Brian Fleming

Subscribe to Brian Fleming's Posts
Contact: Read more about Brian Fleming

On February 24, 2023, the US government announced a range of new export controls, sanctions, and tariffs to coincide with the first anniversary of Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine. These actions by the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the US Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the US Department of State, and the White House reflect the continued efforts of the US – in coordination with its allies – to impose costs on Russia for the war.

Each successive round of US export controls and sanctions presents new compliance challenges, against the backdrop of heightened enforcement risk resulting from aggressive, well-coordinated US government actions. US and non-US entities and individuals who engage in transactions related to Russia or Belarus should pay close attention to this complex and evolving regulatory framework. Additionally, entities and individuals exporting to Iran should take note of the expanded scope of the US Export Administration Regulations (EAR) under a new Iran Foreign Direct Product (FDP) Rule.…

Continue Reading US Imposes Additional Export Controls, Sanctions, and Tariffs targeting Russia, Belarus, and Iran On First Anniversary of Russia’s War Against Ukraine

On February 16, 2023, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Commerce Department announced the creation of the Disruptive Technology Strike Force with a mission to prevent nation-state “adversaries” from acquiring “disruptive” technologies.  The strike force will be co-led by Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen of the DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) and Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement at the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Matthew Axelrod, and will bring together the DOJ’s NSD, BIS, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, and 14 US Attorneys’ Offices in 12 metropolitan regions. 

The strike force’s mandate, and remarks by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announcing the new initiative, illustrate the US government’s continuing focus on protecting sensitive data and “disruptive” technologies, as well as the regulatory and enforcement tools that the US government has used and will continue to use to prevent the acquisition, use, and “abuse” of “disruptive” technologies by autocratic governments to commit human rights abuses and seek strategic advantage vis-à-vis the United States.…

Continue Reading Justice and Commerce Departments Announce Creation of Disruptive Technology Strike Force

In this blog post, we provide an overview of the updates to the Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP) and discuss the impact of these changes on the corporate enforcement policies for criminal violations of sanctions and export controls, criminal violations of antitrust laws, and civil violations of the False Claim Act.

On January 17, 2023, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. announced changes to the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Corporate Enforcement Policy (“CEP”), including applying the most recent FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy to all corporate criminal cases handled by the DOJ’s Criminal Division. The FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, codified in § 9-47.120 of the Justice Manual, provides that if a company voluntarily self-discloses, fully cooperates, and timely and appropriately remediates, there is a presumption of declination absent certain “aggravating circumstances involving the seriousness of the offense or the nature of the offender.” The clear goal of this and other recent pronouncements from senior DOJ leadership is to tip the scales in favor of early disclosure by setting forth concrete incentives for corporations that discover potential criminal violations. 

Importantly, the CEP now explicitly states that a company presenting “aggravating circumstances,”1 while not eligible for a presumption of declination, may still obtain a declination if (1) the company had an effective compliance program and system of internal accounting controls at the time of the alleged misconduct, (2) the voluntary self-disclosure was made “immediately” upon the company becoming aware of the allegation of misconduct, and (3) the company provided “extraordinary cooperation” to DOJ investigators. For companies that do not receive a declination but do receive credit, the CEP also increases the available discounts from fines under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”), both for companies that voluntarily self-disclose and those that do not.

Although the updated CEP heavily emphasizes the benefits of voluntary self-disclosure and cooperation, its implications for companies will largely depend upon the Criminal Division’s application of the policy, including through DOJ prosecutors’ interpretation of important, undefined terms such as “immediate” disclosure and “extraordinary” cooperation.

Moreover, although the CEP applies to the entire Criminal Division, it could potentially have ripple effects on the corporate enforcement policies in place in other DOJ components. For example, the CEP does not revoke or alter the DOJ National Security Division’s (“NSD”) Export Control and Sanctions Enforcement Policy for Business Organizations (the “Export Control and Sanctions Enforcement Policy”). That NSD policy is generally consistent with the CEP, but it does not spell out affirmatively, as the new Criminal Division policy does, the circumstances that a company must demonstrate to be considered for a non-prosecution agreement (“NPA”) rather than a criminal resolution in the face of aggravating factors. Similarly, the Antitrust Division and Civil Division have their own corporate enforcement policies in place, each of which has aspects uniquely tailored to those respective regimes. It therefore remains to be seen whether these other Divisions within DOJ will adjust their corporate enforcement policies to align more precisely with the CEP.  …

Continue Reading DOJ’s New Corporate Enforcement Policy for the Criminal Division and its Impact on Cases handled by other Divisions

On January 18, 2023, the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an order identifying the virtual currency exchange Bitzlato Limited (Bitzlato) as a “primary money laundering concern” in connection with Russian illicit finance.  The order, which is the first of its kind, was issued pursuant to Section 9714(a) of the Combating Russian Money Laundering Act. …

Continue Reading In Unprecedented Action FinCEN Identifies Virtual Currency Exchange as Primary Money Laundering Concern

On October 20, 2022, the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) issued, for the first time, Enforcement and Penalty Guidelines (Guidelines) for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS or the Committee). The Guidelines describe three categories of conduct that may constitute a violation, the process CFIUS generally follows in imposing penalties, and some of the factors the Committee considers in determining whether a penalty is warranted and the scope of any such penalty. The Guidelines also encourage prompt and complete self-disclosure of any conduct that may constitute a violation.…

