Archive for June, 2013


Jun

27

What Do These Two People Have in Common?


Posted by at 9:42 pm on June 27, 2013
Category: OFAC

Dick Armey and Ringo Starr [fair use]

Indeed, what do former House Majority Leader Richard Armey and former Beatle Ringo Starr have in common? Other than, of course, immense artistic talent and devilish good looks. Well, they both are named Richard and they both were born on July 7, 1940. This means, surprisingly, at least as far as the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is concerned that they are both not merely 73-year-old men named Richard but are, in fact, one and the same person.

If you don’t believe that, tell that to Wells Fargo Bank which just got whacked by OFAC to the tune of $23,937 for opening up bank accounts for people that had the same birthdates as narcotics kingpens on the SDN list and that had names that shared part of their names with those narcotics kingpens. Wells Fargo opened an account for Carlos A. Ruelas (who had a U.S. address and a U.S. social security number) who allegedly was Carlos Antonio Ruelas Topete who was on the SDN list with a Tijuana, Mexico address. (Ruelas Topete was deleted from the SDN list last January.) The bank also opened an account for Claudia Aguirre (who also had a U.S. address and a U.S. Social Security) who allegedly was Claudia Aguirre Sanchez who is on the SDN list with a Tijuana address.

The moral of the story here, whether or not the account holders were or were not SDNs, is that it’s probably a good idea to screen not just by names but by birthdates as well.  And the next time you see Dick Armey see if you can get him to play the drum part for “I Wanna Hold Your Hand.”

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2013 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

25

OFAC v. ATP: Game, Set, Match to OFAC


Posted by at 9:27 pm on June 25, 2013
Category: Iran SanctionsOFAC

J. Edmond Barre http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J._Edmond_Barre.jpg [Public Domain]In its quest to keep the world safe from an Iranian nuclear bomb, the Office of Foreign Assets Control has focused its laser-like scrutiny on an Iranian tennis referee. Obviously, the same skills required to call a ball out or to halt a match for rain are critical to the process of uranium enrichment.

In this regard, OFAC has just fined ATP Tour, Inc. $48,600 as part of a settlement of charges that ATP had made “salary payments to an individual who is ordinarily resident in Iran … for services rendered and expenses incurred in connection with ATP tournaments the individual officiated.” The settlement documents do not reveal the individual involved but it almost certainly has to be Ali Nili, a well-known Gold Badge tennis umpire who has frequently officiated ATP and other international tennis matches.

One of the things that probably, and somewhat justifiably, hacked off OFAC is that apparently ATP made 8 payments to the Iranian referee after it had received a warning letter from OFAC about the payments. That was probably a bad idea, since even OFAC admits in the settlement papers that paying Iranian refs “represent[s] relatively low harm to the sanctions program.” You think? OFAC also indicates that the payments were probably licensable.

Another interesting area of speculation, not directly revealed in the settlement documents, is what is currently being done with Ali Nili who is still officiating ATP matches, like this one at the Shanghai Rolex Masters in 2012. I’m assuming that ATP has now in fact applied for, and received,  an OFAC license.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2013 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

17

FCPA Totally Useful As a Secondary Sanctions Program


Posted by at 6:14 pm on June 17, 2013
Category: Criminal PenaltiesDoJEconomic SanctionsFCPAIran SanctionsOECDSEC

Total Gas Station in France http://www.total.com/MEDIAS/MEDIAS_INFOS/1564/FR/station-service-morinvilliers-France-media.jpg [Fair Use]

The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced that Total, S.A., the French oil and gas company, agreed to pay $245.2 million to resolve charges that it paid bribes to an Iranian government official by way of purported consulting agreements from 1995 to 2004 in order to secure, among other things, oil and gas rights in Iran. The Justice Department described the case against Total as “the first coordinated action by French and U.S. law enforcement in a major bribery case.” The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also reached a settlement with Total pursuant to which Total agreed to pay $153 million to resolve related FCPA allegations.

There is a lot to be said about Total’s settlement. At almost $400 million combined, Total’s payments are in the pantheon of largest payments ever for FCPA matters, along with Siemens, KBR and BAE. Another interesting component to the Total case, however, is its potential effectiveness for economic sanctions enforcement vis-à-vis Iran.

