Sanctions Enforcement

Subscribe to Sanctions Enforcement

Economic sanctions and export controls will form a core part of any multilateral response to an escalation of Russia’s military actions targeting Ukraine. While it is not possible to predict with certainty whether an escalation will occur or what form the responsive measures would take, this blog post outlines some of the current US sanctions proposals and authorizations to assist companies in taking preliminary steps to assess their potential exposure.

As of January 2022, none of the United States, the EU, or the UK have implemented any new, significant Russia-related sanctions or export control measures concerning Russia’s recent military buildup near the Russia-Ukraine border. Based on events in 2014 and the sanctions that ensued, companies could face rapid and potentially disruptive regulatory restrictions with wide-ranging impacts on a variety of industries. Some measures could be imposed within hours of a triggering event, or even prior to a specific triggering event. The US, EU, and UK are likely to coordinate a sanctions response to some extent, but some variations across different jurisdictions’ sanctions measures are also to be expected.  According to reports, policymakers have yet to agree on the triggers for new sanctions, and diplomatic efforts are ongoing.Continue Reading Preparing for New Russia-Related Sanctions and Export Controls

On December 8, 2021, the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $133,860 settlement with an unnamed individual for apparent violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR). According to OFAC’s settlement notice, the individual, who was located in the United States, received four payments in his personal bank account on behalf of an Iranian company for the sale of Iranian-origin cement clinker to a company in a third country.

OFAC also found that the individual coordinated the payment and the shipment of goods with a family member at the Iranian company. The settlement notice remarks that, although the payments involved a family member, they fell outside of the general license for personal remittances, at 31 CFR § 560.550, which only applies to “noncommercial” activity.Continue Reading OFAC Enters into Rare Settlement with Individual over Iranian Payments and Facilitation

On December 6, 2021, the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) named one individual and 12 entities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Gibraltar as Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) pursuant to the Global Magnitsky Sanctions program under Executive Order (EO) 13818.

The newly designated SDNs are part of a network of individuals and companies alleged to have provided material “support to sanctioned billionaire Dan Gertler,” who was designated under EO 13818, in December 2017, for allegedly engaging in significant corruption in the DRC mining and oil sectors. There are now 46 persons designated under EO 13813 in connection with Gertler.Continue Reading OFAC Sanctions DRC Associates of Sanctioned Billionaire in Conjunction with New Strategy on Countering Corruption and Global Magnitsky Designations

The World Bank Group (the Bank) issued its fourth joint Sanctions System Annual Report on October 18, covering the Bank’s fiscal year from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. The report includes updates by the Integrity Vice Presidency (INT), the Office of Suspension and Debarment (OSD), and the Sanctions Board.

Notably, the number of…

On October 15, 2021, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued anticipated Sanctions Compliance Guidance for the Virtual Currency Industry and updated two related Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs 559 and 646).  OFAC has published industry-specific guidance for only a handful of other industries in the past two decades; the new guidance demonstrates the agency’s increasing focus on the virtual currency (VC) sector.  It also clarifies US sanctions compliance practices in ways that could lay a foundation for future OFAC enforcement actions.

OFAC’s guidance was announced as part of broader US government enforcement priorities to combat ransomware, money laundering, and other financial crimes in the virtual currency sector, as noted in the Department of Justice’s recent announcement of a National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team.  The OFAC guidance was published in tandem with a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) analysis of ransomware trends in suspicious activity reporting, but the guidance is directed at the VC industry in general and is not specific to ransomware.  A ransomware actor who demands VC may or may not be a target of OFAC sanctions, and sanctioned actors may engage in a wide variety of VC transactions that do not involve ransomware.  The recommended compliance practices in OFAC’s new guidance are focused on the full range of sanctions risks that arise from virtual currencies.Continue Reading OFAC Issues Compliance Guidance for the Virtual Currency Industry

On August 20, 2021, the Biden administration issued a new Executive Order (“EO”) entitled “Blocking Property with Respect to Certain Russian Energy Export Pipelines.”  At the same time, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) added five entities and 13 vessels to the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN List”) under the new EO.

