Comments on: Syria Travel Leads Bank to Block U.S. Traveler’s Account http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/435 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:06:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Ex-OFAC http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/435/comment-page-1#comment-21215 Ex-OFAC Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:56:13 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=435#comment-21215 Clif -- The notion of a bank simply blocking all transactions with a country, regardless of whether they violate any provision of U.S. law (such as OFAC sanctions) is a scary thought. The whole purpose of "smart sanctions" is to target only "bad guys," while leaving the rest of the population alone. The designated persons (individuals, entities and groups) are often able to shield themselves from U.S. sanctions' impact due to their governmental positions or proximity to government. That is an unfortunate aspect of sanctions as a tool. Deliberately placing private sanctions on the portions of the Syrian population whom the U.S. government has not targeted (as a foreign policy matter) is a disservice to both the bank's clients and the public objectives of the sanctions. Surely it is not too much to ask that a bank's compliance officers familiarize themselves with the bank's compliance obligations. In Syria, there are no prohibitions on the exportation of financial services, except for services benefiting the "bad guys" on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list -- a small group. Clif — The notion of a bank simply blocking all transactions with a country, regardless of whether they violate any provision of U.S. law (such as OFAC sanctions) is a scary thought. The whole purpose of “smart sanctions” is to target only “bad guys,” while leaving the rest of the population alone. The designated persons (individuals, entities and groups) are often able to shield themselves from U.S. sanctions’ impact due to their governmental positions or proximity to government. That is an unfortunate aspect of sanctions as a tool. Deliberately placing private sanctions on the portions of the Syrian population whom the U.S. government has not targeted (as a foreign policy matter) is a disservice to both the bank’s clients and the public objectives of the sanctions.

Surely it is not too much to ask that a bank’s compliance officers familiarize themselves with the bank’s compliance obligations. In Syria, there are no prohibitions on the exportation of financial services, except for services benefiting the “bad guys” on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list — a small group.

]]>