Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations: An Update

May 19, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

The regulations also provide in Section 589.202 that any transfer of property that is in violation of the regulations or executive orders is generally null and void without a license or authorization, unless an individual receiving such property can show: (1) that the transfer was not a “willful violation” of the sanctions regime; (2)there was no “reasonable cause to know or suspect” that the transfer required a license or authorization, or if the individual had a purported license, there was no “reasonable cause to know or suspect” that the license was invalid; and (3) the recipient files a report to OFAC.

  • 50 Percent Rule: Section 589.406 of the regulations clarifies that an entity in which a designated party owns a 50 percent or greater interest is blocked even if OFAC has not specifically designated the entity as a Specially Designated National and Blocked Person (“SDN”).  Accordingly, property and interests in property of such entities that are in the United States or within the possession of a U.S. person will be frozen, and U.S. persons will be restricted from dealing with such entities.
  • Holding of Funds and Liquidation of Physical Property: Sections 589.203 of the regulations provide that persons holding blocked financial property will place them in blocked interest-bearing accounts.  Section 589.204 allows OFAC to sell and liquidate physical blocked property and place the proceeds in a blocked interest-bearing account.
  • Licenses: The regulations regarding general and specific licenses will be supplemented at a later date.  Among license provisions included as of now, Section 589.504 allows financial institutions to transfer funds from one blocked account to another belonging to the same person, as long as the transfer occurs within the financial institutions’ branches or offices and no transfer occurs from an account within the United States to an account outside the United States. Section 589.505 also allows U.S. financial institutions to debit blocked accounts for normal service charges that the blocked account owner owes the institution.
  • Legal Services: Section 589.506 allows for the provision of certain legal services on behalf of persons whose property and interest are blocked. These authorized legal services include, among other services, provision of legal advice regarding compliance with U.S. law and representation of sanctioned persons before U.S. federal, state, or local courts regarding the imposition, administration, or enforcement of U.S. sanctions against them.  Legal services not listed in 589.506(a) require a specific license by OFAC.  Section 589.507 also allows for sanctioned parties to pay for legal services from funds outside the United States and outlines the requirements that attorneys must meet to receive such payments.
  • Power to Impose Additional Sanctions: Under Section 589.802, the Secretary of Treasury provides the Director of OFAC authority to designate sanctioned persons, but does not provide the Director the power to impose sector-specific sanctions.

OFAC intends to further supplement the regulations later to include “additional interpretative and definitional guidance and additional general license and statements of licensing policy.” We will continue to monitor OFAC’s actions to identify additional regulations and sanctions related to Russia and Ukraine. To see the complete regulations, see here.

Note: Akin Gump advises a number of Russian and international companies on sanctions matters and does not represent the United States government.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Trade Law

July 19, 2024

Views expressed by Alan Yanovich.1

...

Read More

Trade Law

February 9, 2023

With the enactment of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the announcement of the European Union (EU) Green Deal Industrial Plan, there is now a full-fledged subsidy war between the United States and the European Union. While these subsidies are meant to encourage green technologies, incentivizing firms to produce locally would seem to be an almost as important policy goal. And it is not limited to the U.S. and the EU. Global Trade Alert recently reported that, in 2022, production subsidies accounted for half of all trade-distorting measures, making it the mostly commonly used harmful trade policy measure.1

...

Read More

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

2022-01-24

Washington, D.C. partner Kevin Wolf, London partner Jasper Helder and Emily Kilcrease with the Center for New American Security submitted a detailed comment to U.S. and EU export control authorities to help guide and inform efforts to rationalize U.S. and EU export controls.  It can also be a useful resource for anyone interested in the topic and wanting to understand the history and context to current export control policy issues. They note that the US-EU Joint Statement on the role and purpose of export controls “is far more significant than generally recognized because it is the first time the EU (represented by the EC) or any other US ally has stated so explicitly and publicly since the end of the Cold War an agreement with the US that export controls should be used to achieve country-specific and other policy objectives not directly related to weapons of mass destruction or conventional military items.”

...

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

© 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.