These developments – the latest in a series of US actions related to the Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream pipelines – suggest that the United States is attempting to strike a balance between formally opposing the Nord Stream 2 project and cooperating with major allies who favor the pipeline’s completion, such as Germany.  Importantly, the sanctions under the new EO are not as incrementally significant as they may seem: of the 18 new SDNs, all but four (two entities and two vessels) were already subject to sanctions under the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act of 2019 as amended (“PEESA”), which were imposed in May 2021 and were virtually identical to the new sanctions.  Rather than reflecting a more aggressive US stance in opposition to Nord Stream 2, the new EO appears to be driven primarily by legal technicalities including a limitation on the sanctions that could be imposed under PEESA.Continue Reading A Pipeline Runs Through It: US Government Strikes Delicate Balance on Nord Stream 2 with New Executive Order, Four Sanctions Designations

On August 9, 2021, the United States, United Kingdom and Canada announced further coordinated sanctions to mark one year since the allegedly fraudulent 2020 Belarusian presidential election in response to the continued undermining of democracy and human rights violations by the Lukashenko regime.  The new sanctions follow the imposition by the United States, United Kingdom, European Union and Canada, on June 21, 2021, of targeted financial sanctions against dozens of individuals and entities as well as EU sectoral-style sanctions against certain sectors of the Belarusian economy, as discussed in our June 28, 2021 blog post.
Continue Reading US, UK and Canada Announce Additional Sanctions on Belarus

The European Commission recently issued three Opinions on the interpretation of specific provisions in different EU sanctions frameworks. They cover the notion “making available”, changes to the features of frozen funds as well as the release of frozen funds.
Continue Reading European Commission Issues Guidance on the Application of Specific EU Financial Sanctions Provisions

Advocate General of the Court of Justice Gerard Hogan rendered an Opinion in the first case before the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of the EU Blocking Statute. The case concerns Iranian bank Bank Melli Iran, which has a branch in Hamburg (Germany), and which claims before the German Courts that the notice of ordinary termination given by Telekom Deutschland with respect to their contracts for telecommunication services was motivated solely by Telekom Deutschland’s desire to comply with US sanctions legislation. Bank Melli Iran maintains that Telekom Deutschland violated the EU Blocking Statute, which prohibits EU undertakings (entities engaged in an economic activity, regardless of their legal form or the way in which they are financed) from complying with such extraterritorial US measures.

In its opinion, Advocate General Hogan finds that:

  1. The general prohibition contained in the EU Blocking Statute (which is directed against compliance with certain third country legislation providing for secondary sanctions) applies even in the event that such an undertaking complies with that legislation without first having been compelled by a foreign administrative or judicial agency to do so.
  2. An EU undertaking seeking to terminate an otherwise valid contract with an Iranian entity subject to the US sanctions must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the national court that it did not do so by reason of its desire to comply with those sanctions.

Continue Reading Advocate General Hogan Issues Opinion on Interpretation of EU Blocking Statute against Extraterritorial US Sanctions

On February 18, 2021, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets control (OFAC) announced a $507,375 settlement with BitPay, Inc. (BitPay).  This civil settlement resolved apparent violations of multiple sanctions programs related to digital currency transactions, and is the second OFAC enforcement case brought against a business in the blockchain industry.  This case follows OFAC’s December 2020 civil enforcement action against another blockchain industry company, BitGo, Inc. (BitGo), for alleged violations of multiple US sanctions programs related to digital currency transactions.  See our prior blog post on the BitGo action here.

BitPay, based in Atlanta, Georgia, offers a payment processing solution for merchants to accept digital currency as payment for goods and services.  The apparent sanctions violations relate to digital currency transactions on the BitPay platform between individuals located in Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Syria, and the Crimea region of Ukraine (annexed by Russia) and merchants in the United States and elsewhere.  OFAC acknowledged that BitPay screened its customers, the merchants, against US sanctions lists, but stated that BitPay had reason to know that purchasers dealing with the merchants were located in comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions because the company had location information, including Internet Protocol (IP) address data, about those persons.  This case was not voluntarily disclosed, but OFAC found that the violations were not egregious.

According to OFAC, BitPay allowed persons in comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions to conduct approximately $129,000 worth of digital currency transactions with BitPay’s merchant customers.  As described in OFAC’s enforcement release, between approximately June 10, 2013, and September 16, 2018, BitPay processed 2,102 transactions from individuals with IP addresses located in the sanctioned jurisdictions.  The transactions related to BitPay’s payment processing service.  BitPay allegedly received digital currency payments on behalf of its merchant customers from those merchants’ buyers, who were located in sanctioned jurisdictions.  BitPay then converted the digital currency into fiat, and then relayed that currency to its merchant customers.Continue Reading OFAC Announces Second Enforcement Action Targeting a Digital Asset Company