OFAC Adopts New Sanctions Targeting Hizballah’s Financial and Logistics Networks

Apr 26, 2016

Reading Time : 6 min

Overview

  • The HFSR apply to traditional U.S. banks and financial institutions—but importantly—the HFSR also apply to a broad array of nontraditional “financial institutions” (an expansively defined term) located in, or organized under the laws of, the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, such as jewelry stores and car dealerships. As a result, a much wider array of businesses need to conduct restricted party screening and monitor their activities as related to FFIs.
  • Because the HFSR prohibit or restrict both the opening and maintaining of accounts for FFIs, U.S. financial institutions need not take any positive action or process a single transaction to be exposed to potential penalties. In other words, the mere failure to timely close an account is a basis for penalty exposure—even without any act on behalf of a business to process restricted transactions subject to the HFSR. U.S. financial institutions may use a new general license to close prohibited accounts. However, use of the general license will trigger a mandatory reporting requirement, which may, in turn, expose regulated parties to further scrutiny.
  • The HFSR apply to FFI activities conducted “in any location or currency.” Accordingly, FFIs must take care to ensure that their activities globally (not only those that touch the United States or the U.S. dollar) do not involve any activities prohibited under the HFSR. Designation as an entity engaging in such sanctionable activities will have far-reaching consequences in terms of the non-U.S. financial institution’s ability to operate globally.
  • In addition to heightened know-your-customer (KYC) procedures, some non-U.S. financial institutions have started to require detailed explanations from existing customers on a transaction-specific basis for transactions exceeding a certain value threshold. These types of practices, as well as derisking practices involving the closing of risky customer accounts, are expected to become more prevalent in the wake of new requirements such as these.
  • U.S. financial institutions that violate the HFSR may be fined USD $250,000, or twice the transaction value, or subject to criminal penalties of $1 million and/or 20 years of imprisonment per violation.

I. Application Beyond Traditional Banks

Although the primary effect of the HFSR is to regulate U.S. banks’ opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts of FFIs, the regulatory definitions make the HFSR applicable to many nonbanking entities as well. In particular, the HFSR definition of “financial institution” is exceptionally broad and includes not only banks, exchange houses, investment companies and branches of FFIs in the United States, but also any “dealer in precious metals, stones or jewels,” as well as any “business engaged in vehicle sales, including automobile, airplane and boat sales.” Accordingly, U.S. entities, such as jewelry stores and car dealerships, can be subject to compliance requirements under the HFSR. Though these types of U.S. businesses are unlikely to open or maintain payable-through accounts for their customers as this term is defined in the HFSR, if a U.S. jewelry store or car dealership maintains a separate account established to receive deposits from customers, those accounts may require additional scrutiny to comply with the HFSR. OFAC also has discretion to include other businesses or agencies whose transactions may be useful in “criminal, tax or regulatory matters.”

II. HFSR Sanctionable Activities and the New HFSR List

The HFSR provide a basis for sanctioning FFIs for knowingly engaging in any of the following (hereinafter, “HFSR Sanctionable Activities”):

  1. facilitation of “significant” transaction(s) for Hizballah
  2. facilitation of “significant” transaction(s) of a person identified on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) and designated for acting on behalf of, or at the direction of, or being owned or controlled by, Hizballah (such persons will be identified by a special reference to Hizballah at the end of their SDN List entry stating that the entity is “Subject to secondary sanctions pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations”)
  3. money laundering (defined as including the movement of illicit cash or cash equivalent proceeds into, out of, or through a country or financial institution) to carry out an activity described in (1) or (2) or
  4. facilitation of “significant” transaction(s) or providing “significant” financial services to carry out an activity described in (1), (2), or (3).

Facilitation of a transaction in this context is broadly interpreted to include “the provision of currency, financial instruments, securities or any other transmission of value; purchasing; selling; transporting; swapping; brokering; financing; approving; guaranteeing; the provision of other services of any kind; the provision of personnel; or the provision of software, technology or goods of any kind.”

Whether the transaction is “significant” is subject to OFAC’s discretion. OFAC will undertake a review of the totality of facts and circumstances, including a consideration of the nature of the transaction, its size, the nexus between the FFI engaging in the transactions and Hizballah or other blocked parties, and the overall impact on the Act’s objectives.

Further, the HFSR Sanctionable Activities apply to transactions conducted “in any location or currency,” meaning that a transaction need not be denominated in U.S. dollars or otherwise processed through the U.S. financial system in order to be considered sanctionable under these regulations. FFIs that the United States determines are engaging in HFSR Sanctionable Activities will be designated on a new list, the “HFSR List.” Once published, the HFSR List will be available on the Counter Terrorism Sanctions page of OFAC’s website.

