InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC sanctions Iranians for attempting to influence 2020 U.S. presidential election
On November 18, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13848 against six Iranian individuals and one Iranian entity for allegedly attempting to influence the 2020 U.S. presidential election. According to OFAC, “state-sponsored Iranian cyber actors executed an online operation to intimidate and influence American voters, and to undermine voter confidence and sow discord” by obtaining or attempting to obtain U.S. voter information, sending threatening and intimidating emails to voters, crafting and disseminating “disinformation pertaining to the election and election security,” and illicitly accessing “content management accounts of several online U.S. media entities, which resulted in their ability to edit and create fraudulent content.” As a result, all property and interests in property of the sanctioned persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, as well as any entities owned 50 percent or more by such persons. U.S. persons are also generally prohibited from entering into transactions with the sanctioned persons. Additionally, OFAC warned that “financial institutions and other persons that engage in certain transactions or activities with the sanctioned entity and individuals may expose themselves to sanctions or be subject to an enforcement action.”
The sanctions are part of a collective effort with the U.S. Department of State and the FBI. Concurrent with the designations, the DOJ unsealed an indictment against two of the sanctioned individuals. The DOJ charged the Iranian nationals with (i) conspiracy to commit computer fraud and abuse, voter intimidation, and transmission of interstate threats, (ii) voter intimidation, and (iii) transmission of interstate threats. One of the individuals was additionally charged with unauthorized computer intrusion and computer fraud.
OFAC sanctions IRGC-connected entities
On October 29, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224, as amended, as well as E.O. 13382, against members of a network of companies and individuals that supported Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its expeditionary unit, the IRGC Qods Force (IRGC-QF). The IRGC-QF used and proliferated lethal Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for use by Iran-supported terrorist groups, and to Ethiopia, where a crisis threatens to destabilize the region. Additionally, deadly UAVs were utilized in attacks on international shipping and on the U.S. OFAC also announced sanctions against the commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force (IRGC ASF) UAV Command who allegedly directs the planning, equipment, and training for IRGC ASF UAV operations. As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned individual subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked. U.S. persons are also generally prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons.
FATF updates statements concerning jurisdictions with AML/CFT/CPF deficiencies
On October 26, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced updates to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) statements concerning jurisdictions with strategic anti-money laundering, countering the financing of terrorism, and combating weapons of mass destruction proliferation financing (AML/CFT/CPF) deficiencies. Specifically, to ensure compliance with international standards, the FAFT updated the following two statements: (i) Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring, which identifies jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT/CPF regimes that have committed to, or are actively working with, the FATF to address those deficiencies in accordance with an agreed upon timeline and; (ii) High-Risk Jurisdictions Subject to a Call for Action, which identifies jurisdictions with significant strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT/CPF regimes and instructs FATF members to apply enhanced due diligence, and in the most serious cases, apply counter-measures to protect the international financial system from such risks. Notably, Jordan, Mali, and Turkey have been added to the Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring, while Botswana and Mauritius have been removed from the list. Among other things, through the announcement, FinCEN further instructed financial institutions to comply with U.S. prohibitions against the opening or maintaining of any correspondent accounts, whether directly or indirectly, for North Korean or Iranian financial institutions, which are already prohibited under existing U.S. sanctions and FinCEN regulations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, FinCEN last announced updates to the FATF statements in July.
2nd Circuit: Turkish bank not immune from sanctions
On October 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a district court’s ruling against a Turkish state-owned commercial bank (defendant) denying its bid for immunity based on its characterization of an “instrumentality” of a foreign service, which is not entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution at common law. The U.S. government alleged that the bank converted Iranian oil money into gold and hid the transactions as purchases of goods to avoid conflicting sanctions against Iran. The district court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss and partially concluded that the defendant was not immune from prosecution because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) confers immunity on foreign services only in civil proceedings. Furthermore, the district court concluded that, “even assuming arguendo that FSIA did confer immunity to foreign sovereigns in criminal proceedings, [the defendant’s] conduct would fall within FSIA’s commercial activity exception.” Additionally, the district court rejected the defendant’s “contention that it was entitled to immunity from prosecution under the common law, noting that [the defendant] failed to cite any support for its claim on this basis.” The district court found that the defendant’s characterization of its activities as sovereign in nature “conflates the act with its purpose,” finding that the lender's alleged money laundering was the type of activity regularly carried out by private businesses. The fact that the defendant is majority-owned by the Turkish Government is irrelevant under FSIA even if it is related to Turkey’s foreign policy because “literally any bank can violate sanctions.”
