InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC Release Further Updates to Iran Sanctions Rules
On December 23, OFAC announced it has issued a final rule amending existing Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations to expand the scope of medical devices and agricultural commodities generally authorized for export or re-export to Iran. The amendment also includes new or expanded authorizations relating to training, replacement parts, software and services for the operation, maintenance, and repair of medical devices, as well as certain items that are broken or subject to product recalls or other safety concerns. In addition, this amendment revises the definition of the terms “goods of Iranian origin” and “Iranian-origin goods.” OFAC concurrently published new and updated FAQs pertaining to the amendment.
OFAC Sanctions Russian Individuals and Companies in Connection with Ukrainian Conflict
On December 20, Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) announced its decision to sanction seven individuals and eight entities in connection with Russia’s occupation of Crimea and the conflict in Ukraine. OFAC also identified 26 subsidiaries of Russian banks as subject to sanctions already in place on their parent companies. Among other things, the sanctions prohibit U.S. residents, citizens, and financial institutions from participating in various financial dealings with the companies. As explained by John E. Smith, acting director of Treasury’s sanctions enforcement office, the sanctions were introduced “in response to Russia's unlawful occupation of Crimea and continued aggression in Ukraine” in order to “maintain pressure on Russia by sustaining the costs of its occupation of Crimea and disrupting the activities of those who support the violence and instability in Ukraine.” Concurrent with today’s announcement, OFAC also issued a Russia/Ukraine-related General License 11, which authorizes certain transactions “necessary to requesting, contracting for, paying for, receiving, or utilizing a project design review or permit from FAU Glavgosekspertiza Rossii’s office(s) in the Russian Federation.”
OFAC Clarifies Iran Sanctions Snapback, Also Amends General License Regarding Foreign Flights to Iran
On December 15, OFAC updated the Frequently Asked Questions Relating to the Lifting of Certain U.S. Sanctions Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, clarifying two FAQs regarding the re-imposition of sanctions in the event of a “sanctions snapback.” Among other things, the revised guidance clarified that the U.S. will not retroactively impose sanctions for activity considered legitimate during the time of the transaction, but that activity would have to immediately halt because the agreement does not grandfather existing contracts. In addition, OFAC explained that the U.S. would provide non-Iranian foreigners a 180-day period to wind down operations that were authorized prior to a snapback. The FAQ-guidance also explained that if a snapback of sanctions were to result in the revocation of licenses, the U.S. government would provide a 180-day wind-down period for those deals, and non-Iranian foreigners could receive repayment from Iranians for goods and services provided prior to a snapback under the terms of an existing contract.
Separately, OFAC issued amended license General License J-1, regarding foreign flights to Iran, to also authorize flights that involve code-sharing agreements. A code-share is a marketing arrangement in which an airline places its designator code on a flight operated by another airline, and sells tickets for that flight. GL J-1 is effective as of December 15 and replaces and supersedes General License J in its entirety.
US Court Rejects DocuSign e-Signatures as Method to Provide Digital Authorization
Back in July, the United States bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of California held that under its local rules, an attorney submitting electronically signed documents for filing with the court must maintain an originally signed document in paper form bearing a “wet” signature. In re Mayfield, No. 16-22134-D-7, 2016 WL 3958982 (U.S. Bankr. Ct. E.D. Cal.). The United States Trustee (UST) filed a motion for sanctions against a debtor’s attorney who used the an electronic signature platform to have the debtor execute certain documents that were subsequently filed with the court. The court’s local rules 9004-1(C) and (D) provide that if these documents were executed with a “software-generated electronic signature,” the submitting attorney is required to maintain “an originally signed document in paper form” and produce it upon request by the UST. When asked by the UST to produce the original signed versions of the documents he filed, the debtor’s attorney was unable to do so. In response to the motion, the debtor’s attorney argued that the requirements of 9004-1(C) and (D) did not apply because the electronic signatures were manually created by the debtor’s actions taken on the electronic signature platform. As such, they were not “software-generated electronic signatures” within the meaning of the rule, and under the federal ESIGN Act constituted “original” signatures.
Ultimately, the court held that: (i) the ESIGN Act was not applicable because of the express exemption for court rules at 15 USC § 7003(b)(1), thereby permitting the court to establish and interpret its own rules with respect to electronic signatures, (ii) the electronic signatures created using the platform were within the meaning of the term “software-generated electronic signature” under the local rules, and (iii) the local rule’s reference to “an originally signed document in paper form” required the attorney to also maintain a copy of the document bearing a “wet ink” signature. Accordingly, the Court granted the UST’s motion and, as the sanction imposed, required the debtor’s attorney to certify completion of the court’s online e-filing training course.
Congress Approves 10-Year Extension of Iran Sanctions Act
On December 1, the U.S. Senate, by a 99-0 margin, passed a 10-year extension of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) sending the measure to the White House and delaying any potentially tougher actions until next year. Originally approved in 1996, the extended bill passed onto the Senate in November with only one vote against it from the House. Congressional authority to enforce sanctions against Iran—which was due to expire on December 31 if not renewed—will be presented to President Barack Obama, who will decide whether to sign the bill into law in the coming days.
