InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
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 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.
OFAC issues Iran general license and related FAQs
On August 24, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued Iran General License (GL) M-1, “Authorizing the Exportation of Certain Graduate Level Educational Services and Software,” which authorizes accredited graduate and undergraduate degree-granting academic institutions in the U.S. to engage with Iranian students in online educational services and exploration of software through September 1, 2022, provided certain criteria are met. OFAC also published an updated FAQ related to GL M-1 (see 853). Effective August 24, GL M-1 supersedes and replaces GL M.
OFAC sanctions international oil smuggling network
On August 13, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13224 against several individuals and businesses allegedly involved in an international oil smuggling network supporting Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF). According to OFAC, senior IRGC-QF officials use proceeds from the designated persons’ involvement in Iranian oil exports, including through the shipment of Iranian oil to foreign customers, to help fund the group’s destabilizing regional activities. Director Andrea M. Gacki noted the “sales rely on key foreign intermediaries to obscure the IRGC-QF’s involvement” and stressed that OFAC “will continue to disrupt and expose anyone supporting these efforts.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons are blocked. OFAC’s announcement further noted that OFAC regulations generally prohibit U.S. persons from participating in transactions with designated persons, adding that “foreign financial institutions that knowingly facilitate significant transactions for, or persons that provide material or certain other support to, the persons designated today risk exposure to sanctions that could sever their access to the U.S. financial system or block their property or interests in property under U.S. jurisdiction.”
OFAC reaches $1.4 million settlement with money transmitter
On July 23, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $1.4 million settlement with a New York-based online money transmitter for 2,260 apparent violations of multiple sanctions programs. According to OFAC’s web notice, between February 4, 2013 and February 20, 2018, the company allegedly processed 2,241 payments for parties located in sanctioned jurisdictions and regions, including the Crimea region of Ukraine, Iran, Sudan, and Syria, as well as 19 payments on behalf of sanctioned persons identified on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. Identified deficiencies in the company’s sanctions compliance program related to screening, testing, auditing, and transaction review procedures allowed persons in these jurisdictions and regions and those on the SDN List to engage in roughly $802,117.36 worth of transactions, OFAC stated. The apparent violations—related to commercial transactions that the company processed on behalf of its corporate customers and card-issuing financial institutions—allegedly occurred as a result of weak algorithms, business identifier code screening failures, backlogs, and a failure to monitor IP addresses or flag addresses in sanctioned locations.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that (i) the company failed to exercise sufficient caution or care for its sanctions compliance obligations; (ii) the company had reason to know users were located in sanctioned jurisdictions and regions based on common indications it had within its possession; and (iii) the apparent violations harmed six different sanctions program.
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that (i) senior management quickly self-disclosed the apparent violations upon discovery and provided substantial cooperation during the investigation; (ii) the company has not received a penalty notice from OFAC in the preceding five years; and (iii) the company has taken remedial measures to minimize the risk of recurrence, including terminating the conduct leading to the apparent violations, retraining compliance employees, enhancing screening software, putting flagged transactions into a pending status rather than completing them, and conducting a daily review of customers’ and counter-parties’ identification documents.
OFAC reaches multiple settlements with companies that conspired to export equipment to Iran
On July 19, OFAC announced a $415,695 settlement with the United Arab Emirates (UAE)-based head regional office of a Sweden-based equipment company for apparent violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR). According to OFAC’s website notice, between 2015 and 2016, the UAE company allegedly conspired with Dubai- and Iran-based companies to export equipment from the U.S. to Iran. As a result, the UAE company caused its U.S.-based affiliate to indirectly export goods to Iran by incorrectly listing a Dubai-based company on its export documentation as the end-user. The conspiracy also allegedly included the organization of additional sales of the equipment in the same manner as the initial sale, which ultimately ended when the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security requested post-shipment verification that showed certain products in question were reexported to Iran.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that (i) the UAE company did not voluntarily self-disclose the apparent violations; (ii) the UAE company “willfully violated the ITSR” by conspiring to export goods from the U.S. to Iran by “obfuscating the end-user’s identity from its U.S. affiliate,” thus causing the U.S. affiliate to violate the ITSR; (iii) multiple managers had actual knowledge of the conduct giving rise to the apparent violations; and (iv) the UAE company “caused harm to the integrity of the ITSR by circumventing U.S. sanctions and conferring an economic benefit to Iran’s energy sector.”
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that (i) none of the relevant subsidiaries, including the UAE company, have received a penalty notice from OFAC in the preceding five years; (ii) the UAE company, through the U.S. affiliate, conducted an internal investigation resulting in numerous remedial measures, including taking disciplinary actions against participating individuals, adopting an enhanced review and screening process for Iran-related transactions, and conducting additional in-person training; and (iii) the UAE company, through the U.S. affiliate, provided substantial cooperation to OFAC during the investigation.
OFAC separately reached a $16,875 settlement with a Virginia-based U.S. subsidiary for its apparent ITSR violations arising from this matter. The Virginia subsidiary did not voluntarily self-disclose the apparent violations, but agreed to the settlement on behalf of a former Pennsylvania-based subsidiary that allegedly referred a known Iranian business opportunity to its foreign affiliate in Dubai. This foreign affiliate, OFAC claimed, then “orchestrated a scheme to export goods” from the U.S. to Iran.