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit noted that it was unnecessary to resolve a question presented in the case—if foreign governments can assert immunity against criminal, as well as civil, charges—since money laundering would qualify as a commercial activity exception. The appellate court noted that, “[t]he gravamen of the Indictment is not that [the bank] is the Turkish Government’s repository for Iranian oil and natural gas proceeds in Turkey,” but that “it is [the bank’s] participation in money laundering and other fraudulent schemes designed to evade U.S. sanctions that is the ‘core action.’” And, “because those core acts constitute ‘an activity that could be, and in fact regularly is, performed by private-sector businesses,’ those acts are commercial, not sovereign, in nature.” The opinion also notes that “[e]ven assuming the FSIA applies in criminal cases—an issue that we need not, and do not, decide today—the commercial activity exception to FSIA would nevertheless apply to [the defendant’s] charged offense conduct.” The appellate court agreed with the district court, concluding that the bank must face criminal charges in the U.S. for allegedly assisting Iran evade economic sanctions by laundering approximately $20 billion in Iranian oil and gas revenues.
District Court: News reports cannot reverse dismissal of sanctions suit
On October 13, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a relator’s motion seeking indicative relief, ruling that post-ruling news reports were insufficient to reverse the dismissal of a qui tam suit accusing a UK-based bank and related entities (collectively, “defendants”) of violating U.S. sanctions against Iran. In 2020, the court dismissed the complaint after finding that the government “had articulated multiple valid purposes served by dismissal, and that relator had not carried its burden to show that a dismissal would be ‘fraudulent, arbitrary or capricious, or illegal.’” The relator’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is pending. At the district court, the relator moved for indicative relief based on the premise that if the court had jurisdiction, it would have vacated the dismissal based on disclosures in post-dismissal media reports.
According to the opinion, the defendants entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the DOJ in 2012 following a multi-year, multi-agency investigation concerning allegations that defendants deceptively facilitated U.S. dollar transactions by Iranian clients between 2001 and 2007 in violation of U.S. sanctions and various New York and federal banking regulations. The defendants admitted to the violations and paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and penalties. The relator subsequently filed a qui tam action alleging the defendants misled the government in negotiating the DPA. A government investigation found no support for the allegations. In 2019, the DOJ entered a new DPA with defendants. The relator amended its complaint alleging improper conduct related to the 2019 DPA, which the court dismissed.
The relator then filed the instant motion to reopen the case, arguing that news reports published in 2020 showed that the defendants engaged in transactions with sanctioned Iranian entities after 2007, which was contrary to the government’s representations when it moved to dismiss the case. The relator claimed that the government incorrectly asserted that it closely examined records before seeking dismissal and failed to honestly conclude that the allegations were meritless. In denying the relator’s motion, the court explained that the relator failed to show that the news reports would be admissible or were important enough to change the outcome of the earlier motion to dismiss. The court held that news reports are inadmissible and further concluded that none of the suspicious activity reports discussed in the news reports contradicted the government’s representations in its motion to dismiss.
OFAC updates Iran, Venezuela FAQs
On September 30, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the publication of a new Iran-related FAQ. FAQ 932 clarifies that “transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from Iran by U.S. persons are within an exemption under the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR), 31 C.F.R. part 560, and therefore generally are not prohibited.” OFAC also noted that U.S. persons could be prohibited from engaging in transactions associated with persons blocked by sanctions programs or authorities outside the scope of the ITSR.
The same week, on October 1, OFAC announced the publication of a new Venezuela-related FAQ. FAQ 933 clarifies that authorizations in paragraph (a) of Venezuela-related General Licenses 7C and 20B, respectively, have not expired.