Treasury Sanctions North Korean Officials and Companies from Transportation, Mining, Energy, and Financial Services Industries
On December 2, OFAC announced its decision to designate 16 entities and seven individuals in response to North Korea’s ongoing nuclear weapons development and violations of U.N. security council resolutions. The designations include a number of North Korean banks and other entities in the financial services sector of the North Korean economy. As a result of today’s action, any property or interests in property of the designated persons in the possession or control of U.S. persons or within the United States must be blocked. Additionally, U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions involving the designated persons and listed aircraft. The additions to the Specially Designated Nationals List were made pursuant to Executive Orders 13382, 13687, and 13722, which target proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, the Government of North Korea, and a number of North Korean trade and industry sectors, including transportation, coal and energy, and financial services.
OFAC Publishes Fact Sheet and FAQ Related to Termination of Burma Sanctions Program; Updates SDN List
On October 7, OFAC published a Fact Sheet and Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) number 481 regarding the implementation of the President’s Executive Order entitled “Termination of Emergency with Respect to the Actions and Policies of the Government of Burma.” OFAC’s fact sheet explains that all OFAC-administered restrictions and authorizations under the Burma sanctions program pertaining to banking with Burma, including 2012 and 2013 OFAC general licenses that authorized certain correspondent account activity with Burmese banks, are terminated pursuant to the Executive Order. FAQ 481 clarifies that “[p]ending OFAC enforcement matters will proceed irrespective of the termination of OFAC-administered sanctions on Burma, and OFAC will continue to review apparent violations of the [Burmese Sanctions Regulations], whether [such violations] came to the agency’s attention before or after the Burma sanctions program was terminated.” In connection with terminating the Burma-related sanctions program, OFAC made several deletions to its SDN List.
OFAC Updates Iran-Related FAQs
On October 7, OFAC updated its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) relating to the Listing of Certain U.S. Sanctions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In addition to adding three FAQs related to due diligence (see M.10 through M.12), OFAC amended two FAQs (C.7 and C.15) regarding Financial and Banking Measures and one FAQ (K.19) related to Foreign Entities Owned or Controlled by U.S. Persons. FAQ M.10 clarifies that while “[i]t is not necessarily sanctionable for a non-U.S. person to engage in transactions with an entity that is not on the SDN List but that is minority owned, or that is controlled in whole or in part, by an Iranian or Iran-related person on the SDN List,” it is recommended that persons engaging in such transactions exercise caution to ensure that they do not involve Iranian or Iran-related persons on the SDN List. FAQs M.11 and M.12, respectively, address (i) due diligence expectations related to the screening of potential Iranian counterparties; and (ii) the circumstances under which OFAC expects a non-U.S. financial institution to repeat the due diligence their customers have already performed on an Iranian customer.
DOJ Teams Up With OFAC to Bring Enforcement against Chinese Front Company
On September 26, the DOJ announced charges against a Chinese trading company and its executives for conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and to defraud the United States; as well as for conspiracy to launder monetary instruments through U.S. financial institutions. The criminal complaint alleges that the company served as a third-party payer, using an illicit network of front companies, financial facilitators, and trade representatives to purchase sugar and fertilizer for a banking entity based in North Korea that OFAC had designated as a Specially Designated National (SDN) in 2009. The civil forfeiture complaint seeks forfeiture of funds spread out across 25 different bank accounts located in China and connected to the affairs of the company. In addition, OFAC imposed sanctions on the company, which is located near the North Korean border and openly worked with the SDN banking entity after 2009.
OFAC Settles with Illinois-based Company for Alleged Violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations
On September 13, OFAC announced a $4,320,000 settlement with an Illinois-based company to resolve allegations that it violated the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR), 31 C.F.R. part 560. From approximately May 5, 2009 to March 2, 2012, OFAC alleges that on 48 occasions the company shipped seeds to consignees located in Europe or the Middle East with the knowledge or reason to know that the seeds were ultimately destined for Iran distributors. The settlement amount reflects OFAC’s consideration of the following aggravating factors: (i) the company acted willfully by engaging in conduct it knew to be prohibited; (ii) the company acted recklessly by ignoring its OFAC compliance responsibilities; (iii) the company’s employees, including mid-level management, had “contemporaneous knowledge” that the seeds were ultimately destined for Iran, and for almost eight months after the Director of Finance learned of OFAC’s investigation, it continued sales to its Iranian distributors; (iv) the company’s conduct resulted in providing $770,000 in economic benefit to Iran; (v) the company failed to cooperate with OFAC at the start of the investigation, providing information that was inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete; and (vi) the company is a subdivision of a commercially sophisticated, international corporation. Mitigating factors considered when determining the settlement amount include, but are not limited to, the company’s lack of sanctions history with OFAC for five years before the first of the alleged 48 violations and the remedial steps the company took to ensure future compliance with OFAC sanctions.