This document provides a summary of sanctions and export controls enforced by the Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC) and the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) on trade with sanctioned regions. It notes that OFAC and BIS enforcement is increasing given ongoing conflicts. While a nuclear deal with Iran may relax some sanctions, US firms will still be largely barred from investing there. The document also advises being wary of suspicious client behavior that could indicate export diversions.
This document is the text of H.R. 3162, also known as the USA PATRIOT Act, which was passed by Congress in 2001 in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. The Act aims to deter and punish terrorist acts by enhancing domestic security, surveillance procedures, and law enforcement investigative tools related to terrorism, computer fraud/abuse, and money laundering. It also aims to protect U.S. borders and preserve immigration benefits for victims of terrorism. The Act contains several titles that address these issues across 426 sections.
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by Congress in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. It gives federal officials greater authority to track communications for counterterrorism purposes. It also increases the government's ability to monitor financial transactions and provides new criminal offenses and penalties related to terrorism. While providing some new safeguards, critics argue some provisions undermine civil liberties.
Final presentation rev 1 - USA Patriot Actgbsmith5
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed 45 days after 9/11 to enhance domestic security and increase surveillance powers. It impacted laws around intelligence gathering, immigration, and more. While proponents argued it granted needed powers to fight terrorism, critics said it infringed on civil liberties. There have been ongoing legal challenges around its scope and application. As time has passed, there are calls to reevaluate the act and ensure powers are not abused.
International and company law ppt @ bec domsBabasab Patil
International law governs relations between nations and is formed through international customs, treaties, and organizations. There are three main sources of international law: international customs, treaties and agreements, and international organizations. Key principles of international law include comity, which encourages nations to respect each other's laws, sovereign immunity, which exempts foreign nations from jurisdiction in domestic courts, and the act of state doctrine, which prevents courts from examining the validity of foreign governments' public acts within their territory. Nations also regulate specific international business activities through laws controlling investments, exports and imports, and organizations like the WTO help facilitate international trade.
What is intervention and when it is permitted under international lawDavid Vishnoi
Intervention is defined as dictatorial interference by one state in the affairs of another state. It generally violates the principle of non-intervention, but international law allows for exceptions including self-defense and collective actions authorized by the UN Security Council. Intervention can involve force (military intervention) or influence without force (diplomatic intervention). Historically other grounds were used to justify intervention such as humanitarianism or enforcing treaty rights, but the UN Charter now prohibits all uses of force or threats of force by states against other states.
Secretary Kerry is examining ways to strengthen international law. A recommendation is made to restrict reservations in treaties to prevent loopholes. Another is to restructure the UN Security Council to avoid vetoes blocking action. Recognizing human security in international law could clarify interventions. The US ratifying the Rome Statute and observing universal jurisdiction would endorse growing international criminal justice. Finally, ratifying the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea supports codifying customary international law and managing maritime zones.
The Patriot Act was passed in 2001 in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It aimed to strengthen national security by expanding the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement. Specifically, it reduced restrictions on searching communications and financial records and broadened the definition of terrorism. While intended to prevent further attacks, the Patriot Act has been criticized for compromising civil liberties and privacy in its application of expanded government powers. Overall, the document discusses the security versus liberty debate in the context of the Patriot Act and its impact on balancing those priorities after 9/11.
This document is the text of H.R. 3162, also known as the USA PATRIOT Act, which was passed by Congress in 2001 in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. The Act aims to deter and punish terrorist acts by enhancing domestic security, surveillance procedures, and law enforcement investigative tools related to terrorism, computer fraud/abuse, and money laundering. It also aims to protect U.S. borders and preserve immigration benefits for victims of terrorism. The Act contains several titles that address these issues across 426 sections.
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by Congress in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. It gives federal officials greater authority to track communications for counterterrorism purposes. It also increases the government's ability to monitor financial transactions and provides new criminal offenses and penalties related to terrorism. While providing some new safeguards, critics argue some provisions undermine civil liberties.
Final presentation rev 1 - USA Patriot Actgbsmith5
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed 45 days after 9/11 to enhance domestic security and increase surveillance powers. It impacted laws around intelligence gathering, immigration, and more. While proponents argued it granted needed powers to fight terrorism, critics said it infringed on civil liberties. There have been ongoing legal challenges around its scope and application. As time has passed, there are calls to reevaluate the act and ensure powers are not abused.
International and company law ppt @ bec domsBabasab Patil
International law governs relations between nations and is formed through international customs, treaties, and organizations. There are three main sources of international law: international customs, treaties and agreements, and international organizations. Key principles of international law include comity, which encourages nations to respect each other's laws, sovereign immunity, which exempts foreign nations from jurisdiction in domestic courts, and the act of state doctrine, which prevents courts from examining the validity of foreign governments' public acts within their territory. Nations also regulate specific international business activities through laws controlling investments, exports and imports, and organizations like the WTO help facilitate international trade.
What is intervention and when it is permitted under international lawDavid Vishnoi
Intervention is defined as dictatorial interference by one state in the affairs of another state. It generally violates the principle of non-intervention, but international law allows for exceptions including self-defense and collective actions authorized by the UN Security Council. Intervention can involve force (military intervention) or influence without force (diplomatic intervention). Historically other grounds were used to justify intervention such as humanitarianism or enforcing treaty rights, but the UN Charter now prohibits all uses of force or threats of force by states against other states.
Secretary Kerry is examining ways to strengthen international law. A recommendation is made to restrict reservations in treaties to prevent loopholes. Another is to restructure the UN Security Council to avoid vetoes blocking action. Recognizing human security in international law could clarify interventions. The US ratifying the Rome Statute and observing universal jurisdiction would endorse growing international criminal justice. Finally, ratifying the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea supports codifying customary international law and managing maritime zones.
The Patriot Act was passed in 2001 in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It aimed to strengthen national security by expanding the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement. Specifically, it reduced restrictions on searching communications and financial records and broadened the definition of terrorism. While intended to prevent further attacks, the Patriot Act has been criticized for compromising civil liberties and privacy in its application of expanded government powers. Overall, the document discusses the security versus liberty debate in the context of the Patriot Act and its impact on balancing those priorities after 9/11.
The document discusses key principles of extradition including double criminality, specialty, and political exceptions. It provides examples of the extradition of Atong Ang from the US to the Philippines to face plunder charges and the arrest of Jose Maria Sison in the Netherlands for his involvement in assassinations in the Philippines. Due to the lack of an extradition treaty, the Philippine government will wait for the Dutch resolution of Sison's case before seeking his return.
Kiobel: Major U.S. Jurisdictional Limitation for Overseas ActionsPatton Boggs LLP
The Supreme Court issued a decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. that places major limitations on using the Alien Tort Statute to sue foreign defendants in U.S. courts for acts occurring outside U.S. territory. A majority of justices based the decision on a presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. law to protect foreign relations. However, some justices left open the possibility that certain cases involving distinct U.S. interests could still be brought under the ATS. The decision significantly limits but does not completely bar ATS lawsuits over conduct abroad.
The Patriot Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2001 in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Its stated purpose was to strengthen national security by expanding the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies. Some key provisions included allowing roving wiretaps, searches of business records like library records, and conducting surveillance of individuals suspected of terrorist activities. The act was controversial due to concerns that it weakened civil liberties and increased government intrusion into people's privacy.
State jurisdiction refers to a state court's authority to make legally binding decisions over cases that arise within its territorial boundaries. D.J. Harris defined state jurisdiction as having both the power to prescribe rules (prescriptive jurisdiction) and the power to enforce them (enforcement jurisdiction). Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Indian Penal Code establish that Indian law can try offenses committed beyond India's borders if committed by Indian citizens or on Indian-registered ships or aircraft.
Extradition refers to the delivery of a person suspected or convicted of a crime by the state they have fled to, to the state that has jurisdiction over them. Generally, states have jurisdiction over people within their territory, but sometimes criminals flee to other countries, preventing justice. To address this, states adopt extradition agreements to hand suspected criminals back to the affected state. However, extradition is subject to several restrictions, including requiring a formal extradition treaty between the states, not extraditing people for political or religious crimes, requiring sufficient evidence of criminal acts, and only prosecuting extradited individuals for the crimes specified in the extradition request. In conclusion, while extradition is important for administering justice, it is
The document discusses India's extradition laws and its extradition treaty with the United States. It defines extradition as the process where one state surrenders a person accused or convicted of a crime to another state. India's Extradition Act of 1962 governs extradition and extradition treaties. For extradition, the requesting state must make a requisition to India providing evidence of an extraditable crime. If a magistrate finds a prima facie case, the fugitive can be committed to prison and later surrendered. The India-US extradition treaty lists extraditable offenses and exceptions. It also allows for temporary surrender of a fugitive to stand trial in the requesting state.
