InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC reaches $78,750 settlement with financial analytics company
On April 1, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a roughly $78,750 settlement with a financial analytics company for allegedly processing transactions in violation of Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC’s web notice, in August 2016, the company (which had been recently acquired) reissued and re-dated an August 2015 invoice with a new date that was 374 days after the invoice for the debt was originally issued. After a partial payment, the company reissued the original August 2015 invoice creating two “new” invoices each reflecting half of the remaining balance and dated November 2016, both with payment due upon receipt. After another partial payment, the company reissued a fourth invoice with the remaining debt in September 2017, again altering the date. OFAC concluded that the company violated the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations “by dealing in new debt of longer than 90 days maturity when [it] extended the payment date of its invoices.”
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including, among other things, that (i) the company “failed to exercise a minimal degree of caution or care when it reissued and re-dated four invoices to extend the payment date of invoices far beyond the authorized debt tenor, knowing or having reason to know such conduct would violate U.S. sanctions regulations”; (ii) the company’s staff “were aware of and involved in the conduct giving rise to the Apparent Violations”; and (iii) the company “was a commercially sophisticated entity and considered a leader in global energy market analysis, with over 500 customers in 60 countries.” OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including, among other things, that the company (i) has not received a penalty notice from OFAC in the preceding five years; (ii) “took remedial measures by enhancing their compliance program to better ensure compliance with OFAC sanctions, creating more robust training, adding periodic testing to invoices involving SSI List entities, and adding additional staff to manage sanctions issues”; and (iii) cooperated during the investigation.
Providing context for the settlement, OFAC stated that this “case underscores the importance of careful adherence to OFAC regulations, including in cases where counterparties may make compliance challenging.”
OFAC sanctions IRGC-connected entities
On March 30, 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 an Iran-based procurement agent and his network of companies that supported the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Research and Self Sufficiency Jihad Organization (IRGC), the IRGC unit responsible for the research and development of ballistic missiles, as well as Iran’s Parchin Chemical Industries (PCI), an element of Iran’s Defense Industries Organization. Additionally, OFAC sanctioned an Iranian intermediary involved in the procurement of parts used to develop missile propellant on behalf of PCI.
According to OFAC, the sanctions follow Iran’s missile attack on March 13 in Erbil, Iraq and an Iranian-enabled Houthi missile attack against a Saudi Aramco facility on March 25, in addition to other missile attacks by Iranian proxies against Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons that are in the U.S. or in the possession or control of U.S. persons, and “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more” by the targeted persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons.
FinCEN’s interactive SAR stats now include 2021 data
On March 28, FinCEN announced that its Interactive SAR Stats webpage now includes Filing Trend Data by industry updated through December 31, 2021. As previously covered by InfoBytes, SAR Stats—formerly called By the Numbers—is an annual compilation of numerical data gathered from the Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) filed by financial institutions using FinCEN’s new unified SAR form and e-filing process. Interactive SAR Stats provide users the opportunity to find FinCEN’s trend data for aggregated counts of defined suspicious activities that financial institutions file with FinCEN as required by the Bank Secrecy Act.
EU and U.S. agree in principle on new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework
On March 25, the U.S. and the European Commission announced their agreement in principle on a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework (Framework) to foster cross-border transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.S. (See also White House and European Commission fact sheets here and here.) Under the Framework, the U.S. has committed to implementing reforms and safeguards to “strengthen the privacy and civil liberties protections applicable to U.S. signals intelligence activities.” The announcement follows negotiations that began after the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) issued an opinion in the Schrems II case (Case C-311/18) in July 2020, holding that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield did not satisfy EU legal requirements.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CJEU’s ruling (which could not be appealed) concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid. However, the Court invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. In annulling the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, the CJEU determined that because the requirements of U.S. national security, public interest, and law enforcement have “primacy” over the data protection principles of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, the data transferred under the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield would not be subject to the same level of protections prescribed by the GDPR. Specifically, the CJEU held that the surveillance programs used by U.S. authorities are not proportionally equivalent to those allowed under the EU law because they are not “limited to what is strictly necessary,” nor, under certain surveillance programs, does the U.S. “grant data subjects actionable rights before the courts against the U.S. authorities.”
