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

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.