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

Further to our post about General License (GL) No. 23, on February 21, 2023, the US Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), issued Guidance on Authorized Transactions Related to Earthquake Relief Efforts in Syria (the Guidance).  Although it does not appear that OFAC has published the Guidance as part of formal Frequently Asked Questions, affected US persons and non-US persons who are relying on GL 23 should review the Guidance, which provides additional OFAC interpretations about the scope of GL 23 until it is scheduled to expire on August 8, 2023.  More specifically, the Guidance covers topics such as:

(1) donating money and raising funds for earthquake relief efforts in Syria;

(2) sending money to the people of Syria;

(3) sending any goods or providing any services to Syria;

(4) processing financial transactions related to earthquake relief in Syria;

(5) earthquake relief activity or efforts involving the Government of Syria (GOS);

(6) non-governmental organizations providing aid to Syria;

(7) activity by foreign governments in Syria; and

(8) application of US secondary sanctions under the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019.

Continue Reading Additional OFAC Guidance and BIS Licensing Policy Statement on Earthquake Relief for Syria

In this blog post, we update our earlier post regarding OFAC’s determination and guidance on implementing the price cap policy for Russian crude oil (see link), by incorporating the recently released determinations regarding the price cap policy for Russian petroleum products and the updated guidance on implementing the price cap policy for Russian-origin crude oil and petroleum products.

On November 22, 2022, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published a determination targeting Russian-origin crude oil pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of Executive Order 14071 (EO 14071), and guidance on the implementation of the price cap policy for Russian-origin crude oil. These followed OFAC’s preliminary guidance released on September 9 (see Steptoe’s earlier blog post here).

Further, on February 3, 2023, OFAC published a determination targeting Russian-origin petroleum products pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of EO 14071, and updated guidance on the implementation of the price cap policy for Russian-origin crude oil and petroleum products (the Updated Guidance).

The two determinations (the Determinations) set forth the categories of services relating to the maritime transport of Russian-origin crude oil and petroleum products (Covered Services) that US persons are prohibited from providing directly or indirectly to a person located in Russia, unless these items are purchased at or below relevant price cap. The Updated Guidance addresses issues relating to the implementation of the price cap policy for Russian-origin crude oil and petroleum products.

Continue Reading [UPDATED] OFAC Publishes Determinations and Guidance on Implementing the Price Cap Policy for Russian Crude Oil and Petroleum Products

On February 15, 2023, HM Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (“OFSI”) issued General Licence INT/2023/2711256 (“GL”) in relation to humanitarian activity associated with earthquake relief efforts in Syria and Turkey.  OFSI’s action follows a similar move by OFAC last week, which is discussed in our blog post (here).  On the same day, the Export Control Joint Unit (“ECJU”) also issued General Trade Licence Syria Sanctions – Earthquake Relief Efforts in Syria (“GTL”), to further facilitate humanitarian assistance in relation to the earthquake relief efforts. 

Continue Reading OFSI and ECJU Issue General Licences for Earthquake Relief in Syria

Recognizing the importance of humanitarian aid to support rescue and recovery efforts in Syria, the US Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued a new General License on February 9, 2023 focused on the Syrian earthquake.  This new General License supplements existing OFAC regulations and authorizations supporting humanitarian relief in Syria.

Continue Reading OFAC Issues General License for Earthquake Relief in Syria

On February 9, 2023, the UK announced the designation of seven individuals said to be part of a Russia-based cybercrime gang under the UK’s thematic cyber sanctions regime pursuant to The Cyber (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.  The designations were coordinated with the US.  Concurrently, HM Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (“OFSI”), in partnership with other HM Government  (“HMG”) organisations, published guidance on sanctions and ransomware, which addresses the impact of ransomware payments, cyber resilience, and HMG’s approach to enforcement of financial sanctions breaches related to ransomware attacks.

Continue Reading UK Sanctions Russian Cybercrime Gang and Issues New Guidance on Sanctions and Ransomware

On February 7, 2023, the UK Department for International Trade (“DIT”) published an expanded version of its guidance on supplying professional and business services to a person connected with Russia (“DIT Guidance”), following a broadening of the types of services covered by the ban in December 2022.  The DIT Guidance sets out additional details regarding the services falling within the scope of these sanctions, enforcement, applicable exceptions, and the licence application process.  For more information on the ban on the supply of professional and business services, see our previous blog post (here).

Continue Reading UK Expands Guidance on the Supply of Professional and Business Services to Persons Connected with Russia

On February 5, 2023, the UK ban imposed by Part 5, Chapter 4IA of The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, as amended (“Russia Regulations”), on the maritime transportation of certain Russian oil products and related services came into effect.  Ahead of the measure coming into force, on February 4, 2023, HM Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (“OFSI”) published an updated version of its guidance on the UK Maritime Services Prohibition and Oil Price Cap (“OFSI Guidance”), which outlines how the oil products price cap will be implemented, OFSI’s approach to enforcement, and the requirements on involved persons.  OFSI also issued two new General Licences that establish the level of the oil products price cap and establish a wind-down period with respect to certain Russian oil products.

Continue Reading UK Oil Price Cap for Russian Refined Oil Products Comes into Effect

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