InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
DOJ Teams Up With OFAC to Bring Enforcement against Chinese Front Company
On September 26, the DOJ announced charges against a Chinese trading company and its executives for conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and to defraud the United States; as well as for conspiracy to launder monetary instruments through U.S. financial institutions. The criminal complaint alleges that the company served as a third-party payer, using an illicit network of front companies, financial facilitators, and trade representatives to purchase sugar and fertilizer for a banking entity based in North Korea that OFAC had designated as a Specially Designated National (SDN) in 2009. The civil forfeiture complaint seeks forfeiture of funds spread out across 25 different bank accounts located in China and connected to the affairs of the company. In addition, OFAC imposed sanctions on the company, which is located near the North Korean border and openly worked with the SDN banking entity after 2009.
Multiple Federal Agencies Pursue International Payment Processor
The DOJ, OFAC and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), as part of an effort to stop an international network of mass mailing fraud schemes that target elderly and vulnerable victims, conducted a joint enforcement action against an international payments processor and money services business based in Canada. The agencies alleged that the payment processor engaged in money laundering and mail fraud by knowingly processing payments on behalf of the perpetrators of more than 100 different mail fraud campaigns, collectively involving tens of millions of dollars. OFAC designated the payments processor as a significant transnational criminal organization (TCO) pursuant to Executive Order 13581. OFAC also designated as TCOs a global network of 12 individuals and 24 entities across 18 countries based on their association with the payment processor. As a result of today’s action, all property and interests in property of the designated persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. Additionally, USPIS obtained a warrant through the Eastern District of New York to seize the funds in a U.S. bank account that was allegedly used to process payments received through fraudulent mailings. According to OFAC, the payment processor “has a nearly 20-year history of knowingly processing payments relating to these fraudulent solicitation schemes, which result in the loss of millions of dollars to U.S. consumers.”
OFAC Settles with Illinois-based Company for Alleged Violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations
On September 13, OFAC announced a $4,320,000 settlement with an Illinois-based company to resolve allegations that it violated the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR), 31 C.F.R. part 560. From approximately May 5, 2009 to March 2, 2012, OFAC alleges that on 48 occasions the company shipped seeds to consignees located in Europe or the Middle East with the knowledge or reason to know that the seeds were ultimately destined for Iran distributors. The settlement amount reflects OFAC’s consideration of the following aggravating factors: (i) the company acted willfully by engaging in conduct it knew to be prohibited; (ii) the company acted recklessly by ignoring its OFAC compliance responsibilities; (iii) the company’s employees, including mid-level management, had “contemporaneous knowledge” that the seeds were ultimately destined for Iran, and for almost eight months after the Director of Finance learned of OFAC’s investigation, it continued sales to its Iranian distributors; (iv) the company’s conduct resulted in providing $770,000 in economic benefit to Iran; (v) the company failed to cooperate with OFAC at the start of the investigation, providing information that was inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete; and (vi) the company is a subdivision of a commercially sophisticated, international corporation. Mitigating factors considered when determining the settlement amount include, but are not limited to, the company’s lack of sanctions history with OFAC for five years before the first of the alleged 48 violations and the remedial steps the company took to ensure future compliance with OFAC sanctions.
Obama Administration Issues Executive Order Terminating Côte d'Ivoire Sanctions Programs
On September 14, the White House issued an Executive Order titled “Termination of Emergency with Respect to the Situation in or in Relation to Côte d’Ivoire.” The Executive Order terminates the Côte d’Ivoire-related sanctions program. Accordingly, OFAC updated its SDN List to indicate the removal of the sanctions against the country established under the United Nations Security Council’s Resolution 2284. The Executive Order is effective immediately.
OFAC Publishes Burma-Related FAQ
On September 14, President Obama announced his intent to lift certain sanctions against Burma and to designate it as a least-developed beneficiary developing country for the purposes of the Generalized System of Preferences program, a status that would allow imported products from Burma to enjoy lower tariffs and preferential treatment. Accordingly, OFAC published new FAQ 480 to address the President’s announcement regarding the policy change with respect to Burma. The policy change will take effect when the President issues a new Executive Order and, at that time, OFAC “will formally remove the Burmese Sanctions Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations and take other administrative actions as necessary.”
