Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Cybersecurity Sanctions Regime

Apr 1, 2015

Reading Time : 3 min

Targeted Activities

The executive order is directed against persons who engage in malicious cyber-enabled activities that have the purpose or effect of causing any of the following problems: 

1. harming or significantly compromising the provision of services by entities in a critical infrastructure sector (e.g., power grids or financial systems)

2. causing a significant disruption to the availability of computers or networks, including through a distributed denial-of-service attack

3. causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.

The executive order also targets those who (i) knowingly receive or use trade secrets that were misappropriated by cyber-enabled means for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain, or (ii) attempt, assist, sponsor or provide financial, material or technological support for any of the targeted harms listed above.

While relevant regulations have not yet been promulgated, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) anticipates that “cyber-enabled” activities will include acts that are primarily accomplished through, or facilitated by, computers or other electronic devices. For purposes of the executive order, malicious cyber-enabled activities include deliberate activities accomplished through unauthorized access to a computer system, including by remote access; circumventing one or more protection measures, including by bypassing a firewall; or compromising the security of hardware or software in the supply chain. 

Sanctions Imposed

OFAC will work in coordination with other U.S. government agencies to identify individuals and entities that are responsible for or complicit in, or have directly or indirectly engaged in, the targeted activities discussed above that are a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, economic health or financial stability of the United States. These individuals and entities will be added to OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list.

OFAC notes that the sanctions are not designed to prevent or interfere with legitimate cyber-enabled academic, business or non-profit activities, or to target persons engaged in legitimate activities to ensure and promote the security of information systems (e.g., efforts by researchers, cybersecurity experts and network defense specialists to identify, respond to and repair vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors or to otherwise help companies improve their cybersecurity).

Also, the sanctions will not target victims of cyber attacks, including persons whose personal computers or other networked electronic devices are hijacked to be used in malicious cyber-enabled activities without the person’s knowledge or consent (e.g., in denial-of-service attacks against U.S. financial institutions). 

Implications for U.S. Persons

There are no specific steps that U.S. persons need to take right now in order to comply with this executive order, as it was issued without an initial set of designations.

However, once OFAC designates individuals and entities pursuant to this executive order, U.S. persons and persons otherwise subject to OFAC jurisdiction must ensure that they do not engage in trade or other transactions with persons designated on OFAC’s SDN List or any entity owned or controlled by such persons.

U.S. persons, including technology companies or other firms that facilitate or engage in online commerce, should be particularly mindful of unauthorized transactions or dealings with persons named on the SDN List, and should develop a tailored, risk-based compliance program, which includes sanctions list screening and other appropriate measures.

Additional Information

The White House: Executive Order and President Obama’s Statement on the Executive Order

The White House Blog: Expanding Our Ability to Combat Cyber Threats and Our Latest Tool to Combat Cyber Attacks: What You Need to Know

OFAC FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions Related to Executive Order “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities”

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 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.