InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC sanctions Burmese gem enterprise
On April 8, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 14014 against a Burmese state-owned entity responsible for all gemstone activities in Burma. According to OFAC, gemstones are a “key economic resource for the Burmese military regime that is violently repressing pro-democracy protests” and is accountable for the continuing deadly attacks against the people of Burma. As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property of the entity in the U.S. or in the possession or control of U.S. persons 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, unless exempt or authorized by a general or specific license.
2nd Circuit: Banking a known terrorist organization does not, by itself, establish Antiterrorism Act liability
On April 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgments (see here and here) dismissing amended complaints filed in two actions seeking to hold a U.K. bank and a French bank, respectively, liable under the Antiterrorism Act of 1990 (ATA) for allegedly “providing banking services to a charitable organization with alleged ties to Hamas, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) alleged to have committed a series of terrorist attacks in Israel in 2001-2004.” The complaints alleged that the U.K. bank and the French bank knowingly provided banking services, including sending millions of dollars in wire transfers, to organizations previously designated by the U.S. as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. The district court referred to the 2nd Circuit’s decision in Linde v. Arab Bank PLC, in which the appellate court held that “a bank’s provision of material support to a known terrorist organization is not, by itself, sufficient to establish the bank’s liability under the ATA,” and that “in order to satisfy the ATA’s requirements for civil liability as a principal,” the bank’s act must “also involve violence or endanger human life.” Moreover, the Linde opinion held, among other things, that a bank’s act must be intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or influence or affect a government, and that the bank “ must have been ‘generally aware of [its] role as part of an overall illegal or tortious activity at the time’” the assistance was provided.
The plaintiffs argued in a consolidated appeal that the district court misapplied the Linde holding and erred in concluding that the evidence presented was “insufficient to permit an inference that the bank was generally aware that it was playing a role in terrorism.” The banks countered that if the appellate court reversed the judgments, the claims should be thrown out for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the 2nd Circuit agreed with the district court’s dismissal of claims “on the ground that plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence that the bank itself committed an act of international terrorism within the meaning of §§ 2333(a) and 2331(1)” of the ATA. The opinion noted, among other things, that the plaintiffs’ experts said the charities to which the banks transferred funds as instructed by one of the organizations actually performed charitable work and that there was no indication that they funded terrorist attacks. As such, the banks’ conditional cross-appeal was dismissed as moot.
OFAC sanctions Pakistan-based transnational human smuggling organization
On April 7, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13581, “Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations,” against a Pakistani national and a transnational criminal organization (TCO). In addition, OFAC designated three individuals and one entity associated with the TCO. According to OFAC, Treasury’s designation of this human smuggling organization as a significant TCO is an “important step taken alongside our partners, towards disrupting . . . operations based in Pakistan and around the world.” As a result of the sanctions, all assets belonging to the designated persons that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC. U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in dealings involving any property or interests in property of the blocked or designated persons.
OFAC sanctions Mexican cartel members and facilitator
On April 6, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act against two members of a major Mexico-based drug trafficking cartel, along with another individual responsible for facilitating travel related to the illicit activities for senior cartel members and their allies. In addition, OFAC designated two businesses located in Mexico. According to OFAC, the designations serve as “a reminder that Treasury will continue to sanction those providing support to [the cartel], whether that person is a violent actor or a complicit businessperson.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned individuals and entities subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. U.S. persons are also generally prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons.
OFAC issues new Syria sanctions FAQs
On April 5, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published two new Syria Frequently Asked Questions, FAQs 884 and 885. FAQ 884 relates to non-U.S. persons’, including nongovernmental organizations’ (NGOs) and foreign financial institutions’ exposure to U.S. secondary sanctions pursuant to the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019 (Caesar Act) for activities that would be authorized under the Syrian Sanctions Regulations (SySR), while FAQ 885 governs whether U.S. and non-U.S. persons (including NGO and foreign financial institutions) may facilitate certain humanitarian assistance to Syria without the risk of sanctions. OFAC clarified, among other things, that “non-U.S. persons, including NGOs and foreign financial institutions, would not risk exposure to sanctions under the Caesar Act for engaging in activity, or facilitating transactions and payments for such activity, that is authorized for U.S. persons under a general license (GL) issued pursuant to the SySR.” With respect to certain humanitarian assistance, OFAC explained that “[t]he export of U.S.-origin food and most medicines to Syria is not prohibited and does not require a Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) or OFAC license, and therefore non-U.S. persons would not risk exposure to sanctions under the [Caesar Act] for engaging in such activity.”
FinCEN seeks comments on beneficial ownership reporting
On April 1, FinCEN issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comments on a range of issues related to the implementation of the beneficial ownership information requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CTA is included within the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2021, which was enacted in January as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. Among other things, the ANPRM requests comments on reporting procedures and standards for entities to submit information to FinCEN about their beneficial owners, as well as input on FinCEN’s implementation of related CTA provisions “that govern FinCEN’s maintenance and disclosure of beneficial ownership information subject to appropriate protocols.” According to FinCEN, the CTA amended the Bank Secrecy Act “to require corporations, limited liability companies, and similar entities to report certain information about their beneficial owners (the individual natural persons who ultimately own or control the companies).” The CTA also requires FinCEN to develop a secure, non-public database to house collected beneficial ownership information, and authorizes FinCEN to disclose beneficial ownership information to several categories of recipients, including federal law enforcement. Moreover, FinCEN is required to revise existing financial institution customer due diligence regulations concerning beneficial ownership to incorporate the new direct reporting of beneficial ownership information.