SB 1070 allows Arizona law enforcement to question the immigration status of anyone they stop for a possible violation. The law was passed in 2010 by the state legislature and signed by Governor Jan Brewer. It is controversial and has faced legal challenges for enabling racial profiling. Protests against the law occurred across the US and some organizations called for boycotts of Arizona. Within a month of being signed, two lawsuits were filed against SB 1070 claiming it would require police to violate the civil rights of Hispanics.
The document discusses international extradition practices and Kenya's extradition laws and framework. It provides an overview of key principles of extradition like double criminality and specialty. It also outlines Kenya's Extradition Act and extraditable offenses. Case examples discussed include a US case where the court found jurisdiction over a forcibly abducted defendant, and a South African case where the court found it lacked jurisdiction over an abducted defendant due to the manner of his abduction.
THE RIGHT TO FORCEFULLY RESIST UNLAWFUL ARRESTICJ-ICC
The document discusses the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest, even using deadly force if necessary. It provides historical examples from 17th century England establishing this right, and discusses two late 19th/early 20th century US Supreme Court cases (Plummer v. State and John Bad Elk vs. U.S.) that affirmed an individual has the right to use any means necessary, including lethal force, to resist an unlawful arrest by a government agent. The document argues this common law right to forcibly resist unlawful arrest still exists in the US today.
Back to Africa - Back to Life - Petition to President ObamaKhem Et
Support the Petition to President Obama for Restitution and
Repatriation of Africans in America for our own Nation-State in
Africa. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (
ICCPR), Article 12 (4) The right to return is of the utmost
importance for a people seeking voluntary repatriation. It also
implies prohibition of enforced population transfers or mass
expulsions to other countries.
What is the ICCPR?
The ICCPR is a human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on December 16, 1966, and put into force on
March 23, 1976. This important treaty outlines some broad and
fundamental civil and political rights that we should all enjoy,
including the right to return and rights to self-determination. The
United States signed the Covenant on October 5, 1977, and ratified
it on June 8, 1992. Based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, the ICCPR has the status of federal law, and the
United States is, therefore, obligated to adhere to this
treaty. www.repatriate.us
Charter of U.N. Article 2(1,4,7) InterventionAshok Bala
This presentation discusses intervention, the Gulf War, and principles of international law. It begins with definitions of intervention and discusses the tension between state sovereignty and self-defense. It then covers the 1991 Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait, violating the UN Charter, leading the UN Security Council to authorize force to remove Iraqi forces. The presentation also discusses the Monroe Doctrine of non-intervention in the Americas and the related Drago Doctrine protecting states from armed intervention over debt claims. In conclusion, it restates that Iraq violated international law by invading Kuwait.
This document outlines the principles of state jurisdiction in international law, including the different types of jurisdiction (exclusive, concurrent, criminal, civil) and the general principles on which states claim criminal jurisdiction (territorial, nationality, protective, universality, passive personality). It also discusses conflict of jurisdiction that can arise when multiple states have a valid claim, the process of extradition between states, and immunity from jurisdiction for certain persons and entities under international law like sovereign immunity.
Asylum provides shelter and protection by a host state to citizens of another state. There are two kinds of asylum: territorial asylum, which is granted within a state's own territory where it has sovereignty, and extra-territorial asylum, which can be granted outside a state's territory in places like embassies, consulates, warships, or international institutions in some cases. Extra-territorial asylum allows states to protect individuals in other states by granting protection in areas considered under the host state's jurisdiction rather than the local state.
This is the second session of a three day course on economic sanctions related to Russia. It covers the financing restrictions from the US and EU sanctions generally.
Extra-Territoriality and the Conflict of Laws The Labour Act (3)Joseph Onele
This document discusses the principle of extraterritoriality and its application to Section 23(1) of Nigeria's Labour Act. It begins by establishing that generally, a state's laws only apply within its own territory. However, there are exceptions where a state seeks to enforce its laws for actions in other jurisdictions.
The document then explores the concept of "extraterritorial application" of statutes. It notes that most legal systems presume statutes do not apply extraterritorially unless expressly stated. It examines this presumption in both common law and US law, citing recent US Supreme Court cases that reaffirmed the presumption. The document aims to consider how the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction applies to interpreting the scope
This document discusses the UK House of Lords' ruling in Jones v Saudi Arabia, which found that state immunity blocked civil claims against Saudi Arabia and officials for torture of British citizens in Saudi Arabia.
The ruling has implications for torture survivors' ability to obtain justice and reparations. While torture is universally condemned, the ruling shows a lack of practical remedies for survivors. The document analyzes arguments around state immunity principles and their relationship to obligations to provide civil remedies for torture under the UN Convention Against Torture. It also discusses debates around interpreting Article 14 and whether it requires states to provide remedies for extraterritorial torture.
1. The document summarizes a discussion on the UK House of Lords decision in the Jones v. Saudi Arabia case regarding state immunity.
2. The Lords upheld state immunity and immunity for individual state officials for torture committed outside the UK, finding no conflict between immunity rules and international rules prohibiting torture.
3. The Lords rejected arguments that universal civil jurisdiction over torture is required by international law in the same way as universal criminal jurisdiction.
This document discusses key concepts in international law. It outlines three types of relationships governed by international law: between states, states and persons, and persons and persons. The main sources of international law are identified as international customs, agreements, treaties, charters, and precedents from international tribunals. The three main legal principles - act of state doctrine, sovereign immunity, and comity - are also summarized. An example case is provided to illustrate the principle of comity.
The document discusses liabilities in the aviation industry under international law. It explains that international treaties like the Warsaw Convention and Montreal Convention govern passenger liability claims for international flights and domestic flights with international connections. These treaties provide for limited airline liability for passenger injury or death. State law may also apply depending on the circumstances of the case. The document then discusses how international conventions aim to maintain cooperation and safety standards in aviation.
This document discusses different types of state jurisdiction under international law. It begins by defining state jurisdiction as a state's authority to prescribe and enforce laws. It then outlines three main types of jurisdiction: legislative jurisdiction to make laws; executive jurisdiction to enforce laws; and judicial jurisdiction of a state's courts. The document goes on to explain several principles of jurisdiction, including the territorial principle giving a state authority over events in its territory, the nationality principle over its nationals abroad, and the protective principle over threats to the state's security.
1) O documento descreve a tecnologia AJAX e como é implementada no framework ASP.NET AJAX.
2) AJAX permite atualizações assíncronas de páginas web para melhorar a experiência do utilizador.
3) O framework ASP.NET AJAX facilita o desenvolvimento de aplicações AJAX utilizando controlos como UpdatePanel.
The document advertises Bruce Power Direct's energy management platform called The Bruce Power Saver. It allows users to automatically collect and analyze their energy data to identify opportunities to reduce costs and energy consumption. The platform gives users visibility into their complex energy bills across locations and enables data-driven decisions. It helps users benchmark performance, set baselines, and track key performance indicators over time to observe the impact of business decisions on energy usage and spending.
The document discusses key principles of extradition including double criminality, specialty, and political exceptions. It provides examples of the extradition of Atong Ang from the US to the Philippines to face plunder charges and the arrest of Jose Maria Sison in the Netherlands for his involvement in assassinations in the Philippines. Due to the lack of an extradition treaty, the Philippine government will wait for the Dutch resolution of Sison's case before seeking his return.
Kiobel: Major U.S. Jurisdictional Limitation for Overseas ActionsPatton Boggs LLP
The Supreme Court issued a decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. that places major limitations on using the Alien Tort Statute to sue foreign defendants in U.S. courts for acts occurring outside U.S. territory. A majority of justices based the decision on a presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. law to protect foreign relations. However, some justices left open the possibility that certain cases involving distinct U.S. interests could still be brought under the ATS. The decision significantly limits but does not completely bar ATS lawsuits over conduct abroad.
The Patriot Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2001 in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Its stated purpose was to strengthen national security by expanding the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies. Some key provisions included allowing roving wiretaps, searches of business records like library records, and conducting surveillance of individuals suspected of terrorist activities. The act was controversial due to concerns that it weakened civil liberties and increased government intrusion into people's privacy.
State jurisdiction refers to a state court's authority to make legally binding decisions over cases that arise within its territorial boundaries. D.J. Harris defined state jurisdiction as having both the power to prescribe rules (prescriptive jurisdiction) and the power to enforce them (enforcement jurisdiction). Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Indian Penal Code establish that Indian law can try offenses committed beyond India's borders if committed by Indian citizens or on Indian-registered ships or aircraft.