According to the factsheet released by the White House, the U.S. has made “unprecedented commitments” that build on the safeguards that were in place under the annulled EU-U.S. Privacy Shield with the goal of addressing issues identified in the Schrems II decision. These commitments include (i) strengthening the privacy and civil liberties safeguards governing U.S. signals intelligence activities through measures that would limit U.S. intelligence authorities’ data collection to what is necessary to advance legitimate national security objectives; (ii) establishing a new, multi-layered redress mechanism with independent and binding authority “consist[ing] of individuals chosen from outside the U.S. Government who would have full authority to adjudicate claims and direct remedial measures, as needed”; and (iii) enhancing the U.S.’s existing rigorous and layered oversight of signals intelligence activities, and requiring U.S. intelligence agencies to “adopt procedures to ensure effective oversight of new privacy and civil liberties standards.” The factsheet further stated that participating companies and organizations will continue to be required to adhere to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield principles, including the requirement of self-certification through the U.S. Department of Commerce. EU individuals will also continue to have access to avenues of recourse to resolve complaints against businesses and organizations participating in the Framework, including through alternative dispute resolution and binding arbitration.
The White House stated that President Biden will issue an executive order outlining the aforementioned commitments “that will form the basis of the Commission’s assessment in its future adequacy decision.” According to the announcement, the U.S. and European Commission “will now continue their cooperation with a view to translate this arrangement into legal documents that will need to be adopted on both sides to put in place this new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework.”
OFAC sanctions individuals for raising funds supporting Nigerian terrorist group
On March 25, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13224, as amended, against six individuals connected to the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram. According to OFAC, the six individuals “were found guilty of establishing a Boko Haram cell in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to raise funds for and provide material assistance to Boko Haram insurgents in Nigeria.” The sanctions follow “arrests, prosecutions, and designations in the UAE in September 2021, demonstrating the commitment of the Emirati government to using judicial measures and targeted financial sanctions to disrupt the flow of funds to these networks.” Under Secretary of the Treasury Brian Nelson stated that the U.S. is joining the UAE in targeting terrorist financing networks to ensure the Boko Haram network is unable to further move funds through the international financial system. As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned individuals in the U.S. or in the possession or control of U.S. persons, and “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more” by the targeted individuals are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons, unless exempt or authorized by a general or specific OFAC license.
OFAC’s announcement further warned that “engaging in certain transactions with the individuals designated today entails risk of secondary sanctions” and that any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates significant transactions or provides significant financial services on behalf of a Specially Designated Global Terrorist may be subject to U.S. correspondent account or payable-through account sanctions.
OFAC sanctions Russian defense companies, political leaders, and Sberbank CEO
On March 24, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced several new sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The new sanctions, issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 14024, target dozens of Russian defense companies, 328 members of the Russian State Duma, and the CEO of Sberbank, Russia’s largest financial institution. According to OFAC, the sanctions target “companies that are part of Russia’s defense-industrial base and that produce weapons that have been used in Russia’s assault against Ukraine’s people, infrastructure, and territory,” and are intended to prevent 48 companies from accessing western technological and financial resources. The sanctions imposed against the Russian Duma members (political and national security leaders who have supported Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) expand on previous sanctions taken against other Duma members (covered by InfoBytes here) and expand designations to now include the State Duma itself as an entity. OFAC further noted that the sanctioned CEO of Sberbank is a close Putin associate who oversees a large number of companies owned by Sberbank in other industries. As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons that are in the U.S. or in the possession or control of U.S. persons, and “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more” by the targeted persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons, unless exempt or authorized by a general or specific OFAC license.