Continue Reading CFIUS Announces First Ever Enforcement and Penalty Guidelines

On October 24, the White House announced that President Biden signed Executive Order (EO) 14088 (amending EO 13851) which substantially expands the Nicaragua sanctions program with sectoral sanctions authorities, exposing individuals and entities operating in identified sectors to blocking sanctions. Specifically, the amended EO identifies the gold sector, which affects about $900 million of exports, most of it to the United States. Entities and individuals that operate or have operated in that sector are now at risk of US blocking sanctions. The EO also allows for the future identification of additional sectors that could become subject to sanctions, if warranted.
…
Continue Reading US Government Imposes New Sanctions and Visa Restrictions on Nicaragua

On October 7, 2022, in a move that was hailed by senior U.S. government officials as a paradigm shift in U.S. export controls policy toward China, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued an interim final rule that amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to impose new and expanded controls on advanced computing integrated circuits (ICs), computer commodities that contain such ICs, and certain semiconductor manufacturing items. Transactions for supercomputer end-uses and transactions involving certain entities on the Entity List are now subject to additional export controls, as are certain semiconductor manufacturing items and transactions for certain IC end uses. U.S. person activities as they relate to certain semiconductor activities in China are also now restricted.

Certain aspects of the rule, specified below, including the availability of license exceptions, became effective immediately on October 7, 2022. The new restrictions on U.S. person activities under § 744.6 became effective on October 12, 2022. The remainder of the provisions with a delayed effective date are specified below and will become effective on October 21, 2022. BIS is also accepting public comments on the interim final rule through December 12, 2022.

Separately, also on October 7, 2022, BIS issued a final rule, which revised the Unverified List (UVL) and clarified the activities and criteria that may lead to the addition of an entity to the Entity List. BIS stated that a sustained lack of cooperation by the host government in a country where an end-use check is to be conducted, such as China, that effectively prevents BIS from determining compliance with the EAR, will be grounds for adding an entity to the Entity List.

The U.S. policy goals behind the new rules are ambitious and seek to degrade China’s advanced computing capabilities in an unprecedented manner. As summarized recently by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan: “On export controls, we have to revisit the longstanding premise of maintaining ‘relative’ advantages over competitors in certain key technologies.  We previously maintained a ‘sliding scale’ approach that said we need to stay only a couple of generations ahead. That is not the strategic environment we are in today. Given the foundational nature of certain technologies, such as advanced logic and memory chips, we must maintain as large of a lead as possible.”

The broad implications of these new rules, along with their efficacy from a policy standpoint, may take some time to come fully in to focus. For now, it is clear that any U.S. or non-U.S. individuals or entities that play any role in the global semiconductor supply chain—whether as manufacturers, producers, consumers, or otherwise—need to carefully review the new rules to determine what is required to comply and, if necessary, seek guidance or a license from BIS.…

Continue Reading BIS Issues Expansive New Rules Targeting China

On September 30, 2022, the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) published a final rule to implement the beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which was enacted as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.  The final rule responds to comments on the proposed rule published by FinCEN in December 2021, which was the subject of a prior blog post.

The final rule is intended to protect US national security and the US financial system by preventing and combatting fraud, corruption, money laundering, and terrorist financing, among other illicit activities, by parties seeking to hide money and other assets in the United States via shell companies and other opaque legal structures. The rule aims to provide essential information to national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies by requiring certain business organizations and entities to report information to FinCEN about the beneficial owners and controllers of such organizations and the individuals who have filed an application with specified government authorities to form the entity or register it to do business. The rule describes who must file a beneficial ownership information report, what information must be reported, and when a report is due.…

Continue Reading FinCEN Issues Final Rule on Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting

In a new rule that took effect on September 15, 2022, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) expanded and clarified the scope of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) in a number of ways, some of which impose significant new compliance challenges related to Russia and Belarus.  To stay up with the latest developments, readers are encouraged to monitor and review new guidance in the form of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) published by BIS at https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/country-guidance/russia-belarus.
…
Continue Reading US Implements Subtle but Significant Expansions of Export Controls on Russia, Belarus, and Other Countries

On September 15, 2022, President Biden issued a new executive order (EO), entitled “Executive Order on Ensuring Robust Consideration of Evolving National Security Risks by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States,” that directs CFIUS to consider certain risk factors when reviewing covered transactions.  CFIUS-related executive orders are rare and have typically been used to establish procedures and processes, rather than provide substantive guidance to the Committee.  President Biden’s order is unusual in that it goes beyond process considerations and directs the Committee to consider specific substantive risks as part of its reviews.  According to a White House fact sheet, this is the first EO “since CFIUS was established in 1975 to provide formal Presidential direction on the risks that the Committee should consider when reviewing a covered transaction.”

The EO does not alter the legal powers granted to CFIUS, including the scope of transactions which it can review.  Nor does it contain any provisions regarding outbound investments (sometimes called “reverse CFIUS”), which was recently proposed in Congress and on which the Administration is considering taking executive action in the near term.

However, it provides important insight into the Administration’s thinking with respect to national security issues linked to foreign investment and puts both US businesses and foreign investors involved in certain industries, or engaged in certain activities, on notice that CFIUS may more closely scrutinize their deals.…

Continue Reading Rare Executive Order Sharpens CFIUS Focus