Extradition refers to the delivery of a person suspected or convicted of a crime by the state they have fled to, to the state that has jurisdiction over them. Generally, states have jurisdiction over people within their territory, but sometimes criminals flee to other countries, preventing justice. To address this, states adopt extradition agreements to hand suspected criminals back to the affected state. However, extradition is subject to several restrictions, including requiring a formal extradition treaty between the states, not extraditing people for political or religious crimes, requiring sufficient evidence of criminal acts, and only prosecuting extradited individuals for the crimes specified in the extradition request. In conclusion, while extradition is important for administering justice, it is
The document discusses India's extradition laws and its extradition treaty with the United States. It defines extradition as the process where one state surrenders a person accused or convicted of a crime to another state. India's Extradition Act of 1962 governs extradition and extradition treaties. For extradition, the requesting state must make a requisition to India providing evidence of an extraditable crime. If a magistrate finds a prima facie case, the fugitive can be committed to prison and later surrendered. The India-US extradition treaty lists extraditable offenses and exceptions. It also allows for temporary surrender of a fugitive to stand trial in the requesting state.
SB 1070 allows Arizona law enforcement to question the immigration status of anyone they stop for a possible violation. The law was passed in 2010 by the state legislature and signed by Governor Jan Brewer. It is controversial and has faced legal challenges for enabling racial profiling. Protests against the law occurred across the US and some organizations called for boycotts of Arizona. Within a month of being signed, two lawsuits were filed against SB 1070 claiming it would require police to violate the civil rights of Hispanics.
The document discusses international extradition practices and Kenya's extradition laws and framework. It provides an overview of key principles of extradition like double criminality and specialty. It also outlines Kenya's Extradition Act and extraditable offenses. Case examples discussed include a US case where the court found jurisdiction over a forcibly abducted defendant, and a South African case where the court found it lacked jurisdiction over an abducted defendant due to the manner of his abduction.
THE RIGHT TO FORCEFULLY RESIST UNLAWFUL ARRESTICJ-ICC
The document discusses the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest, even using deadly force if necessary. It provides historical examples from 17th century England establishing this right, and discusses two late 19th/early 20th century US Supreme Court cases (Plummer v. State and John Bad Elk vs. U.S.) that affirmed an individual has the right to use any means necessary, including lethal force, to resist an unlawful arrest by a government agent. The document argues this common law right to forcibly resist unlawful arrest still exists in the US today.
Back to Africa - Back to Life - Petition to President ObamaKhem Et
Support the Petition to President Obama for Restitution and
Repatriation of Africans in America for our own Nation-State in
Africa. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (
ICCPR), Article 12 (4) The right to return is of the utmost
importance for a people seeking voluntary repatriation. It also
implies prohibition of enforced population transfers or mass
expulsions to other countries.
What is the ICCPR?
The ICCPR is a human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on December 16, 1966, and put into force on
March 23, 1976. This important treaty outlines some broad and
fundamental civil and political rights that we should all enjoy,
including the right to return and rights to self-determination. The
United States signed the Covenant on October 5, 1977, and ratified
it on June 8, 1992. Based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, the ICCPR has the status of federal law, and the
United States is, therefore, obligated to adhere to this
treaty. www.repatriate.us
Charter of U.N. Article 2(1,4,7) InterventionAshok Bala
This presentation discusses intervention, the Gulf War, and principles of international law. It begins with definitions of intervention and discusses the tension between state sovereignty and self-defense. It then covers the 1991 Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait, violating the UN Charter, leading the UN Security Council to authorize force to remove Iraqi forces. The presentation also discusses the Monroe Doctrine of non-intervention in the Americas and the related Drago Doctrine protecting states from armed intervention over debt claims. In conclusion, it restates that Iraq violated international law by invading Kuwait.
This document outlines the principles of state jurisdiction in international law, including the different types of jurisdiction (exclusive, concurrent, criminal, civil) and the general principles on which states claim criminal jurisdiction (territorial, nationality, protective, universality, passive personality). It also discusses conflict of jurisdiction that can arise when multiple states have a valid claim, the process of extradition between states, and immunity from jurisdiction for certain persons and entities under international law like sovereign immunity.
Asylum provides shelter and protection by a host state to citizens of another state. There are two kinds of asylum: territorial asylum, which is granted within a state's own territory where it has sovereignty, and extra-territorial asylum, which can be granted outside a state's territory in places like embassies, consulates, warships, or international institutions in some cases. Extra-territorial asylum allows states to protect individuals in other states by granting protection in areas considered under the host state's jurisdiction rather than the local state.
This is the second session of a three day course on economic sanctions related to Russia. It covers the financing restrictions from the US and EU sanctions generally.
Extra-Territoriality and the Conflict of Laws The Labour Act (3)Joseph Onele
This document discusses the principle of extraterritoriality and its application to Section 23(1) of Nigeria's Labour Act. It begins by establishing that generally, a state's laws only apply within its own territory. However, there are exceptions where a state seeks to enforce its laws for actions in other jurisdictions.
The document then explores the concept of "extraterritorial application" of statutes. It notes that most legal systems presume statutes do not apply extraterritorially unless expressly stated. It examines this presumption in both common law and US law, citing recent US Supreme Court cases that reaffirmed the presumption. The document aims to consider how the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction applies to interpreting the scope
This document discusses the UK House of Lords' ruling in Jones v Saudi Arabia, which found that state immunity blocked civil claims against Saudi Arabia and officials for torture of British citizens in Saudi Arabia.
The ruling has implications for torture survivors' ability to obtain justice and reparations. While torture is universally condemned, the ruling shows a lack of practical remedies for survivors. The document analyzes arguments around state immunity principles and their relationship to obligations to provide civil remedies for torture under the UN Convention Against Torture. It also discusses debates around interpreting Article 14 and whether it requires states to provide remedies for extraterritorial torture.
1. The document summarizes a discussion on the UK House of Lords decision in the Jones v. Saudi Arabia case regarding state immunity.
2. The Lords upheld state immunity and immunity for individual state officials for torture committed outside the UK, finding no conflict between immunity rules and international rules prohibiting torture.
3. The Lords rejected arguments that universal civil jurisdiction over torture is required by international law in the same way as universal criminal jurisdiction.
This document discusses key concepts in international law. It outlines three types of relationships governed by international law: between states, states and persons, and persons and persons. The main sources of international law are identified as international customs, agreements, treaties, charters, and precedents from international tribunals. The three main legal principles - act of state doctrine, sovereign immunity, and comity - are also summarized. An example case is provided to illustrate the principle of comity.
The document discusses liabilities in the aviation industry under international law. It explains that international treaties like the Warsaw Convention and Montreal Convention govern passenger liability claims for international flights and domestic flights with international connections. These treaties provide for limited airline liability for passenger injury or death. State law may also apply depending on the circumstances of the case. The document then discusses how international conventions aim to maintain cooperation and safety standards in aviation.
This document discusses different types of state jurisdiction under international law. It begins by defining state jurisdiction as a state's authority to prescribe and enforce laws. It then outlines three main types of jurisdiction: legislative jurisdiction to make laws; executive jurisdiction to enforce laws; and judicial jurisdiction of a state's courts. The document goes on to explain several principles of jurisdiction, including the territorial principle giving a state authority over events in its territory, the nationality principle over its nationals abroad, and the protective principle over threats to the state's security.
1) O documento descreve a tecnologia AJAX e como é implementada no framework ASP.NET AJAX.
2) AJAX permite atualizações assíncronas de páginas web para melhorar a experiência do utilizador.
3) O framework ASP.NET AJAX facilita o desenvolvimento de aplicações AJAX utilizando controlos como UpdatePanel.
The document advertises Bruce Power Direct's energy management platform called The Bruce Power Saver. It allows users to automatically collect and analyze their energy data to identify opportunities to reduce costs and energy consumption. The platform gives users visibility into their complex energy bills across locations and enables data-driven decisions. It helps users benchmark performance, set baselines, and track key performance indicators over time to observe the impact of business decisions on energy usage and spending.
This document outlines the key topics and structure for a maiden speech by Jodie-Ann Mullings, including giving background on herself and Rockhampton, discussing issues like unemployment, youth programs, flood prevention and roads, and thanking those who helped her get elected while closing on a strong, positive note.
EU: Tanks, Casks, Drums, Cans, Boxes And Similar Containers - Market Report. ...IndexBox Marketing
IndexBox Marketing has just published its report: “EU: Tanks, Casks, Drums, Cans, Boxes And Similar Containers - Market Report. Analysis And Forecast To 2025”.
This report focuses on the EU tank and similar container market, providing a comprehensive analysis and the most recent data on its market size and volume, EU trade, price dynamics, domestic production, and turnover in the industry. The market trends section reveals the main issues and uncertainties concerning the industry, while the medium-term outlook uncovers market prospects. The attractivity index (IB Index) summarizes the source of existing opportunities as they appear in this market, as well as an interpretation of the trade figures.
