or closely match the name of an entity identified in the aforementioned annex. Additionally, FAQ 865 clarifies that “[m]arket intermediaries and other participants may engage in ancillary or intermediary activities that are necessary to effect divestiture” from publicly traded securities of Communist Chinese military companies during relevant wind-down periods or that are otherwise not prohibited under E.O, 13959.
Multi-national bank settles FCPA and commodities fraud charges for $130 million
On January 8, the DOJ announced it had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with a German-based multi-national financial services company (company), in which the company agreed to pay more than $130 million to resolve an investigation into violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and a separate investigation into a commodities fraud scheme.
According to the DOJ, between 2009 and 2016, the company admitted to knowingly and willfully conspiring to conceal payments to business development consultants (BDC) which were actually bribes to foreign officials in order to obtain business. The company admitted that employees agreed to “misrepresent the purpose of payments to BDCs and falsely characterize[d] payments to others as payments to BDCs” in violation of the FCPA’s books, records, and accounts provisions. Additionally, company employees failed to implement adequate internal accounting controls in violation of the FCPA by, among other things, (i) failing to conduct meaningful due diligence regarding the BDCs; (ii) paying BDCs who were not under contract with the company at the time; and (iii) paying BDCs without adequate documentation of the services purportedly performed.
Additionally, the DOJ stated that between 2008 and 2013, the company’s precious metal traders engaged in a scheme to defraud other traders on the New York Mercantile Exchange Inc. and Commodity Exchange Inc. by placing orders to buy and sell precious metals futures contracts with the intent to cancel those orders before execution. The company previously settled with the CFTC in January 2018 for substantially the same conduct (covered by InfoBytes here).
Of the total $130 million penalty, the company will pay a criminal penalty of nearly $80 million to the DOJ in relation to the FCPA violations, and will pay $43 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest to the SEC to settle allegations that the company violated the FCPA’s books and records and internal accounting controls provisions. The company will pay over $7.5 million in relation to the commodities scheme, for criminal disgorgement, victim compensation, and a criminal penalty. The DOJ noted that the company received full credit for cooperation with the investigations and for significant remediation.
OFAC issues amended Venezuela-related general license, sanctions Venezuelan officials
On January 4, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued Venezuela-related General License (GL) 31A and an amended related frequently asked question. GL 31A authorizes certain transactions and activities involving the IV Venezuelan National Assembly, the Interim President of Venezuela, and certain other persons that would otherwise be prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 13884, as incorporated into the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.)
Additionally, earlier on December 30, OFAC announced sanctions pursuant to E.O. 13692 against two Venezuelan government officials who presided over the trials of six U.S. persons in Venezuela. According to OFAC, the six executives’ trials “were based on politically motivated charges and marred by a lack of fair trial guarantees.” As a result, all property and interests in property belonging to the identified individuals subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by the designated persons are also blocked.” U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons.
OFAC reaches settlement with Saudi Arabian bank to resolve Sudanese and Syrian sanctions violations
On December 28, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $653,347 settlement with a Saudi Arabian bank to resolve 13 apparent violations of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, or section 2(b) of Executive Order (E.O.) 13582, which prohibits certain transactions with respect to Syria. According to OFAC’s web notice, between 2011 and 2014, the bank processed—directly or indirectly—13 U.S. dollar (USD) transactions totaling more than $5.9 million “to or through the United States in circumstances where a benefit of [the bank’s] service was received by Sudanese or Syrian counterparties, or that involved goods originating in or transiting through Sudan or Syria.” OFAC noted that the apparent violations began after the bank had implemented more robust compliance measures, “including those relating to sanctions screening and OFAC sanctions compliance.”
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that the bank “conferred substantial economic benefit to U.S.-sanctioned parties,” causing “significant harm to the integrity of U.S. sanctions programs and their associated policy objectives.”
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that the bank (i) did not willfully intend to violate U.S. sanctions law or recklessly disregard its sanctions obligations; (ii) cooperated with the investigation and signed a tolling agreement; and (iii) has undertaken remedial measures and has enhanced its compliance controls and internal policies, including by requiring the screening of all payments against international sanctions lists and prohibiting the opening of USD accounts for any Sudanese customers or financial institutions.
OFAC sanctions Iraqi militia leader for human rights abuse
On January 8, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions against an Iraqi militia leader for his alleged connection to serious human rights abuses. According to OFAC, the sanctions are taken pursuant to Executive Order 13818, which implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act and “targets perpetrators of serious human rights abuse and corruption.” As a result of the sanctions, all of the militia leader’s property and interests in property that are in the United States, as well as any entities that are owned 50 percent or more by him are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, OFAC regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in financial transactions with the individual and blocked entities.
