InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Chinese nationals sanctioned and charged with laundering over $100 million in cryptocurrency from hacked exchange
On March 2, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Orders 13694, 13757, and 13722 against two Chinese nationals for allegedly laundering over $100 million in stolen cryptocurrency connected to a North Korean state-sponsored cyber group that hacked cryptocurrency exchanges in 2018. According to OFAC, the two individuals “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, a malicious cyber-enabled activity” or in support of the North Korean cyber group, which was designated by OFAC last September (covered by InfoBytes here). OFAC stated that it closely coordinated its action with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division. As a result of the sanctions, “all property and interests in property of these individuals 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 the United States (including transactions 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.
On the same day, the DOJ unsealed a two-count indictment against the two individuals, charging them with money laundering conspiracy and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. The indictment claims that the individuals converted virtual currency traceable to the hack of a cryptocurrency exchange into fiat currency or prepaid Apple iTunes gift cards through accounts in various exchanges linked to Chinese banks and then transferred the currency or gift cards to customers for a fee. According to the indictment, neither individual was registered as a money transmitting business with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which is a federal felony offense. The complaint seeks forfeiture of 113 virtual currency accounts belonging to the individuals.
9th Circuit reduces punitive damages in FCRA class action
On February 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reduced punitive damages in a class action against a credit reporting agency (CRA) for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by erroneously linking class members to criminals and terrorists with similar names in a database maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). At trial, the jury found that the CRA violated the FCRA by willfully failing to (i) “follow reasonable procedures to assure accuracy of the terrorist alerts”; (ii) “disclose to the class members their entire credit reports by excluding the alerts from the reports”; and (iii) “provide a summary of rights” to class members with each disclosure. Subsequently, the jury awarded $8 million in statutory damages and $52 million in punitive damages to the class.
Upon appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s determinations that all class members—not just the class representative—must have “standing at the final stage of a money damages suit when class members are to be awarded individual monetary damages.” But the appellate court found that all class members did have standing due to, among other things, the CRA’s “reckless handling of information from OFAC,” which subjected class members to “a real risk of harm,” and because “the violation of a statutory right constituted a concrete injury.” In addition, the appellate court rejected the CRA’s request for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on the basis that the class had failed to provide sufficient evidence of injuries or to support the damages award. Moreover, the appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the class representative’s claims were typical of the class’s claims, nor in certifying the class or denying the CRA’s motion to decertify the class. The appellate court also agreed with the lower court on statutory damages, but it held that the $52 million punitive damages award was “unconstitutionally excessive.” The appellate court explained that although the CRA’s “conduct was reprehensible, it was not so egregious as to justify a punitive award of more than six times an already substantial compensatory award.” Accordingly, the appellate court vacated the jury’s award of punitive damages and remanded, directing that the punitive damages be reduced to four times the statutory damages award.
OFAC designates Hizballah-associated companies and officials as global terrorists
On February 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated three individuals and 12 entities—all based in Lebanon—as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). Pursuant to Executive Order 13224, as amended, OFAC designated two of the individuals as leaders or officials of a Hizballah-related foundation that was previously designated for supporting terrorism in 2007. The entities are also associated with the foundation. One of the entities controlled by the foundation and a number of its subsidiaries reportedly did business with a Lebanon-based bank, which had been designated as an SDGT in August, allowing Hizballah to avoid close examination of its transactions by Lebanese banking authorities.
OFAC reiterated that “all property and interests in property of these targets that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC. OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all dealings by U.S. persons or within the United States (including transactions transiting the United States) that involve any property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons. In addition, persons that engage in certain transactions with the individuals and entities designated today may themselves be exposed to sanctions or subject to an enforcement action.”
Foreign financial institutions should conduct enhanced due diligence when facilitating humanitarian trade with Iran
On February 27, the U.S. Treasury Department announced the finalization of terms to the Swiss Humanitarian Trade Arrangement (SHTA) between the U.S. and Swiss governments in order to increase the transparency of humanitarian trade with Iran and help safeguard against “the Iranian regime’s diversion of humanitarian trade for malign purposes.” According to Treasury, “the SHTA presents a voluntary option for facilitating payment for exports of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices to Iran in a manner that ensures the utmost transparency. Under the SHTA, participating financial institutions commit to conducting enhanced due diligence to ensure that humanitarian goods reach the people of Iran and are not misused by the Iranian regime.” Foreign governments and foreign financial institutions interested in establishing humanitarian mechanisms consistent with guidance published last October (covered by InfoBytes here) are instructed to reach out to Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for additional information or to request evaluation of a proposed framework. Foreign governments and financial institutions are also reminded to carefully consider the due diligence and reporting expectations outlined in the guidance.
In conjunction with the finalization of the SHTA, OFAC issued General License (GL) 8, titled “Authorizing Certain Humanitarian Trade Transactions Involving the Central bank of Iran,” as well as related FAQs. GL 8 authorizes certain transactions and activities otherwise prohibited under the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations or the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations.
OFAC settles with Swiss technology provider over sanctions violations
On February 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $7.8 million settlement with a Swiss provider of commercial telecommunications and information technology services to the civilian air transportation industry for 9,256 alleged violations of the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC, between April 2013 and February 2018, the company allegedly provided commercial services and software subject to U.S. jurisdiction that may have benefitted certain airlines designated as specially designated global terrorists (SDGTs) pursuant to Executive Order 13224. These sanctioned airlines, OFAC noted, were member-owners in the company’s organization.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various mitigating factors, including (i) OFAC has not issued a violation against the company in the five years preceding the earliest transaction at issue; (ii) the company has undertaken remedial efforts to minimize the risk of similar violations from occurring in the future; (iii) the company cooperated with the investigation and executed multiple tolling agreements; and (iv) the company terminated the membership of the SGDT airlines.