Romania: Equipment For Scaffolding, Shuttering, Propping Or Pit Propping - Ma...IndexBox Marketing
IndexBox Marketing has just published its report: “Romania: Equipment For Scaffolding, Shuttering, Propping Or Pit Propping - Market Report. Analysis And Forecast To 2025”.
The report provides an in-depth analysis of the equipment for scaffolding market in Romania. It presents the latest data of the market size and volume, European production, exports and imports, price dynamics and turnover in the industry. The report shows the sales data, allowing you to identify the key drivers and restraints. You can find here a strategic analysis of key factors influencing the market. Forecasts illustrate how the market will be transformed in the medium term. Profiles of the leading companies and brands are also included.
This document discusses the Spray framework for building RESTful web services on Akka in Scala. It describes Spray as a suite of libraries for building and consuming REST APIs on Akka in an asynchronous, non-blocking way using actors. The key components include tools for building server-side APIs with a routing DSL, a complementary HTTP client, low-level server and client functionality, and JSON serialization. Responsibilities of the API layer built with Spray include request routing, object marshalling, encoding/decoding, authentication, caching, and error handling. Routes are defined using directives that allow extracting parameters and concatenating routes.
Veterinary technicians must demonstrate high standards of professionalism, leadership, and communication. This includes upholding a code of ethics, displaying professional conduct both in and outside of work, and maintaining a professional appearance. Effective communication is key, whether communicating with clients, other team members, or animals. Leaders should strive to achieve goals, recognize strengths in their team, provide motivation, and lead by example. Resolving conflicts takes a solution-oriented approach through identifying issues, developing plans, implementing solutions, and celebrating success.
Spain: Tanks, Casks, Drums, Cans, Boxes And Similar Containers - Market Repor...IndexBox Marketing
IndexBox Marketing has just published its report: “Spain: Tanks, Casks, Drums, Cans, Boxes And Similar Containers - Market Report. Analysis And Forecast To 2025”.
The report provides an in-depth analysis of the tank and similar container market in Spain. It presents the latest data of the market size and volume, European production, exports and imports, price dynamics and turnover in the industry. The report shows the sales data, allowing you to identify the key drivers and restraints. You can find here a strategic analysis of key factors influencing the market. Forecasts illustrate how the market will be transformed in the medium term. Profiles of the leading companies and brands are also included.
The summary is as follows:
1. The U.K. Bribery Act of 2010 aims to overhaul the U.K.'s bribery laws and go beyond the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in several respects, such as prohibiting both commercial and public bribery.
2. The Bribery Act imposes strict liability on corporations for failing to prevent bribery by persons associated with the corporation, unless the corporation can prove it had adequate procedures in place to prevent such bribery.
3. Key differences between the FCPA and the Bribery Act include: the Bribery Act prohibits facilitation payments, imposes liability on both parties
The document is a summary of frequently asked questions from the CFTC's cross-border guidance. It defines key terms like U.S. person, foreign branch, and affiliate conduit. For U.S. person, it provides a broad definition that includes natural persons residing in the U.S., entities organized in the U.S., certain trusts, collective investment vehicles majority-owned by U.S. persons, and entities with unlimited liability that are majority-owned by U.S. persons. It also considers factors like a party's connections to U.S. commerce in determining U.S. person status. For foreign branches, it notes they are considered part of the principal U.S. entity but may
1 The FCPA and why it Matters October 04, 2010 .docxhoney725342
1
The FCPA and why it Matters
October 04, 2010
Michael Osajda
The History, the Details and the Significance of the FCPA
The year is 1977. The place is Washington, D.C. The forum is the United States Congress. The
94th Congress, which ended its term on January 3, 1977, and the 95th Congress both obtain
information revealing evidence of payments from U.S. businesses to foreign governmental
officials and political parties. The payments exceed $300 million and were made either to secure
favorable action by foreign governments, or to prompt government functionaries to discharge
their administrative or clerical duties. The companies accused of the payments represent a wide
range of industrial sectors; drugs and health care, oil and gas production and services, food
products, aerospace, airlines and air services, and chemicals.1
These embarrassing revelations were discussed by the Congress on a number of levels, most
notably their impact on international relations, their reflection on the state of U.S. business
ethics, and their effect on competition.
On the level of international relations, while détente with the Soviet Union had commenced, the
Cold War was still a fact of life. There was an active struggle for worldwide influence between
the Soviet Union and the United States. In that context, Congress stated that corporate bribery
had foreign policy implications. These scandals lent ―credence to the suspicions sown by foreign
opponents of the United States that American enterprises exert a corrupting influence on the
political processes of their nations.‖2
There were also ethical and business levels to the issue. Congress flatly stated the obvious: ―The
payment of bribes to influence the acts or decisions of foreign officials, foreign political parties
or candidates for foreign political office is unethical. It is counter to the moral expectations and
values of the American public.‖3 These sentiments resonated in Washington in 1977. While
President Jimmy Carter’s credentials as an economic leader or as the Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces may have been questioned by his critics, his role as a proponent of moral and
ethical behavior was an important part of his presidency. President Gerald Ford signed the
Helsinki Accords on human rights, but Jimmy Carter elevated the principles contained in the
Accords in importance during his term.4
Finally, on the pure business level, Congress concluded that the corrupt activity that had been
presented was bad business. It skewed the economic transaction. Rather than quality, service,
salesmanship, price, or other factors being rewarded, corruption was paramount. Exposure of
such activity could also have negative consequences for the company involved. It could ―damage
a company’s image, lead to costly lawsuits, cause the cancellation of contracts, and result in the
appropriation of valuable assets overseas.‖5
2
With this ...
This document compares the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the UK Bribery Act 2010. The FCPA only prohibits bribery of foreign public officials, while the UK Bribery Act prohibits both public and private sector bribery. The UK Act also has broader territorial reach and can prosecute foreign companies or individuals. Both laws prohibit active bribery directly or indirectly through intermediaries, but the UK Act also prohibits passive bribery. Facilitation payments are permitted under the FCPA but prohibited under the UK Act. The UK Act also has a strict liability offense for companies that fail to prevent bribery by persons associated with the organization.
If you would like to understand about the roots of the FCPA, what it entails, forbids, and what can companies do about it - enjoy this brief introduction, courtesy of ACURUS Business Consulting.
ACURUS Business Consulting - Business risk consulting focused on bridging complexity to simplicity, balancing business ethics, listening to understand, and providing customised solutions.
@acurusgta | www.acurus.ca | sid.joshi@acurus.ca | 1-416-577-8488
North American countries have implemented anti-corruption laws. Should other areas adopt such practices? What impact would such laws have on business in a region?
ACI's AML & OFAC Compliance for the Insurance Industry (Day 1)tnguyenaci
This document discusses sanctions compliance requirements for insurance and reinsurance companies. It provides an overview of key U.S. sanctions programs and definitions of prohibited "facilitation". The document outlines best practices for compliance programs, including screening policies and procedures, training, and oversight. It also discusses challenges international insurers face in complying with overlapping sanctions regimes and the importance of robust compliance programs.
CAPITAL MARKETS ALERT: How Dodd-Frank and Other New U.S. Laws May Affect Non-...Patton Boggs LLP
The document discusses how new U.S. laws like the Dodd-Frank Act may affect non-U.S. financial institutions. Key points include:
1) The Dodd-Frank Act allows the U.S. to more aggressively assert jurisdiction over foreign financial firms' activities outside the U.S. if they impact the U.S. financial system.
2) Foreign firms deemed "systemically significant" by a new council could be placed under Federal Reserve supervision and new capital rules.
3) The act expands the SEC's authority over foreign firms in fraud cases involving significant U.S. conduct or effects.
4) Foreign subsidiaries of financial firms may be subject to the act
Companies seeking to protect their intellectual property should be aware that Congress has created a new federal law designed to prevent the actual and threatened misappropriation of trade secrets. Passed by the House and the Senate in April of 2016, the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA” or the “Act”) is slated for President Obama’s signature, whose administration has previously expressed strong support for the law.
Is your company prepared for the new era of fcpa... (para mi primer debate...)Andres Baytelman
The document discusses the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and trends in its enforcement. It notes that enforcement of the FCPA has increased aggressively over the past year, with record penalties totaling $1.8 billion paid by companies to the SEC and DOJ. The FCPA prohibits bribery of foreign officials and requires accurate record keeping. Companies need to be vigilant about compliance, especially regarding third parties, as failures can result in large fines and criminal penalties against executives.
