Jul

21

Strike That: We Actually Meant “For” for “Of”


Posted by at 6:16 pm on July 21, 2014
Category: OFACRussia Sanctions

By Almonroth (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AU.S._Treasury-3.jpgLast week, we reported that there was some confusion relating to the new Sectoral Sanctions Identifications List inasmuch as OFAC said, in one place, that the prohibitions extended to dealing in equity and 90-day debt “of” and, in another place, it said it extended to dealing in equity and 90-day debt “for” parties on the list. The difference was significant because “of” would seem to connote a narrower restriction and only prohibit U.S. persons from loaning money to or purchasing equity from the parties on the SSIL. On the other hand, “for” would seem to prohibit, in addition, a number of other transactions, such as borrowing money from the party on the SSIL or acting as a broker to purchase stock from third parties for the entity on the SSIL. The SSIL used “of,” whereas the directives issued relating to the SSIL entries used “for.”

Well, sometime within the past several days, someone at OFAC quietly changed “of” on the SSIL to “for.” Given that people can be subjected to massive civil penalties and even sent to jail for engaging in prohibited transactions with entities on the new SSIL, one might have expected OFAC to admit the mistake and provide some clarification for the changed language, rather than simply sneaking onto the list under cover of darkness, making the change, and hoping that no one would notice that there had ever been a problem.

In any event, the SSIL and the directives now use the same language.  If we could only figure out exactly what that language means.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2014 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


4 Comments:


So, it seems that if my legal counsel and I read the law, directives, and what-not to do our darnest Boy-Scout best to stay out of trouble, it would be advisable to print out and get notarized a copy of those materials just in case?

Comment by Geof on July 22nd, 2014 @ 1:28 am

Not exactly a surprise, since the directive is the operative document. I also don’t think the broader reading is plausible in light of the press releases and FAQs (and remember, there’s no change in the real language here). All this is much ado over a typo.

Comment by Sanctions guy on July 22nd, 2014 @ 10:17 am

In all seriousness, the best tip I can give is to make sure you read Treasury’s press releases, which are often much more helpful in explaining what’s going on and why than the official OFAC actions.

Comment by Sanctions guy on July 25th, 2014 @ 10:35 am

    The press releases are sometimes helpful, but they can’t, in and of themselves, solve issues relating to poor or ambiguous wording in the rules.

    Comment by Clif Burns on July 28th, 2014 @ 2:39 pm