III. Impact of Designation on the HFSR List

OFAC may impose either (a) strict conditions or (b) a complete prohibition on “the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or payable-through account” for FFIs designated on the HFSR List.

  1. Strict Conditions. The HFSR List entry may state that a “strict condition” is applicable to the opening or maintaining of a U.S. correspondent or payable-through account. Such strict conditions may include the following:
    1. prohibiting or restricting any provision of trade finance through the correspondent account or payable-through account of the FFI
    2. restricting the transactions that may be processed through the correspondent account or payable-through account of the FFI to certain types of transactions, such as personal remittances
    3. placing monetary limits on, or limiting the volume of, the transactions that may be processed through the correspondent account or payable-through account of the FFI
    4. requiring preapproval from the U.S. financial institution for all transactions processed through the correspondent account or payable-through account of the FFI or
    5. prohibiting or restricting the processing of foreign exchange transactions through the correspondent account or payable-through account of the FFI.
  2. Complete Prohibition. If the HFSR List entry for the FFI does not state a strict condition, then the FFI is subject to a complete prohibition against the opening or maintaining of a correspondent or payable-through account in the United States. The HFSR provide a new general license authorizing U.S. financial institutions to engage in transactions necessary to close the account (including transferring any remaining unblocked funds to the FFI), subject to the following conditions:
    1. the account must be closed within 10 days of the FFI’s designation on the HFSR List as subject to a complete prohibition
    2. the U.S. financial institution must file a report with OFAC within 30 days of account closure that includes “full details” on the closing of the account, including “complete information” on all transactions processed or executed through the account, and on the account outside the United States to which the remaining funds were transferred.

The terms “full details” and “complete information” are not defined, making the scope and level of detail required to comply with this reporting obligation unclear. OFAC is accepting public comment on this new reporting requirement until June 14, 2016.

IV. Conclusion

In order to ensure compliance with the terms of the HFSR, traditional and nontraditional financial institutions should remain vigilant in screening parties associated with their transactions. If an FFI is designated on the HFSR List or SDN List, removal from that list can be complicated and costly. Among other measures, removal requires that the president of the United States receive reliable assurances from the government with primary jurisdiction over the FFI that the FFI will not engage in HFSR Sanctionable Activities in the future.

As reviewed above, some FFIs have started to require detailed explanations from existing customers on a transaction-specific basis for transactions exceeding a certain value threshold in addition to implementing heightened KYC procedures. These types of practices, as well as derisking involving the closure of high-risk customer accounts, are expected to become more prevalent in the wake of the new requirements.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Trade Law

2023-01-26

At the end of last year, World Trade Organization (WTO) members agreed that the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the WTO will take place in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in February 2024. There is no doubt that the WTO is facing headwinds and is in need of a vigorous push forward. The UAE’s success in transforming itself into a global trade and digital hub and a leader in services trade could serve to drive a successful outcome at MC13.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2023-01-17

On December 21, 2022, the appeal arbitrators in the Colombia – Frozen Fries (DS591) World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute circulated their award (the “Award”). This was the second appeal conducted under Article 25 of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and the first appeal under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), a framework created by a group of WTO members to overcome the challenges posed by the non-operational Appellate Body.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2022-02-10

The United Kingdom just issued a new statutory instrument, effective immediately, which extends the authority to designate persons and entities under the U.K. sanctions against Russia.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-06-10

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin Gump’s webinar, “Protecting the Crown Jewels - New U.K. National Security Rules for Foreign Investment in a Post-COVID-19, Post-Brexit World.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-05-07

The clock is ticking down to the entry into force of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on July 1, 2020.  Leading up to that date, businesses have a unique advocacy opportunity to influence the implementing regulations and associated processes, such as legislative changes to Mexico’s domestic laws. Additionally, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), along with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts, have begun issuing guidance for the trade community seeking to obtain the benefits of the agreement. At this time, these guidance documents include a petition process for automakers to request alternative staging for the automotive rules of origin as well as general interim implementation instructions for USMCA entries. Still to come are regulations regarding the automotive labor value content requirements and Uniform Regulations regarding the customs provisions. Akin Gump and our partners at Dorantes Advisors in Mexico City have jointly developed brief summaries of these guidance documents and a timeline of key actions still to take place prior to entry into force. The materials are available here in both English and Spanish.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-03-02

Last week, in a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) concluded that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 does not offend the non-delegation doctrine. To most observers, the ruling does not come as a surprise, but the story on Section 232 and the non-delegation doctrine is not yet over.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.