Blocker, Reicher & Company, LLC is offering between 200,000 and 400,000 common stock shares at $10 per share to raise a minimum of $2,000,000. The company provides actuarial consulting services to auto litigation law firms to help lower their case times and get clients money sooner. The confidential private placement memorandum provides details of the offering and includes anti-money laundering certifications, definitions, and a confidentiality agreement for prospective investors.
The UK Bribery Act 2010 introduces several new bribery offenses that expand the UK's jurisdiction over bribery. It prohibits bribery of foreign officials, private individuals, and failure by companies to prevent bribery. It covers both UK and non-UK companies that do business in the UK. Penalties are severe, including up to 10 years in prison and unlimited fines. Companies must implement adequate procedures to prevent bribery by persons associated with them to use as a defense. UK enforcement authorities plan to aggressively enforce the new law.
The UK Bribery Act 2010 introduces several new bribery offenses that expand the UK's jurisdiction over bribery. It prohibits bribery of foreign officials, private individuals, and failure by companies to prevent bribery. It covers both UK and non-UK companies that do business in the UK. Penalties are severe, including up to 10 years in prison and unlimited fines. Guidance on an "adequate procedures" defense for companies is forthcoming but compliance is critical to avoid prosecution under the Act's broad reach.
The document discusses the potential for introducing Islamic insurance (takaful) products in the United States. It outlines some of the key challenges, including establishing that takaful complies with the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, navigating the state-based insurance regulatory system, and addressing solvency requirements that may not account for the separation of funds in takaful. However, it suggests that neutrally crafted legislation and presenting takaful in a way that does not require only Sharia-compliant investments could help overcome these obstacles.
The One People's Public Trust (OPPT) announced in December 2012 that it had foreclosed on all banks and governments worldwide due to fraud. The OPPT posed two statements to banks and governments that they could not rebut: 1) that they had been stealing from people for centuries through deceptive acts, and 2) that nothing stands between each person and the Creator. This resulted in the cancellation of all government and bank charters. The OPPT issued cease and desist orders and individuals are now able to issue "Courtesy Notices" to those acting on behalf of foreclosed banks and governments to offer new terms. All individuals now act with full personal liability and without corporate protection under common law. The UCC filings
Introducing Takaful into the United States: Prospects and ProbabilitiesCamille Silla Paldi
This document discusses the potential for introducing Islamic insurance (takaful) products in the US consumer market. It identifies several challenges, including the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution which prohibits laws respecting the establishment of religion. The global takaful industry has seen strong growth but regulatory obstacles in the US insurance system around solvency, investment restrictions, and setting up Sharia boards could hinder takaful providers. Neutral redefining of regulations or introducing takaful as part of "Holy Book Banking" may help address these challenges. Overall, properly addressing regulatory issues could open up huge potential for Islamic finance in the US.
This document summarizes key aspects of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the UK Bribery Act (UKBA), and provides guidance on designing an effective compliance program. It outlines that both acts prohibit bribery of foreign officials, but have some differences in scope and defenses. An effective compliance program should have top-level commitment, assess bribery risks, establish clear policies and controls, provide training, conduct due diligence on third parties, and monitor/audit compliance. The document uses examples of Indian companies investigated under the FCPA to illustrate the global reach and enforcement of these anti-bribery laws.
Financial sanctions are imposed by countries and international bodies like the UN to pressure targets to change behavior or comply with objectives. Sanctions usually involve asset freezes targeting individuals and entities. The UK and US maintain sanctions lists that financial institutions must screen customers against to comply with regulations. WAY Fund Managers screens new and existing clients against the HM Treasury and OFAC lists to ensure it does not provide services to sanctioned parties.
The document discusses financial sanctions regimes and how they are implemented by countries and organizations. It provides background on why sanctions are used, what they typically entail like asset freezes, and how sanctioned individuals and entities are identified through consolidated lists published by bodies like HM Treasury and OFAC. It also outlines the sanctions screening processes used by fund managers WAY Fund Managers and Fund Partners Ltd to comply with their legal obligations.
Chinese investment in the u.s. and national security an overview 28 feb18ChadCogan
RMC Intelligence and Analysis Division’s White Paper on Chinese investments in the U.S. and the impacts on national security. The White Paper series is designed to provide analysis of relevant, publicly available information on threat and hazard events or trends and their potential impacts to the interests of the United States, either at home or abroad. This product is not intended to be an all-encompassing assessment of the subject, rather, it provides a brief overview to provide the reader with situational awareness regarding topics with which they may not be familiar.
Chinese investment in the u.s. and national security an overview 28 feb18
ACCDocketArticle12_2015
1. SANCTIONED
ZONE
CHEAT SHEET
■■ Loose lips sink ships. Even
seemingly innocuous legal
advice can be detrimental to US
national security interests if it
facilitates a transaction with an
actor in a sanctioned region.
■■ Serious BISness. The Bureau
of Industry and Security (BIS)
and the Office of Foreign
Asset Controls have stepped
up their enforcement of illegal
trade in conflict zones.
■■ Some things never change.
While a détente in US relations
with Iran has opened the
country to business, US firms
will still be largely barred
from investing there.
■■ Keep your red flags ready. To
single out export diversions,
it’s worth flagging suspicious
procurement behavior
from potential clients.
2. By Robert J. Ward, Jr. and Jan Farley There have been high costs1
arising from the United
States and its allies’ involvement in the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts, not to mention
ever-growing concern stemming from the ISIS crisis in Syria, Iraq and beyond. Given
the current multiple major conflict zones where illegal trade can be highly detrimental
to US interests, the enforcement of global sanctions and export controls by the Office
of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC [Department of the Treasury]) and the Bureau of
Industry and Security (BIS [Department of Commerce]) is trending sharply upward.2
The OFAC/Export Control Evasion and Facilitation Prohibitions —
ATrap for Unwary
In-house Counsel
ACC DOCKET DECEMBER 2015 65
3. For example, in June 2014, BNP
Paribas SA agreed to pay OFAC $964
million (out of a total of almost $9 bil-
lion in civil penalties to US regulators
for various offenses).3,4
Additionally,
in June 2012, ING Bank N.V. settled
OFAC violations for $619 million in
civil penalties.5
In December 2012,
HSBC Global Holdings plc settled
OFAC violations for $375 million in
civil penalties (out of a total $1.9 billion
HSBC paid in penalties to US regula-
tors for various offenses).6
Recently, it
was announced on March 25, 2015,
Schlumberger agreed to pay a $233 mil-
lion OFAC criminal penalty, the largest
OFAC criminal penalty to date.7
The one area fraught with pitfalls for
violations, even if merely inadvertently
done, is with respect to the OFAC and
BIS prohibitions against evasion and
facilitation. Where in-house counsel
have been accustomed to providing
legal advice to navigate strategically
through and perhaps even around legal
requirements via perceived loopholes,
this is an area where zealous advocacy
can quickly amount to a serious viola-
tion of the law.
It does not help matters that this
area of the law is a moving target. For
example, the five permanent members
of the UN Security Council (China,
France, Russia, the United Kingdom
and the United States) plus Germany
reached an agreement with Iran on
July 14, 2015, on nuclear containment.8
Once implemented, the agreement
could result in Iran being removed
from the list of embargoed countries
with some of the toughest sanctions
being lifted (a dramatic change in a
restrictive policy that has been in place
for over the past three decades).9
Moreover, on April 14, 2015, US
President Barack Obama recommended
to Congress that Cuba be removed from
the US government’s list of state spon-
sors of terrorism. The president said the
government of Cuba had not provided
any support for international terrorism
during the preceding six-month period,
and had provided assurances that it
will not support acts of international
terrorism in the future. The immediate
effect of this action led to the United
States deciding to reopen its embassy
in Havana (with Cuba reciprocat-
ing with plans to open its embassy in
Washington, DC10
). With the ultimate
possibility of US Congress lifting the
Cuban sanctions in the future, the
potential removal of the US embargo
of Cuba would be the most significant
major policy change in over half a
century.11
This article will address the OFAC
and BIS prohibitions against evasion
and facilitation, will provide examples
of what can go wrong, and will con-
clude with best practices for preventing
violations.
OFAC and BIS prohibitions against
evasion and facilitation
To understand the scope of the OFAC
and BIS prohibitions against evasion
and facilitation, it is first necessary
to set forth the definitions of which
persons are subject to OFAC and BIS
jurisdiction. OFAC’s regulations pro-
vide a broader definition than BIS of
who is subject to its jurisdiction.
OFAC definition of person
For the OFAC general definition of
person, 31 CFR § 560.314 states as
follows:
“The term United States person
means any United States citizen, per-
manent resident alien, entity organized
under the laws of the United States
(including foreign branches), or any
person in the United States.”
