Sanctions (OFAC)

Subscribe to Sanctions (OFAC)
  • Ericsson Caused Violation by Having U.S. Party Ship Equipment to Sudan
  • U.S. Employee Facilitated Sudan Business
  • OFAC Expects Parties Conducting International Business to Have Robust Compliance Processes

In June 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced that Ericsson, a Swedish telecommunications company, agreed to pay approximately $145,000 for violating U.S. sanctions on Sudan.  Among other things, this is one of the few OFAC enforcement actions explicitly premised on a non-U.S. actor causing a U.S. company to violate U.S. sanctions.

…
Continue Reading

  • Many medical products can be exported to Iran – so long as a license is obtained
  • Imposition of successor liability underscores importance of pre-transaction due diligence
  • OFAC enforcement, as in the past, continues to take a long time

In December 2017, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a penalty of $1.2 million against DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. (DSI), one of the world’s largest manufacturers of dental products, for violating U.S. sanctions on Iran.  DSI, which is publicly traded in the United States, is based in York, Pennsylvania, and maintains operations around the world.

…
Continue Reading

I am presenting a Clear Law Institute (CLI) webinar titled, “Hot Topics in U.S. Sanctions.” The United States continues to use economic sanctions and embargoes to limit trade with countries, entities, and individuals that are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security. Yet the sanctions maintained by the U.S. government can change quickly.…

In a November 10 article published by PaymentsCompliance, I commented on expanded sanctions the United States has imposed against North Korea. These newest sanctions prohibit access to the U.S. financial system for certain entities found to be aiding North Korea. In the article I note that, “the recent U.S. sanctions actions related to North Korea…

The Future of U.S. Sanctions on Iran | Webinar | Thad McBride: PresenterU.S. Sanctions on Iran continue to be in a state of flux.  Yet the opportunities in Iran mean that more and more companies are considering the possibility of entering the Iranian market.  The continued uncertainty regarding the future of U.S. Sanctions on Iran implies the need for international companies to be prepared for any possible…

Over the past month, we have closely monitored efforts by the U.S. Congress to tie the president’s hands over sanctions on Russia.  Today, the president signed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA or the Act), which will have a significant impact on numerous U.S. industries operating in Russia.  And Russia’s response to the legislation indicates that further tensions between the United States and Russia – and possibly additional sanctions on both sides – are likely to follow.
…
Continue Reading

  • Penalty imposed against Exxon related to contracts with Russian oil company Rosneft
  • Rosneft is not a prohibited party but its president is
  • OFAC alleges that “senior-most” Exxon management were involved
  • Exxon responds with suit against OFAC

On July 20, 2017, the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced that ExxonMobil (Exxon) must pay a $2 million penalty for violating U.S. sanctions on Russia.  On the same day, Exxon responded by suing OFAC.

…
Continue Reading

  • Proposed legislation would extend sanctions on Russia and Iran
  • New restrictions aimed at Russian energy sector and cybercriminals
  • Legislation may pit Senate against House and the president

On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill mandating sanctions against Russia and Iran and a 30-day congressional review period should the president attempt to reduce those sanctions.

The bill remains in the House after congressional leaders challenged the fact that the revenue-raising bill did not originate in the House. The White House nonetheless is in the unenviable position of having to defend (or oppose) the implementation of sanctions against both Iran and Russia while attempting to conduct diplomacy with the Kremlin.  With a veto-proof majority in at least one chamber, the president’s options appear limited.

…
Continue Reading

  • California company accused of sanctions violations challenges U.S. Treasury Department
  • Appeals court generally sides with government but remands because of arbitrary and capricious decision related to five alleged violations
  • Traditional interpretation of “inventory exception” is considered by Court

It is rare for companies to go to court to fight penalties imposed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for violations of U.S. sanctions. It is even more rare for a court to make any sort of finding against the agency.  Yet that is exactly what happened when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) recently considered OFAC’s imposition of penalties against Epsilon Electronics (Epsilon) for alleged violations of U.S. sanctions against Iran.

…
Continue Reading