OFAC sanctions entities connected to international terrorism
On September 17, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13224 against members of Lebanon- and Kuwait-based financial conduits that fund Hizballah. In addition, OFAC designated members of an international network of financial facilitators and front companies connected to Hizballah and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF). Together, these networks allegedly “laundered tens of millions of dollars through regional financial systems and conducted currency exchanges and trades” for the benefit of both entities. According to OFAC, Hizballah, supported by the IRGC-QF, utilized the revenues from these networks to fund terrorism, and condoned instability throughout the region. As a result, all property and interests in property belonging to the designated persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and any “entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by them, individually, or with other blocked persons, that are in the United States or in control of a U.S. person must be blocked.” U.S. persons are “generally prohibited from engaging in transactions” with the designated members. OFAC further warned that the agency “can prohibit or impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that either knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction on behalf of a Specially Designated Global Terrorist or, among other things, knowingly facilitates a significant transaction for Hizballah or certain persons designated for their connection to Hizballah.”
OFAC reaches settlement with Texas technology company
On September 9, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a roughly $190,000 settlement with a Texas-based company for allegedly knowingly exporting goods, technology, and services in violation of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC’s web notice, between December 2013 and May 2018, the company exported 49 products from the U.S. to two third-country distributors with prior knowledge, or reason to know, that its products were intended specifically for a reseller in Iran. The Iranian reseller then sold three of the exported products to an entity on OFAC’s SDN List, at the time of the relevant exports. On at least three occasions, the company also allegedly provided support, software updates, reseller training, or other services in support of sales to customers located in Iran.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including, among other things, that the company: (i) demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions regulations by authorizing distribution and support of its goods; (ii) possessed knowledge of the conduct; and (iii) “caused harm to U.S. sanctions objectives by facilitating access to the bank’s products and support services by resellers and users in Iran.”
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including, among other things, that the: (i) “volume and total amount of payments underlying the Apparent Violations was not significant compared to [the company’s] overall revenue”; (ii) the company demonstrated remedial actions, including establishing export controls and sanctions compliance policies and procedures; and (iii) the company cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.
OFAC sanctions Iranian officials in plot to kidnap American citizen in the U.S.
On September 3, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13553 against four Iranian intelligence operatives who allegedly targeted a U.S. citizen and Iranian dissidents in a wide-ranging campaign to silence critics of the Iranian government. According to OFAC, a senior official led a network that plotted to kidnap a U.S. journalist, which failed and led to the indictment of members of the network. OFAC also noted that this network has played a key role in the Iranian government’s brutal human rights abuses against Iranians. 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 facilitating significant transactions or providing significant financial services to the designated individuals may subject them to U.S. correspondent account or payable-through sanctions.
OFAC settles with Romanian bank for Iranian and Syrian sanctions violations
On August 27, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $862,318 settlement with a Romania-based bank and its U.S. parent company to resolve 98 apparent violations of OFAC’s Iran and Syria sanctions programs. According to OFAC’s web notice, the bank processed 98 commercial transactions totaling more than $3.5 million through U.S. banks on behalf of parties located in Iran and Syria. OFAC considered various aggravating factors in arriving at the settlement amount, including that the bank (i) demonstrated “a reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions regulations by failing to implement appropriate controls to comply with applicable U.S. regulations with respect to payments it processed” that had a “sanctions nexus that transited the U.S. financial system” or “after the bank became a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. person”; (ii) knew, or had reason to know, “it was processing payments on behalf of persons in Iran and Syria because of underlying finance and trade documents in its possession that referenced those countries”; and (iii) conveyed more than $3.5 million in economic benefit to Iranian and Syrian persons, thus causing harm to the integrity of U.S. sanctions programs and their associated policy objectives.
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that the bank voluntarily self-disclosed the apparent violations and the apparent violations constitute a non-egregious case. OFAC also determined that the bank (i) has not received a penalty notice from OFAC in the preceding five years; (ii) cooperated with OFAC’s investigation, conducted a lookback, and entered into a tolling agreement; and (iii) has undertaken remedial measures to ensure sanctions compliance. As such, OFAC noted that under its Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, the base civil money penalty amount is applicable in this matter with the final settlement amount reflecting OFAC’s consideration of general factors.