In addition, 31 CFR § 560.305 de-
fines person and entity as follows:
“(a) The term person means an indi-
vidual or entity.
(b) The term entity means a partner-
ship, association, trust, joint venture,
corporation or other organization.”
While the above general defini-
tion is similar to the BIS definition of
“Person,” OFAC has broadened the
definition to include foreign subsidiar-
ies under certain embargoes.
For example, in August 2012,
President Obama signed into law the
Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human
Rights Act (ITRA). Under ITRA, similar
to the law already in effect regarding
Cuba, a US person “owns or controls” a
foreign entity if it: (1) holds more than 50
percent of the equity interest by vote or
value in the entity; (2) holds a major-
ity of seats on the board of directors of
the entity; or (3) otherwise controls the
actions, policies, or personnel decisions
of the entity.”
Section 218 of ITRA also makes the
US person directly liable under the
International Emergency Economic
Powers Act penalty scheme for activities
by the foreign entity to violate or “cause”
a violation of the OFAC sanctions.
As another example, the Ukraine
Related Sanctions Regulations block
transactions with entities 50 percent
or more owned by specially designated
nationals (SDNs), including where two
or more such nationals exercise such
control in the aggregate.12
Robert J. Ward, Jr. is a lawyer in the global trade compliance group at Hewlett Packard, Inc. The
views expressed in this article are of the author’s and not necessarily of Hewlett Packard.
robert.j.ward-jr@hp.com
Jan Farley is the global compliance officer for Dresser-Rand Company. The views expressed in
this article are of the author’s and not necessarily of Dresser-Rand. jfarley@dresser-rand.com
66 ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATE COUNSEL
THE OFAC/EXPORT CONTROL EVASION AND FACILITATION PROHIBITIONS — A TRAP FOR UNWARY IN-HOUSE COUNSEL
4. . . . no United States
person, wherever located,
may approve, finance,
facilitate, or guarantee
any transaction by a
foreign person where the
transaction by that foreign
person would be prohibited
by this part if performed by
a United States person or
within the United States.
In short, for certain sanctions pro-
grams, OFAC covers not only foreign
branches, but US controlled foreign
subsidiaries, or, for targeted sanctioned
entities, OFAC blocks the property of
SDNs even when two or more such
SDNs control an entity 50 percent or
more in the aggregate.
BIS definition of person
Meanwhile, BIS provides its own
definitions regarding the scope of its
coverage over US person activities,
and it is similar to the OFAC general
definition. The relevant sections are
discussed below:
15 CFR § 744.6 (a) provides that
“No US person shall . . . knowingly
support an export, reexport, or transfer
(in-country) that does not have a
[required] license . . .” Part (c) of that
same section defines US person as:
■■
“Any individual who is a citizen
of the United States, a permanent
resident alien of the United States,
or a protected individual . . . [one
seeking political asylum];
■■
Any juridical person organized under
the laws of the United States or any
jurisdiction with the United States,
including foreign branches; and
■■
Any person in the United States.”
Extension to foreign persons?
Both OFAC and BIS prohibitions can be
extended to foreign persons, arguably,
through certain criminal statutes. First
and foremost, 18 U.S.C. §2 provides:
“(a) Whoever commits an offense
against the United States or aids, abets,
counsels, commands, induces or pro-
cures its commission, is punishable as
a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act
to be done which if directly performed
by him or another would be an offense
against the United States, is punishable
as a principal.”
Moreover, 50 US Code §1705 (imple-
menting Section 260 of the International
Emergency Economic Powers
Enhancement Act of 2007) states:
“(a) Unlawful acts It shall be unlaw-
ful for a person to violate, attempt to
violate, conspire to violate, or cause a
violation of any license, order, regula-
tion, or prohibition issued under this
chapter.”
Foreign persons who therefore
commit acts against the United States
(i.e., an act counter to OFAC sanctions
would be so considered) can expect to
be the subject of a prosecution attempt
under the right circumstances (e.g., a
high profile case along with entry into
the United States).
OFAC Prohibitions on Evasion
and Facilitation
OFAC prohibits evasion and facilita-
tion through the different executive
orders issued in imposing sanctions as
well as through eventual codification
as regulations.
For example, under the Iranian
Transactions and Sanctions regula-
tions, 31 CFR § 560.208 provides in
the relevant part that “. . . no United
States person, wherever located, may
approve, finance, facilitate, or guar-
antee any transaction by a foreign
person where the transaction by that
foreign person would be prohibited
by this part if performed by a United
States person or within the United
States.”
[64 FR 20171, Apr. 26, 1999]
Likewise, § 560.417 states “. . . a
prohibited facilitation or approval of a
transaction by a foreign person occurs,
among other instances, when a United
States person:
(a) Alters its operating policies or
procedures, or those of a foreign af-
filiate, to permit a foreign affiliate to
accept or perform a specific contract,
engagement or transaction involving
Iran or the Government of Iran with-
out the approval of the United States
person, where such transaction previ-
ously required approval by the United
States person and such transaction by
the foreign affiliate would be prohib-
ited by this part if performed directly
ACC DOCKET DECEMBER 2015 67
5. by a United States person or from the
United States;
(b) Refers to a foreign person
purchase orders, requests for bids,
or similar business opportunities
involving Iran or the government
of Iran to which the United States
person could not directly respond as
a result of the prohibitions contained
in this part; or
(c) Changes the operating policies
and procedures of a particular affiliate
with the specific purpose of facilitating
transactions that would be prohibited
by this part if performed by a United
States person or from the United States.”
[64 FR 20172, Apr. 26, 1999]
Moreover, Executive Order 13608
(May 1, 2012) targets “Foreign
Sanctions Evaders” that undermine
US sanctions targeting Iran and
Syria. Specifically, Section 1(a)(ii) of
Executive Order 13608 targets those
who “facilitate deceptive transactions”
where the identity of Iranian or Syrian
parties are withheld or obscured from
other parties or regulatory authorities.
Also, under Executive Order 13662
of September 12, 2014, covering the
Ukraine Related Sanctions, it provides
in the relevant part:
“. . . the following are also prohib-
ited: (1) any transaction that evades or
avoids, has the purpose of evading or
avoiding, causes a violation of, or at-
tempts to violate any of the prohibitions
contained in this Directive; and (2) any
conspiracy formed to violate any of the
prohibitions in this Directive.” ACC
Docket, December 2015
BIS prohibitions on evasion
and facilitation
The chief BIS prohibition in this regard
can be found in General Prohibition 10
codified under 15 CFR Part 734, which
states as follows:
“Proceeding with transactions with
knowledge that a violation has oc-
curred or is about to occur
(Knowledge Violation to Occur). . . “
The prohibitions against evasion
and facilitation are strict
Given the strict nature of these OFAC
and BIS prohibitions, three points
come into view:
■■
Overzealous advocacy in the spirit
of attempting a “work-around” can
easily lead to running afoul of the
prohibitions;
■■
US persons cannot be involved
in any transactions involving
sanctioned nationals; and
■■
A number of foreign entities of late
have found themselves caught with
large OFAC penalties for a failure to
take these prohibitions seriously as
will be discussed in the next section.
Examples of what can go wrong
The two industries most targeted for
OFAC and BIS sanctions have been the
financial industry services and oil-field
services industries. To illustrate what
can go wrong, this article will review
68 ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATE COUNSEL
THE OFAC/EXPORT CONTROL EVASION AND FACILITATION PROHIBITIONS — A TRAP FOR UNWARY IN-HOUSE COUNSEL
Prohibited facilitation
Under EAR General Prohibition 10, you may not:
“. . . sell, transfer, export, re-export, finance, order, buy, remove, conceal,
store, use, loan, dispose of, transport, forward, or otherwise service,
in whole or in part, any item subject to the EAR and exported or to be
exported with knowledge that a violation of the Export Administration
Regulations, the Export Administration Act or any order, license, License
Exception, or other authorization issued thereunder has occurred, is
about to occur, or is intended to occur in connection with the item.
Nor may you rely upon any license or License Exception after notice to
you of the suspension or revocation of that license or exception...”
6. two of the leading financial services
cases as well as two of the leading oil
field services cases.