OAC also considered various aggravating favors, including that (i) the company did not voluntarily self-disclose the alleged violations; (ii) the company had actual knowledge that it was providing services and software to SDGTs; (iii) the company’s actions “facilitated the operations of, or otherwise benefitted, airlines that were sanctioned for supporting terrorism”; and (iv) the company is “commercially sophisticated” with operations in every county in the world.
OFAC releases FAQs for reporting, procedures and penalties regulations
On February 20, the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued two new FAQs related to the Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations (RPPR). The RPPR “set forth standard reporting and recordkeeping requirements and license application and other procedures relevant to the economic sanctions programs administered by OFAC.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, OFAC amended the RPPR last June to expand instructions and add “new requirements for parties filing reports on blocked property, unblocked property, or rejected transactions,” updating six sections of the regulations. The two new FAQs state that the June amendment is currently in effect and that all parties, including entities that are not U.S. financial institutions, must obey all of the RPPR requirements, which include submitting reports to OFAC “within 10 business days of [a] rejected transaction.” Information on submitting the reports can be found here.
The FAQs also address how much information must be included in a rejected transaction report. OFAC anticipates filers will include all required information “that is in the filer’s possession in a rejected transaction report, and generally does not expect reporters to seek further information from their counterparty.” However, OFAC does expect that, at a minimum, filers will include (i) the identity of the filer; (ii) the date of the rejected transaction; (iii) the authority under which the transaction was rejected; and (iv) all pertinent documentation acquired with the transaction.
Treasury sanctions Russian company for doing business with Venezuela
On February 18, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13850, as amended, against a Swiss-incorporated, Russian-controlled oil brokerage and its board chairman and president for operating in the oil sector of the Venezuelan economy. According to the press release, the company assisted Venezuela state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., in brokering, selling, and transporting Venezuelan petroleum products.
In connection with the designations, OFAC issued Venezuela General License (GL) 36, titled “Authorizing Certain Activities Necessary to the Wind Down of Transactions Involving [company].” GL 36, which expires on May 20, authorizes certain transactions and activities otherwise prohibited under E.O.s 13850 and 13857 that are required in order to wind down business with the company. Concurrently, OFAC issued a new Venezuela-related frequently asked question regarding GL 36, addressing the significance of OFAC’s designation of the company, and whether the E.O. 13850 blocking sanctions on the company apply to its corporate parent and affiliates. In its press release, OFAC added that “all property and interests in property of [the company] and [its president] that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons, and of any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by the designated individual and entity, are blocked and must be reported to OFAC.”
Venezuela’s state-owned airline subject to OFAC sanctions
On February 7, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced that it identified a previously blocked state-owned Venezuelan airline and its fleet of aircraft pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13884. The entities—subject to sanctions under E.O. 13884, which blocks property of the Venezuelan government—have been added to OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List. According to OFAC’s press release, the commercial airline and its fleet have been used by Venezuela’s illegitimate government “to promote its own political agenda, including shuttling regime officials to countries such as North Korea, Cuba, and Iran.” OFAC observed that Venezuelan citizens may still travel by air on a number of other airlines that provide domestic service as well as service to and from Venezuela. OFAC also reiterated that its “regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of blocked persons.”
NYDFS to take action against check cashing companies for BSA/AML violations
On February 3, NYDFS announced it intends to take enforcement action through an administrative proceeding against several check cashing entities for alleged violations of New York Banking Law and federal laws and regulations related to the business of check cashing. According to NYDFS, examinations revealed multiple concerns related to the entities’ Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) program and transaction monitoring, including (i) inaccurate books and records; (ii) cashing post-dated checks; (iii) insufficient BSA/AML compliance; and (iv) inadequate risk-assessment procedures and customer identification and Know Your Customer programs. NYDFS also stated that management at the identified entities failed to implement effective controls to mitigate and manage BSA/AML compliance programs and Office of Foreign Assets Control risks despite “repeated criticism of the entities’ performance.”
NYDFS conducted a subsequent investigation, which found additional alleged violations that circumvented Federal and state banking laws, such as (i) hiring undisclosed employees who were paid “off the books”; (ii) conducting an unlicensed mobile check-cashing business; and (iii) and engaging in an illegal check-cashing scheme that structured transactions and falsified business records to give the appearance that checks were cashed on multiple dates, when in fact they were all cashed on a single date. The administrative proceeding to revoke the entities’ licenses and seek civil penalties will begin February 24.
Iranian company employee charged in $115 million international bank fraud scheme
On January 31, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced charges against an employee (defendant) of an Iranian company for bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and for making false statements to federal agents regarding financial transactions made through U.S. banks to benefit Iranian entities and individuals. According to the indictment, an agreement between the Iranian government and the Venezuelan government resulted in a construction contract for housing units in Venezuela where an Iranian company would construct the units and be paid with money funneled through U.S. banks by a Venezuelan state-owned company subsidiary. The defendant was purportedly part of a committee formed to guide the project. In coordination with other individuals, the defendant allegedly directed money from the Venezuelan company to the Iranian company through bank accounts—set up to hide the transactions from U.S. banks—in Switzerland. The indictment charges that, among other things, the defendant “knowingly and willfully” conspired with others to commit bank fraud against an FDIC-insured institution by directing the Venezuelan company to route $115 million in payments for the Iranian company to the Swiss bank account through correspondent U.S. banks in New York. Additionally, when the defendant was interviewed by federal agents, he “knowingly and willfully” concealed the scheme and made materially false statements about his knowledge of the applicability of sanctions against Iran. The indictment seeks forfeiture of any proceeds or property obtained by the defendant in the course of the alleged offenses.