InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC sanctions officials connected to DPRK
On December 1, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions against three North Korean officials for providing support to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles. According to OFAC, the designations are “in line with wider multilateral efforts to impede the DPRK’s ability to advance its unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs that threaten regional stability.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property of the sanctioned entity that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC, as well as “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons.” OFAC noted that its regulations prohibit U.S. persons from participating in transactions with designated persons unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC.
Treasury announces price cap on Russian crude oil
On December 2, the U.S. Treasury Department announced an agreement entered into by the 27 member states of the European Union and the members of the G7 (collectively, the “Price Cap Coalition”), which adopts a price cap on seaborne Russian crude oil in an effort to restrict Russian revenue streams for its war in Ukraine. According to the announcement, beginning next week, the Price Cap Coalition will impose a ban on a range of services, including maritime insurance and trade finance, related to the maritime transport of Russian crude oil unless purchasers buy the oil at or below the $60/barrel cap. Starting February 5, 2023, this ban will also extend to the maritime transport of Russian-origin petroleum products unless they are sold at or below a yet-to-be-announced price cap. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last month OFAC published guidance on the price cap policy for Russian crude oil. According to Treasury’s announcement, the guidance clarifies that the price cap policy’s “‘safe harbor’ for service providers through the recordkeeping and attestation process is designed to shield such service providers from strict liability for breach of sanctions in cases where service providers inadvertently deal in the purchase of Russian oil sold above the price cap owing to falsified or erroneous records provided by those who act in bad faith or make material misrepresentations.” OFAC also published a Determination Pursuant to Executive Order 14071 officially announcing the price cap on December 5.
OFAC sanctions Hizballah accountants and weapons facilitator
On December 1, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13224 against two individuals and two companies based in Lebanon for providing financial services to Hizballah. OFAC also designated another individual for actively working to procure weapons for Hizballah. According to OFAC, the designations target persons that manage and enable Hizballah’s financial operations throughout Lebanon, including Hizballah’s “quasi-financial institution” and its central finance unit. As a result, all property, and interests in property of the designated persons, “and of any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.” OFAC regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within the United States (including transactions transiting the United States) that involve any property or interests in property of designated persons. OFAC cautioned that “persons that engage in certain transactions with the persons designated today may themselves be exposed to sanctions or subject to an enforcement action.” Additionally, OFAC warned that a foreign financial institution that knowingly conducts or facilitates a significant transaction on behalf of any of the designated persons could be subject to U.S. sanctions.
OFAC sanctions Iranian officials
On November 23, the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13553 against three Iranian security officials related to the Iranian regime’s continued crackdown on ongoing protests throughout the country, including most recently in Kurdish areas. According to OFAC, the Iranian regime has increased its aggressive actions against the Iranian people as part of its ongoing suppression of peaceful protests against a regime that denies human rights and fundamental freedoms to its people. As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.” U.S. persons are also generally prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons. Persons that engage in certain transactions with the individuals designated today may themselves be exposed to designation. Additionally, OFAC warned that “any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates a significant transaction or provides significant financial services for any of the persons designated today could be subject to U.S. sanctions.”
OFAC sanctions persons exploiting Guatemala mining sector
On November 18, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13818 against a Russian national and a Belarusian national, as well as three associated entities, “for their role in exploiting the Guatemalan mining sector.” OFAC noted that the designations demonstrate “the U.S. government’s ongoing commitment to impose tangible and significant consequences on corrupt actors in order to protect the U.S. financial system from abuse,” as well as its commitment “to identifying acts of corruption and promoting accountability for corrupt actors and disrupting their access to the U.S. and international financial system.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons that are in the U.S. or in the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Further, “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.” U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons, unless exempt or authorized by a general or specific OFAC license.
OFAC announces sanctions tied to Mexican drug cartel
On November 17, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 14059 against a Mexican drug cartel and its co-leaders for “having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.” OFAC attributed its actions in part to a “critical” partnership with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Mexican government. As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.” U.S. persons are also generally prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons.
FDIC releases October enforcement actions
On November 25, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in October. During the month, the FDIC made public ten orders consisting of “one consent order; one amended and restated consent order; one personal cease and desist order; three orders to pay civil money penalties; two Section 19 orders; and two orders terminating consent orders.” Among the orders is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against a Mississippi-based bank related to 128 alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank failed to obtain the required flood insurance or obtain an adequate amount of insurance coverage, at or before loan origination, for all structures in a flood zone. The order requires the payment of a $320,500 civil money penalty.
The FDIC also issued a consent order to a New York-based bank, which alleged that the bank had unsafe or unsound banking practices relating to weaknesses in the Bank’s Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Program. The bank neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to, among other things, increase its supervision, direction, and oversight of AML/CFT personnel and its AML/CFT program.