Two financial industry cases
for lessons learned
PNB Paribas case
The largest OFAC fine to date involv-
ing the financial industry came in the
summer of 2014 against PNB Paribas
(PNPP) for $964 million.13
The settle-
ment agreement details numerous
instances of facilitation and conceal-
ment all of which BNPP’s subsidiary
in Geneva and branch in Paris over-
whelmingly conducted in violation of
US sanctions laws. Those instances of
facilitation and concealment included
omitting references to sanctioned
parties; replacing the names of sanc-
tioned parties with BNPP’s name or a
code word; and structuring payments
in a manner that did not identify
the involvement of sanctioned par-
ties in payments sent to US financial
institutions.14
Given the numerous repetitive
violations in this regard, it is read-
ily apparent how BNPP managed to
ratchet up the largest OFAC fine to
date. Specifically, OFAC penalties
are imposed as follows: Depending
on the program, criminal penalties
for each willful violation can include
fines ranging up to $20 million and
imprisonment of up to 30 years. Civil
penalties for violations of the Trading
With the Enemy Act can range up to
$65,000 for each violation. Civil penal-
ties for violations of the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act
can range up to $250,000 or twice the
amount of the underlying transaction
for each violation. Civil penalties for
violations of the Foreign Narcotics
Kingpin Designation Act can range up
to $1,075,000 for each violation.15
The chief lessons learned from the
BNPP case include a failure to recog-
nize that foreign office facilitation and
evasive sanctions activities are illegal.
The use of US intermediary banks in
New York City to process US dollar wire
transfers constitutes an OFAC viola-
tion. Because of BNPP’s presence in
the United States and continued desire
to make use of the US dollar reserve
currency in its international commercial
operations, BNPP was subject to OFAC
jurisdiction, and the bank was forced to
pay heavy fines for its facilitation and
evasion activities to retain its privilege to
operate in the US financial market.
ING Bank case
The second largest OFAC fine was
imposed against ING Bank N.V.
(ING) in the summer of 2012 for
$619 million.16
The violations in-
volved ING’s commercial banking
offices in the Netherlands, Belgium,
PURCHASETHE REPORT
To order a copy of the report go to acla.acc.com/resources/research
QUESTIONS?
Email ausmembership@acc.com
ABN 97 003 186 767
IN-HOUSE INSIGHTSThe 2015 Benchmarks Leading Practices Report
is now available, so what’s in it for you?
This in-depth analyses of the in-house profession throughout Australia and New Zealand, is the most comprehensive
report of its kind.
Need to improve the efficiency of your in-house function?
Find out the characteristics that define leading in-house teams and investigate the potential for your in-house function
to lead from the front.
Need to talk numbers?
Support financial conversations with the business using the report’s detailed spend data.
Need to manage workload?
Learn how other legal functions are managing workflow – what is insourced and/or outsourced.
Feeling innovative?
Innovation can have high dollar returns; find out what are the top areas where others are
currently innovating and what practicies are easily implemented into your own function.
And there is so much more!
7. France, Curaçao and Cuba process-
ing wire transfers, trade finance
transactions, or travelers’ checks
involving the following sanctioned
countries: Burma, Cuba, Iran, Libya
and Sudan. In the settlement agree-
ment, OFAC found these violations
to be egregious under the following
rationale: OFAC determined that
ING’s conduct was marked by will-
fulness and recklessness; several ING
employees, including senior manage-
ment, were found to be aware of the
conduct that led to the violations;
the violations resulted in significant
harm to US sanctions programs
objectives; and ING was determined
to be a highly sophisticated global
financial institution.
The chief lesson learned for a
prominent and well known financial
institution like ING Bank is that the
government’s expectation for compli-
ance will be higher for those com-
panies well-established in the global
market place.
Two oilfield services company
cases for lessons learned
Schlumberger case
The largest criminal sanctions fine
levied against a company came
against Schlumberger Oilfield
Holdings Ltd. (Schlumberger) on
March 25, 2015, in the amount of
$232.7 million.17
The Department
of Justice levied this fine, imposed a
three-year probationary period and
required Schlumberger to hire an
independent consultant to review its
sanctions compliance program all
as a result of Schlumberger con-
spiring to violate the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act
(IEEPA) by willfully facilitating il-
legal transactions and engaging in
trade with Iran and Sudan.18
The specific conduct that violated
US sanctions law started on or about
early 2004 and continued through
June 2010. The Department of Justice
(the DoJ) reported that Drilling
Measurements (DM), a United
States-based Schlumberger busi-
ness segment, violated US sanctions
against Iran and Sudan by:
■■
approving and disguising the
company’s capital expenditure
requests from Iran and Sudan
for the manufacture of new
oilfield drilling tools and for
the spending of money for
certain company purchases (in
particular, the DoJ reported
that in Schlumberger email
communications, DM personnel
outside the United States referred
to Iran as “Northern Gulf” and
Sudan as “Southern Egypt” or
“South Egypt” in their email
communications with DM
personnel in the United States);
■■
making and implementing
business decisions specifically
concerning Iran and Sudan (that
is, DM headquarters personnel
made and implemented business
decisions in the day-to-day
operations of Iran and Sudan);
and
■■
providing certain technical
services and expertise in order to
troubleshoot mechanical failures
and to sustain expensive drilling
tools and related equipment in
Iran and Sudan (that is, at times,
queries entered by, or on behalf of,
DM personnel in Iran and Sudan
were addressed by DM personnel
located in the United States).19
There is a chief lesson learned
from the Schlumberger case. Sch-
lumberger, though incorporated
outside the United States, man-
aged to violate US sanctions laws
by involving persons (including
non-US citizens or residents), affili-
ates, unaffiliated business partners
or facilities located in the United
States. In short, any involvement in
sanctioned country activities by a
person or entity (whether an affiliate
70 ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATE COUNSEL
THE OFAC/EXPORT CONTROL EVASION AND FACILITATION PROHIBITIONS — A TRAP FOR UNWARY IN-HOUSE COUNSEL
Suspicious minds
■■ The customer or purchasing
agent is reluctant to offer
information about the
end-use of a product.
■■ The product’s capabilities
do not fit the buyer’s line
of business; for example,
a small bakery places
an order for several
sophisticated lasers.
■■ The product ordered is
incompatible with the
technical level of the
country to which the
product is being shipped.
For example, semiconductor
manufacturing equipment
would be of little use
in a country without an
electronics industry.
■■ The customer has little or
no business background.
■■ The customer is willing
to pay cash for a very
expensive item when
the terms of the sale
call for financing.
■■ The customer is unfamiliar
with the product’s
performance characteristics
but still wants the product.
■■ Routine installation,
training or maintenance
services are declined
by the customer.
■■ Delivery dates are vague, or
deliveries are planned for
out-of-the-way destinations.
■■ A freight forwarding firm
is listed as the product’s
final destination.
■■ The shipping route is
abnormal for the product
and destination.
■■ Packaging is inconsistent
with the stated method of
shipment or destination.
■■ When questioned, the buyer
is evasive or unclear about
whether the purchased
product is for domestic
use, export or re-export.
8. or not) within the United States, or
by US citizens or residents anywhere
in the world, may trigger liability for
a foreign company that itself has no
direct presence in the United States
but which benefits from those facili-
tated activities.
The Weatherford case
The other oilfield service com-
pany case involved Weatherford
International Ltd. (Weatherford). In
November 2013, Weatherford agreed
to settle potential civil liability for vi-
olations of the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations (CACR), 31 C.F.R. part
515; the Iranian Transactions and
Sanctions Regulations (ITSR), 31
C.F.R. part 560; and the Sudanese
Sanctions Regulations (SSR), 31
C.F.R. part 538, for $91,026,450.20
OFAC concluded the Weatherford
violations were egregious and not
voluntarily self-disclosed. OFAC de-
termined that: (1) between 2005 and
2008, Weatherford conducted 441
transactions totaling $69,268,078,
that provided oilfield equipment
and services in which the govern-
ment of Cuba and/or blocked Cuban
nationals had an interest, includ-
ing travel-related transactions by
Weatherford employees to and from
Cuba; (2) between 2003 and 2007,
Weatherford conducted extensive
oilfield services business in Iran,
including 100 transactions total-
ing $23,001,770, which involved
the direct or indirect exportation of
goods, technology, and/or services to
Iran, and/or the facilitation of those
transactions by US persons; and (3)
between 2005 and 2006, Weatherford
conducted oilfield services business
in Sudan, including 45 transactions
totaling $295,846, which involved
the direct or indirect exportation of
goods, technology or services from
the United States to Sudan.
Weatherford exhibited aggravat-
ing as well as mitigating factors in its
conduct that impacted the final de-
termination of its penalty. OFAC, for
example, determined Weatherford’s
conduct to be willful because various
executives and senior management
in Weatherford companies knew or
had reason to know of the conduct
that led to the apparent violations;
the apparent violations constituted a
long-term pattern of conduct; the ap-
parent violations resulted in signifi-
cant harm to US sanctions programs
objectives; Weatherford is a large
and sophisticated oilfield services
company; and Weatherford’s com-
pliance program at the time of the
apparent violations was substantially
deficient.21
OFAC found mitigating factors
to the extent Weatherford had not
been the subject of prior OFAC
penalties or of other administra-
tive action; Weatherford undertook
ACC DOCKET DECEMBER 2015 71
United States Person / US Person
OFAC Definition BIS Definition
Sources 31 CFR § 560.314 (Iranian Transactions and Sanctions
Regulations)
15 CFR § 744.6(c) (Export Administration Regulations)
Statutory
Language
“The term United States person or U.S. person means any
United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity
organized under the laws of the United States or any
jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign
branches), or any person in the United States.”