OFAC Imposes Civil Penalty for the Export of Orthodontic Supplies to Iran
On September 7, OFAC announced a $43,200 settlement with an Oregon-based manufacturing company for alleged violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR), 31 C.F.R. part 560. Specifically, OFAC alleges that the company violated §§ 560.204 and 560.206 of the ITSR between April 2008 and July 2010 by exporting orthodontic supplies, with a collective value of $59,886, to Germany, United Arab Emirates, and/or Lebanon with the knowledge or reason to know that the supplies were ultimately destined for Iran. The settlement amount reflects OFAC’s consideration of the following aggravating factors: (i) the company acted willfully by exporting products it knew or had reason to know were ultimately destined for Iran; (ii) the company’s management knew or had reason to know that the products were destined for Iran; and (iii) the company failed to implement a compliance program until June 2008. Mitigating factors considered when determining the settlement amount include (i) the fact that alleged violations did not “result in great economic or other benefit conferred on Iran” because the transactions were generally consistent with OFAC’s licensing policy; (ii) the company’s lack of sanctions history with OFAC for five years before the first of the seven alleged violations; (iii) the company’s cooperation with OFAC by agreeing to toll the statute of limitations; (iv) the company’s development of an economic sanctions compliance procedure in June 2008 and the subsequent draft of a written compliance policy; and (v) the company’s lack of “commercial sophistication in conducting international sales at the time of the alleged violations.”
Treasury Issues Joint BSA/AML Fact Sheet
On August 30, the Department of the Treasury, along with the OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve and NCUA, issued a joint fact sheet on foreign correspondent banking. The fact sheet provides a summary of the agencies’ (i) expectations for BSA/AML and OFAC risk management at U.S. depository institutions; (ii) risk-based approach to the supervisory examination process; and (iii) use of enforcement as an “extension of the supervisory process.” As highlighted in a corresponding blog post, the fact sheet explains that about “95% of BSA/OFAC compliance deficiencies identified by the [Federal Banking Agencies], FinCEN, and OFAC are corrected by the institution’s management without the need for any enforcement action or penalty.” The fact sheet notes that, under existing regulations there is no general requirement for depository institutions to conduct due diligence on an individual customer of a foreign financial institution (FFI). But it also notes that “[i]n determining the appropriate level of due diligence necessary for an FFI relationship, U.S. depository institutions should consider the extent to which information related to the FFI’s markets and types of customers is necessary to assess the risks posed by the relationship, satisfy the institution’s obligations to detect and report suspicious activity, and comply with U.S. economic sanctions. This may require U.S. depository institutions to request additional information concerning the activity underlying the FFI’s transactions in accordance with the suspicious activity reporting rules and sanctions compliance obligations.”
OFAC Issues Two Findings of Violation for Alleged Violations of Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations
On August 2, OFAC issued Findings of Violation (here and here) to two insurance companies for alleged violations of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 598. The findings of violation relate to a non-U.S. insurance company that issued insurance policies to persons subsequently designated as SDNs. The insurance policies were serviced by a U.S. insurance company, which collected insurance premiums from the SDNs and remitted the premiums to the non-U.S. company. Neither company identified the designations until a separate company assumed responsibilities for servicing the policies. OFAC asserted that as large and commercially sophisticated companies providing insurance products and services, they “failed to implement controls and measures to ensure [they] could identify, block and report insurance policies, premiums, or claims payments in which an OFAC sanctioned person(s) had an interest.”
OFAC Updates Cuba-Related FAQs
On July 25, OFAC updated its list of frequently asked questions related to Cuba to clarify requirements applicable to persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction that are providing carrier or travel services to Cuba pursuant to 31 C.F.R. § 515.572. According to new FAQ 38, where such a person is providing travel or carrier services to a customer traveling to or from Cuba under a specific license, OFAC will consider the collection and retention of the traveler’s specific license number to be equivalent to collecting and retaining a physical or electronic copy of the specific license, as required by § 515.572(b)(1). The carrier or travel services provider must maintain a record of the specific license number or a copy of the license for at least five years. Revised FAQ 39 reiterates that authorized carrier or travel service providers must also retain a certification from each customer traveling to or from Cuba indicating the provision of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations that authorizes travel and the names and addresses of the individual travelers for at least five years from the date of the transaction.
OFAC Issues Finding of Violation for Alleged Violations of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations
On July 27, OFAC issued a Finding of Violation to a bank for allegedly maintaining accounts on behalf of two individuals on OFAC’s SDN list. On June 12, 2013, pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, OFAC added the two individuals to the SDN list based on their involvement in money laundering operations. From June 12, 2013 to June 3, 2014, OFAC alleged that, due to a misconfiguration in the bank’s sanctions screening software, it failed to identify and block accounts belonging to them. OFAC asserted that the bank had reason to know it maintained accounts on behalf of the designated individuals as an aggravating factor under its Enforcement Guidelines, but noted that the fact that “no managers or supervisors appeared to have been aware of the conduct that led to the apparent violations” was a mitigating factor. The Finding of Violation also noted that the bank took remedial action to respond to the violations and cooperated with OFAC by signing a tolling agreement, as well as two extensions to the tolling agreement.