In the past few weeks, Congress and the White House have been busy expanding U.S. economic sanctions against foreign persons for their dealings with Iran. We reported recently on the current House bill that would expand sanctions against foreign banks engaging in certain transactions with Iranian banks. The President last week issued an executive order expanding secondary sanctions against, for example, foreign banks’ rial-based transactions as well as certain dealings by anyone with most persons on the SDN List pursuant to sanctions against Iran.

These secondary sanctions, however, provide U.S. enforcement authorities with a great deal of discretion on if and when to designate foreign persons to the SDN List. Pushing the bounds of secondary sanctions beyond those against foreign persons with substantial ties to the Iranian government, of course, runs the risk of offending other countries who continue to permit their companies to do business with Iran.

Given these limitations, the FCPA would appear to be an effective tool the United States can use in applying pressure against foreign persons doing business with Iran. Although the FCPA carries its own extraterritorial criticisms, corruption is a global issue that many countries have committed itself to address whether by national law or membership to groups like the OECD.

While the United States differs with other countries on precisely what sanctions policies to adopt against Iran, Sudan, Syria or North Korea for current conflict or human rights concerns in those countries, there would seem to be a common allegiance to combat corruption there. It just so happens all four countries are among the most corrupt countries in the world as annually ranked by Transparency International. The Total case at least sends the message to foreign companies that business as usual in Iran can result in significant FCPA penalties and possible cooperation from authorities in the companies’ home countries in bringing them about.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2013 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

13

Syria Sanctions Loosened To Benefit Rebels and Civilian Population


Posted by at 9:04 pm on June 13, 2013
Category: BISOFACSyria

By Bo yaser (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ADestruction_in_Homs_(4).jpg
ABOVE: Destruction in Homs, Syria

Just as the Assad government appears to be gaining ground back from the rebels, the White House announced certain measures loosening the sanctions on Syria. Yesterday, BIS issued a notice on its website that it would begin processing licenses for exports of certain goods related to reconstruction of infrastructure in areas held by the rebels. Specifically, the agency indicated that license applications would be accepted for commodities, technology and software related to

water supply and sanitation, agricultural production and food processing, power generation, oil and gas production, construction and engineering, transportation, and educational infrastructure. . . .

BIS promised that implementing regulations “shortly” but indicated that applications could be filed “immediately.”

Similarly, OFAC released a Statement of Policy permitting the export of a somewhat narrower group of services. The Statement of Policy indicates that OFAC will consider on a case-by-case basis applications to permit services in the Syrian telecommunication industry to enable private persons to better access the Internet and in the agricultural sector. Certain petroleum transactions benefiting the rebel forces may also be authorized. Finally, OFAC revised Syria General License 11 and replaced it with General License 11A authorizing NGOs to engage in certain activities designed to preserve the cultural heritage of Syria including museums, historic buildings and archaeological sites.

Permalink Comments Off on Syria Sanctions Loosened To Benefit Rebels and Civilian Population

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2013 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

12

Section 219 Iran Notices: Down the “Affiliate” Slippery Slope


Posted by at 9:33 pm on June 12, 2013
Category: General

Source: Google Maps http://goo.gl/maps/GqKvy
ABOVE: Carlyle Group DC HQ

A major headache in complying with the notice requirement in section 219 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 has been determining the scope of the statutory requirement for publicly traded companies to file notices with the SEC of their own activities, and those of their “affiliates,” with Iran. Unfortunately, the law does not provide a definition of “affiliate” making it difficult for companies to be certain of the required scope of the disclosure.

A disclosure (subscription required) last Friday by HD Supply Inc. illustrates how broadly the affiliate net may reach. In that disclosure filed with the SEC the company disclosed the presumably legal dealings in Iran of a Spanish company in which one of HD’s investors had invested. Specifically, the notice disclosed some services provided by Applus+ to Iran’s Industrial Development and Renovation Organization (“IRDO”), an Iranian government agency. One of Applus’s investors, the Carlyle Group, was also an investor in HD Supply.

So at this point, what are the limits on what constitutes an “affiliate”? If another investor in Applus+ had an investment in a company that had an investment in a company doing business in Iran, would that need to be disclosed as well? Your guess is as good as mine.

Permalink Comments Off on Section 219 Iran Notices: Down the “Affiliate” Slippery Slope

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2013 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)