“Definition of U.S. person. For purposes of this section, the
term U.S. person includes:
(1) Any individual who is a citizen of the United States, a
permanent resident alien of the United States, or a protected
individual . . . [one seeking political asylum];
(2) Any juridical person organized under the laws of the United
States or any jurisdiction with the United States, including
foreign branches; and
(3) Any person in the United States.”
Best practices for preventing evasion
Aside from providing comprehensible policies and procedures, this area
calls for targeted training for management, both the C-Suite (including
in-house counsels[!]) and general managers leading regional teams. It
also calls for empowering the international trade compliance team to
issue a stop order on transactions where potential red flags are present.
Undertaking proper due diligence to rule out red flag indicators will form a
crucial part of a transaction defense file. Another critical part of an effective
compliance program will involve monitoring and auditing. Big data analysis
on certain search terms can provide real-time insight into any red flags or
outright violations in progress. Moreover, a proper escalation process for
handling uncovered violations, both for making potential voluntary self-
disclosures and to undertake swift and appropriate remedial measures
will be necessary. Where the parent company is incorporated outside the
United States, the educational effort will have to be ramped up all the more
to ensure inadvertent violations are not created through involving persons
subject to US jurisdiction (or a jurisdiction where similar types of sanctions
are likely to be deployed, such as the UK and the European Union).
9. significant remedial steps to ensure
future compliance; and Weatherford
substantially cooperated with OFAC’s
investigation of the apparent vio-
lations. Specifically, Weatherford
retained outside counsel to conduct a
comprehensive internal investigation
and submitted extensive documenta-
tion and reports regarding poten-
tial sanctions violations. Finally,
Weatherford agreed to toll the statute
of limitations.22
The chief lesson learned in the
Weatherford case centers on the val-
ue of having an effective compliance
program in the first instance. With
an effective compliance program,
Weatherford would have had an ad-
ditional mitigating factor in its favor,
and it may have even discovered
the misconduct in time to make a
voluntary self-disclosure rather than
having the government first open an
investigation to get at the bottom of
the misconduct.
Practical steps to take
to avoid violations
For known shipment diversion
vulnerabilities, it might behoove one
to create an operations playbook to
alert personnel to be on the look-out
for customers who might be at risk
for operating in harsh sanctioned
countries. There are certain coun-
tries known for a high incidence of
improper transshipments, namely:
Hong Kong, Singapore and the
United Arab Emirates.23
For branch
or subsidiary and sales agent offices
in these countries, in-person training
should occur annually.
In addition, personnel are now
requiring customer certifications that
any contemplated work in a harsh
sanctioned country will require
sufficient notice for return of any
rented equipment as well as notice of
the need to discontinue any man-
aged services. This all underscores
the importance of raising awareness
through targeted training.
It goes without saying that any BIS
noted red flags for potential diver-
sion should be investigated. Those
red flags are cited in the below side-
bar box.24
The key best practices for prevent-
ing evasion and facilitating violations
of US sanctions laws are spelled out
in the below side-bar box. In the
end, in-house counsel need to take a
step back from overzealous advocacy
in engaging in any kind of “work-
around” in this instance. Indeed, the
law prohibits conduct that either
evades legal requirements or that
may facilitate a third party to violate
the law. ACC
NOTES
1 Please see Financial Times article:
“$1tn Cost of Longest US War Hastens
Retreat from Military Intervention”
(December 14, 2014) at www.ft.com/
cms/s/2/14be0e0c-8255-11e4-
ace7-00144feabdc0.html#slide0.
2 Please see Harvard Law School
Forum on Corporate Governance and
Financial Regulation article: “2014
Year-End Review of BSA/AML and
Sanctions Developments” (February
14, 2015) at: http://corpgov.law.
harvard.edu/2015/02/14/2014-
year-end-review-of-bsaaml-and-
sanctions-developments/.
3 Department of the Treasury:
Settlement Agreement with
PNP Paribas, June 30, 2014.
Available at www.treasury.gov/
resource-center/sanctions/
CivPen/Documents/20140630_
bnp_settlement.pdf.
4 Noamie Bisserbe: “BNP Paribas
Assures It Has Ample Cash to
Cover U.S. Penalties.” July, 1,
2014. Available at www.wsj.com/
articles/bnp-paribas-may-raise-
cash-after-u-s-fine-1404200325.
5 Department of the Treasury:
Settlement Agreement with ING
Bank N.V. June 12, 2012. MUL-
565595., Available at www.treasury.
gov/resource-center/sanctions/
CivPen/Documents/06122012_
ing_agreement.pdf.
6 Department of the Treasury:
Settlement Agreement with HSBC
Global Holdings plc. December 11,
2012. MUL-615225. Available at
www.treasury.gov/resource-center/
sanctions/CivPen/Documents/121211_
72 ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATE COUNSEL
HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE? VISIT ACC’S BLOG AT WWW.INHOUSEACCESS.COM/ACC-DOCKET.
ACC EXTRAS ON… Complying with evasion
prohibitions
ACC Docket
Common Pitfalls of Export Compliance
(July 2014) www.acc.com/legalresources/
resource.cfm?show=1373499
New Regulatory Expectations for Service
Providers to Financial Institutions (Jun. 2014)
www.accdocket.com/articles/resource.
cfm?show=1369086
Top Ten
Top Ten Considerations for US Lenders When
Lending to Foreign Corporate Borrowers
(Nov. 2014) www.acc.com/legalresources/
publications/topten/lending-to-foreign-
corporate-borrowers.cfm
Practice Resource
What Every Company Needs to Know About
Export Control, Anti-Money Laundering
(AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) Laws
(Oct. 2013) www.acc.com/legalresources/
resource.cfm?show=1355604
InfoPAKSM
Complying With United States Export and
Sanction Laws and Regulations (Nov. 2013)
www.acc.com/legalresources/resource.
cfm?show=778690
Sample Form
Supplemental Corruption, Economic
Sanctions and Export Control Due Diligence
Questionnaire (Jan. 2014) www.acc.com/
legalresources/resource.cfm?show=1357882
ACC HAS MORE MATERIAL ON THIS SUBJECT
ON OUR WEBSITE. VISIT WWW.ACC.COM,
WHERE YOU CAN BROWSE OUR RESOURCES BY
PRACTICE AREA OR SEARCH BY KEYWORD.
10. HSBC_Settlement.pdf.
7 Please see Bloomberg report
“Schlumberger Unit to Pay $233
Million in Iran-Sanctions case (March
25, 2015) at: www.bloomberg.
com/news/articles/2015-03-25/
schlumberger-unit-to-pay-233-
million-on-iran-sanction-violation.
8 Please see www.nytimes.
com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/
iran-nuclear-deal-is-reached-
after-long-negotiations.html.
9 Please see the OFAC website
providing an overview of the
Iran Sanctions at: www.treasury.
gov/resource-center/sanctions/
Programs/Documents/iran.txt.
10 Please see: www.nytimes.
com/2015/07/02/us/us-cuba-
restoring-diplomatic-ties-and-
reopening-embassies.html.
11 Please see the CNN Website
coverage: “Obama Acts to Remove
Cuba from Terror List” (April 14,
2015) at: www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/
politics/obama-asks-congress-
to-take-cuba-off-terror-list/.
12 Please see 31 C.F.R. §589.406.
13 Please see: www.treasury.gov/
resource-center/sanctions/
CivPen/Documents/20140630_
bnp_settlement.pdf.
14 Ibid.
15 Please see: Answer to FAQ 12 at www.
treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/
Sanctions/Pages/answer.aspx#12.
16 Please see: www.treasury.gov/
resource-center/sanctions/CivPen/
Documents/06122012_ing.pdf.
17 Please see: www.justice.gov/opa/
pr/schlumberger-oilfield-holdings-
ltd-agrees-plead-guilty-and-pay-
over-2327-million-violating-us.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Please see: www.treasury.gov/
resource-center/sanctions/CivPen/
Documents/20131126_weatherford.pdf.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Please see: www.bis.doc.gov/index.
php/component/content/article/148-
about-bis/newsroom/speeches/
speeches-2014/719-keynote-speech-
of-david-w-mills-assistant-secretary-
for-export-enforcement-update-
conference-july-30-2014 at 6.
24 15 CFR Part 732, Supplement 3.