The same day, OFAC also published one new Frequently Asked Question clarifying the impact of EO 14024 and other Russia-related sanctions on gold-related transactions or persons participating in the gold market.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on the U.S. sanctions response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine here.
OFAC announces Burmese sanctions
On March 25, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 14014 against five individuals and five entities connected to the military regime in Burma. According to OFAC, the sanctions “come[] as the regime prepares to mark the 77th Armed Forces Day.” OFAC also described that “[f]ollowing the February 1, 2021, coup that overthrew Burma’s democratically elected civilian government, the military committed numerous atrocities against the people of Burma, including the violent repression of political dissent and violence against innocent people, including at pro-democracy protests during last year’s Armed Forces Day that killed more than 100 people.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned entities subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked 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 issues Ukraine general license and Russian FAQ
On March 24, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced three Russia-related General Licenses (GL). GL 6A authorizes transactions related to the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components, or software updates, research activities related to the Covid-19 pandemic, or clinical trial activities. GL 17A authorizes the import of existing purchases of prohibited products that are under pre-existing contract by Executive Order (E.O.) 14068. And GL 20 authorizes third-country diplomatic and consular funds transfers. The same day, OFAC issued Ukraine/Russia-related GL 25, which authorizes news reporting organizations to engage in certain transactions related to their work in the Crimea, Donetsk People’s Republic, and Luhansk People’s Republic regions of Ukraine. OFAC also announced that it updated two frequently asked questions regarding E.O. 14068, which prohibits the importation into the United States of fish, seafood, and preparations thereof; alcoholic beverages; and non-industrial diamonds of Russian Federation origin.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on the U.S. sanctions response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine here.
Treasury official says it’s time to reconsider “culture of compliance”
On March 21, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes Elizabeth Rosenberg delivered remarks before the Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (ACAMS) Hollywood Conference, asking attendees to consider “[w]hat must a culture of compliance look like in a world where autocracy is on the rise” and how financial institutions should adapt their Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (AML) obligations to ensure they are effective. Rosenberg praised the quick responses taken by financial institutions and financial service providers in implementing the growing list of sanctions against Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s support structure in light of the recent invasion of Ukraine. “Russia’s war has meaningfully expanded AML and sanctions obligations,” Rosenberg cautioned, stressing it was time for an updated approach to considering and managing risk. “Geopolitical events are evolving fast, and we need financial institutions more than ever to act swiftly as we in the government are pushing out new designations and advisories almost daily.” She instructed attendees to “think about risk and enhanced due diligence when it comes to Russian oligarchs and kleptocrats who may not have been priorities for [entities’] compliance efforts in early February but are now crucial players, supporting Putin’s power structure.”
Rosenberg further noted that Treasury’s efforts would be aided if public and private sectors were faster about sharing information and if information sharing was improved “across borders, between financial institutions, and with the government.” Closing money laundering and global passport loopholes through which sanctioned actors can move funds and assets around the globe is also critical, Rosenberg stated. She also highlighted the U.S. government’s recent collaboration with foreign partners to help countries effectively take measures to “find, restrain, freeze, and where appropriate, to confiscate the assets of those who have been sanctioned in connection with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” These multilateral efforts include the recent launch of the Russian Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs multilateral task force, and Treasury’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Rewards Program, as well as recently issued FinCEN advisories to help compliance officials better identify Russian sanctions evasion and suspicious financial activity including through real estate, luxury goods, and other high-value assets. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on the U.S. sanctions response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine here.
OFAC announces human rights abuse sanctions
On March 21, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13818 against the Republic of the Sudan Central Reserve Police (CRP) for serious human rights abuse. According to OFAC, the “CRP has used excessive force against pro-democracy protesters peacefully demonstrating against the military-led overthrow of the civilian-led transitional government in Sudan.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned person subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. OFAC also noted that its regulations generally prohibit all dealings by U.S. persons that involve any property or interests in property of designated persons.