Comments on the ANPRM should be submitted by May 5.
U.S.-EU release statement on Joint Financial Regulatory Forum
On March 24 and 25, EU and U.S. participants, including officials from the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve Board, CFTC, FDIC, SEC, and OCC, participated in the U.S.-EU Joint Financial Regulatory Forum to discuss topics of mutual interest, including those related to (i) “next steps” for Covid-19 recovery and for mitigating financial stability risks; (ii) “sustainable finance”; (iii) banking and insurance multilateral and bilateral engagement; (iv) capital market regulatory and supervisory cooperation; (v) regulatory and supervisory developments pertaining to financial innovation, including the importance of promoting ongoing “responsible innovation and international supervisory cooperation”; and (vi) anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) issues, including “the potential for enhanced cooperation to combat money laundering and terrorist financing bilaterally and in the framework of [the Financial Action Task Force].” Participants also discussed possible responses to climate-related financial risks, as well as “the progress in their respective legislative and supervisory efforts to ensure a smooth transition away from LIBOR.”
OFAC sanctions Burmese military holding companies
On March 25, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14014 against two military holding companies in Burma. According to OFAC, these sanctions specifically target “the Burmese military’s control of significant segments of the Burmese economy.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned entities subject to U.S. jurisdiction, which enjoy a privileged position in the Burmese economy, 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.
Concurrent with the sanctions, OFAC issued four general licenses (GL) and related FAQs: (i) GL 1, “Official Business of the United States Government”; (ii) GL 2, “Official Activities of Certain International Organizations and Other International Entities”; (iii) GL 3, “Certain Transactions in Support of Nongovernmental Organizations’ Activities”; and (iv) GL 4, “Authorizing the Wind Down of Transactions Involving Myanmar Economic Corporation and Myanma Economic Holdings Limited.” GLs 1, 2, and 3 authorize certain transactions prohibited by E.O. 14014 that are associated with, respectively, the official business of the U.S. government, the official business of certain international organizations and other international entities, and certain nongovernmental organizations’ activities. GL 4 authorizes, through June 22, transactions and activities ordinarily incident to the wind down of transactions involving the two sanctioned companies as well as any entity owned by 50 percent or more of the sanctioned companies. Additionally, FAQ 882 clarifies which organizations within the United Nations’ programs are covered by GL 2, whereas FAQ 883 stipulates that “wind down transactions may be processed through the U.S. financial system or involve U.S. persons, as long as the transactions comply with the terms and conditions in GL 4.”
FATF updates virtual assets and service provider guidance
In March, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) updated pre-existing guidance on its risk-based approach to virtual assets (VAs) and virtual asset service providers (VASPs). The draft updated guidance revises guidance originally released June 2019, wherein FATF members agreed to regulate and supervise virtual asset financial activities and related service providers (covered by InfoBytes here) and place anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) obligations on VAs and VASPs. According to FATF, the revisions “aim to maintain a level playing field for VASPs, based on the financial services they provide in line with existing standards applicable to financial institutions and other AML/CFT-obliged entities, as well as minimizing the opportunity for regulatory arbitrage between sectors and countries.” The revisions provide updated guidance in six main areas intended to:
- Clarify VA and VASP definitions to make it clear that these definitions are expansive and that “there should not be a case where a relevant financial asset is not covered by the FATF Standards (either as a VA or as a traditional financial asset)”;
- Provide guidance on how FATF Standards apply to so-called stablecoins;
- Provide further guidance on risks and potential risk mitigants for peer-to-peer transactions;
- Provide updated guidance on VASP licensing and registration requirements;
- Provide additional guidance for public and private sectors on the implementation of the “travel rule”; and
- Include principles of information sharing and cooperation among VASP supervisors.
FATF intends to consult private sector stakeholders before finalizing the revisions, and is separately considering implementing revised FATF Standards on VAs and VASPs—as well as whether further updates are necessary—through a second 12-month review.
Italian company settles with OFAC for violating Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations
On March 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $950,000 settlement to resolve alleged violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations with an Italian company that produces and reexports air pressure switches. According to OFAC’s accompanying web notice, between 2013 and 2017, the company allegedly “knowingly reexported 27 shipments of air pressure switches procured from a U.S. company intended for as many as ten customers in Iran and caused a U.S. company to indirectly export its goods to Iran.” OFAC also alleged that the company engaged in efforts to obfuscate its reexportation of goods from the U.S. to Iranian end-users by, among other things, having employees use deceptive replacement terms for Iran in communications with the U.S company in order to avoid referencing Iranian end-users, and requesting that the term “Made in USA” be removed from the switches to disguise their origin.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that (i) the company willfully reexported air pressure switches even though it knew it was violating U.S. sanctions; (ii) company management “either failed to provide effective oversight of its employees and operations or chose to ignore these prohibited trade practices”; and (iii) the conduct caused over $2.5 million worth of goods to be diverted from the U.S. to Iran.
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that the company (i) has not received a penalty notice from OFAC in the proceeding five years; (ii) ceased the conduct at issue and took remedial measures, including implementing a sanctions compliance program and agreeing to enhanced compliance commitments; and (iii) cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.