Congress overrides veto of NDAA with significant BSA/AML provisions
On January 1, the U.S. Senate voted to override President Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021, following a similar vote in the House a few days prior. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the NDAA includes significant changes to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) laws under the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, such as:
- Establishing federal disclosure requirements of beneficial ownership information, including a requirement that reporting companies submit, at the time of formation and within a year of any change, their beneficial owner(s) to a “secure, nonpublic database at FinCEN”;
- Expanding the declaration of purpose of the BSA and establishing national examinations and supervision priorities;
- Requiring streamlined, real-time reporting of Suspicious Activity Reports;
- Establishing a Subcommittee on Innovation and Technology within the Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group to encourage and support technological innovation in the area of AML and countering the financing of terrorism and proliferation (CFT);
- Expanding the definition of financial institution under the BSA to include dealers in antiquities;
- Requiring federal agencies to study the facilitation of money laundering and the financing of terrorism through the trade of works of art; and
- Including digital currency in AML-CFT enforcement by, among other things, expanding the definition of financial institution under the BSA to include businesses engaged in the transmission of “currency, funds or value that substitutes for currency or funds.”
OFAC amends Venezuela and Ukraine-related general licenses
On December 23, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License (GL) 5F, “Authorizing Certain Transactions Related to the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. 2020 8.5 Percent Bond on or After July 21, 2021,” which replaces and supersedes GL 5E. OFAC also amended related FAQ 595, which reminds parties that, until July 21, 2021, transactions related to the sale or transfer of CITGO shares in connection with the PdVSA 2020 8.5 percent bond are prohibited, unless specifically authorized by OFAC.
Additionally, OFAC concurrently announced the issuance of Ukraine-related GLs 13P and 15J. GL 13P, “Authorizing Certain Transactions Necessary to Divest or Transfer Debt, Equity, or Other Holdings in GAZ Group,” is effective December 23 and replaces and supersedes GL 13O. Additionally, GL 15J, “Authorizing Certain Activities Involving GAZ Group,” is also effective on December 23 and replaces and supersedes GL 15I.
OFAC issues FAQs on E.O. prohibiting investments supporting Chinese military companies
On December 28, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published FAQs covering Executive Order (E.O.) 13959, “Addressing the Threat from Securities Investments that Finance Communist Chinese Military Companies.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the E.O. generally prohibits “any transaction in publicly traded securities, or any securities that are derivative of, or are designed to provide investment exposure to such securities, of any Chinese military company. . .by any US person.” The E.O. establishes the deadlines for divestment of investments in companies currently listed as Chinese military companies as well as companies that later may be added to the list of Chinese military companies pursuant to Section 1237, or those that the Secretary of the Treasury publicly lists as meeting the criteria set forth in Section 1237(b). In addition to the FAQs, OFAC published a list of the entities identified pursuant to the E.O. as Communist Chinese military companies, along with additional identifying information.
OFAC sanctions additional actors in Iranian steel sector
On January 5, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions against a Chinese supplier of graphite electrodes, 12 Iranian producers of steel and other metal products, and a major Iranian metals and mining holding company’s three foreign-based sales agents. OFAC’s actions are taken pursuant to Executive Order 13871 (covered by InfoBytes here), which authorizes the imposition of sanctions on persons determined to operate in Iran’s iron, steel, aluminum, and copper sectors, which OFAC identified as providing “funding and support for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorist groups and networks, campaigns of regional aggression, and military expansion.” As a result of the sanctions, “all property and interests in property of these persons that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC.” OFAC further noted that its regulations “generally prohibit all dealings by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons,” and warned foreign financial institutions that knowingly conducting or facilitating significant transactions for or on behalf of the designated persons could subject them to U.S. correspondent account or payable-through sanctions.
OFAC settles with digital asset company over multiple sanctions violations
On December 30, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a nearly $100,000 settlement with a California-based digital asset security company for 183 apparent violations of multiple sanctions programs. According to OFAC, between March 2015 and December 2019, the company processed 183 digital currency transactions, totaling over $9,000, on behalf of individuals who were located in sanctioned jurisdictions, such as the Crimea region of Ukraine, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria. OFAC notes that, prior to April 2018, the company allowed users to open accounts by providing only a name and email address, and while it then amended its policies to require all new accountholders to verify the country in which they were located, it did not perform additional verification or diligence on their actual location.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that the company (i) failed to implement appropriate, risk-based sanctions compliance controls; and (ii) had reason to know that some of its users were located in sanctioned jurisdictions based on users’ IP address data.
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, such as (i) the company not having received a penalty notice from OFAC in the proceeding five years; (ii) the company cooperating with the investigation; and (iii) the company having undertaken remedial measures, including hiring a Chief Compliance Officer and implementing a new OFAC policy.