OFAC settles with virtual currency exchange to resolve IP address screening deficiencies
On November 28, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $362,158 settlement with a global virtual currency exchange for allegedly exporting services to users who appeared to be located in Iran when they engaged in virtual currency transactions on the exchange’s platform. According to OFAC’s web notice, the exchange’s platform allows users to buy, sell, hold, or exchange cryptocurrencies. Users can also trade fiat currency for cryptocurrency on the platform. The exchange’s anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance program screens customers at onboarding and daily thereafter, and reviews information about IP addresses generated at the time of onboarding to prevent users in sanctioned jurisdictions from opening accounts and conducting transactions. OFAC stated, however, that between October 2015 and June 2019, the exchange allegedly processed 826 transactions totaling roughly $1.6 million on behalf of individuals who appeared to be in Iran when the transactions happened. OFAC maintained that because the exchange failed to implement IP address blocking on transactional activity across its platform, “account holders who established their accounts outside of sanctioned jurisdictions appear to have accessed their accounts and transacted on Kraken’s platform from a sanctioned jurisdiction.” As a result, the exchange allegedly violated the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC determined that the exchange failed to exercise due caution or care for its sanctions compliance obligations by only applying its geolocation controls at the time of onboarding and not with respect to subsequent transactional activity even though it knew customers were located worldwide.
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that the exchange has not received a penalty notice from OFAC in the preceding five years, the exchange voluntarily self-disclosed the alleged violations and undertook significant remedial measures, such as (i) “adding geolocation blocking to prevent clients in prohibited locations from accessing their accounts” on the exchange’s platform; (ii) implementing blockchain analysis tools to assist with sanctions monitoring; (iii) expanding staff and providing compliance training; (iv) adding “additional screening capabilities to ensure compliance with OFAC’s ‘50 Percent Rule,’ including detailed reports on beneficial ownership; (v) contracting a vendor to assist with the identification and nationality verification through the use of artificial intelligence tools; and (vi) implementing automated controls designed to block certain accounts. In addition, the exchange agreed to invest an additional $100,000 in certain sanctions compliance controls as part of the settlement.
Providing context for the settlement, OFAC stated that this action “highlights the importance of using geolocation tools, including IP blocking and other location verification tools, to identify and prevent users located in sanctioned jurisdictions from engaging in prohibited virtual currency-related transactions”—both at the time of onboarding and throughout the lifetime of the account.
OFAC issues Venezuela-related general licenses
On November 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued Venezuela-related General License (GL) 41 following the resumption of talks in Mexico City to alleviate the suffering of Venezuelan people and restore democracy. GL 41 authorizes certain transactions related to the identified corporation and its subsidiaries’ joint ventures in Venezuela involving Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A (PdVSA) or any entity owned directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more, that would otherwise be prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 13850, as amended by E.O.s 13857 or 13884. OFAC noted that GL 41 prevents PdVSA from receiving profits from the oil sales by the identified corporation, and only authorizes certain specific activities. Other Venezuela-related sanctions and restrictions imposed by the U.S. remain in place. Concurrent with the issuance of GL 41, OFAC issued GL 8K, “Authorizing Transactions Involving Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA) Necessary for the Limited Maintenance of Essential Operations in Venezuela or the Wind Down of Operations in Venezuela for Certain Entities,” as well as two new related FAQs. According to the announcement, “U.S. persons are authorized to provide goods and services for certain activities as specified in GL 41,” and “non-U.S. persons generally do not risk U.S. sanctions exposure for facilitating transactions that are authorized by GL 41.”
ECJ invalidates AML directive granting public access to beneficial ownership information
On November 22, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) announced a ruling invalidating a provision of the 2018 amended EU anti-money laundering directive that guaranteed public access to the beneficial ownership information of legal entities incorporated within member states. The case was referred to the ECJ by a Luxembourg court following two actions that disputed the compatibility of this directive with the beneficial owners’ fundamental right to privacy. The ECJ was asked to issue a preliminary ruling on a series of questions concerning the interpretation of “exceptional circumstances” and “disproportionate risk,” as well as the directive’s compatibility with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter) and the GDPR. Under the directive, member states are required to enter and maintain beneficial ownership information in registers that are accessible to the general public. The directive is intended to prevent the financial system from being exploited for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and requires, with limited exemptions, that member states provide information on “the beneficial owner’s name, month and year of birth, nationality and country of residence, as well as the nature and extent of his or her beneficial interests.”
In its announcement, the ECJ said that public access to beneficial ownership information “constitutes a serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and the protection of personal data” provided in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. “[T]he potential consequences for the data subjects resulting from possible abuse of their personal data are exacerbated by the fact that, once those data have been made available to the general public, they can not only be freely consulted, but also retained and disseminated,” the ECJ wrote in the judgment, adding that “in the event of such successive processing, it becomes increasingly difficult, or even illusory, for those data subjects to defend themselves effectively against abuse.”
While the ECJ found that, by the measure at issue, the EU legislature is pursuing “an objective of general interest capable of justifying even serious interferences with the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, and that the general public’s access to information on beneficial ownership is appropriate for contributing to the attainment of that objective,” the “interference entailed by that measure is neither limited to what is strictly necessary nor proportionate to the objective pursued.” Additionally, the ECJ held that the amended “directive amounts to a considerably more serious interference with the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter” without being offset by any benefits that may result from the amended directive as compared to the previous version in terms of combating money laundering and terrorist financing. However, the ECJ did recognize that civil society and the press have a legitimate interest in accessing such information, given their role in the fight against money laundering.