Worldwide: A Review Of US Economic Sanctions In 2018

This article by partner Ama Adams, counsel  Brendan Hanifin and associate  Emerson Siegle was published by  Law360 on December 11, 2018.

In another landmark year for sanctions developments, the U.S. government strengthened sanctions targeting Iran, Russia and Venezuela, in addition to sanctioning an agency of the Chinese government and completing the second largest sanctions-related enforcement action on record.

Regulatory developments have paved the way for continued, aggressive enforcement of U.S. sanctions in pursuit of national policy objectives, and public reporting suggests that additional major enforcement actions are nearing resolution — setting the stage for an equally tumultuous 2019.

Regulatory Developments

The following section summarizes significant changes in U.S. sanctions policy over the past year.


On May 8, President Donald Trump announced the United States' withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, and the reimposition of sanctions that the U.S. government had waived pursuant to the JCPOA.

Among other steps, the United States (1) revoked General License H (which previously had permitted foreign-organized companies owned or controlled by U.S. persons to engage in certain dealings with Iran); (2) reimposed secondary sanctions targeting critical Iranian industries; and (3) and redesignated hundreds of Iranian parties on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, known as the SDN list. Consistent with pre-Trump administration guidance, OFAC granted 90- and 180-day grace periods to wind down previously authorized activities, the latter of which expired on Nov. 4.

The above changes had a dramatic effect on non-U.S. entities owned or controlled by U.S. persons, as these entities now are essentially cut off from the Iranian marketplace. The reimposition of broad-based secondary sanctions targeting Iran also presents a conundrum for non-U.S. entities ordinarily outside of OFAC's jurisdiction, which must weigh the benefits of continued Iranian dealings against the risk of being targeted by U.S. sanctions.

To date, no secondary sanctions have been imposed, and the U.S. government has granted temporary waivers to eight countries — including China, India, Japan and South Korea — to continue importing Iranian crude oil (based on these countries' demonstrated and/or pledged reductions of such imports).1 Still, the reimposed sanctions have prompted major European companies — such as French energy giant Total S.A. and Danish shipping conglomerate Maersk — to suspend Iran-related operations due to the heightened regulatory risk.2

Further complicating the picture for multinational companies, in November, the European Union amended Council Regulation (EC) No. 2271/96, known as the "blocking statute," to prohibit EU companies from complying with U.S. sanctions targeting Iran. In many cases, simultaneous compliance with U.S. sanctions and the blocking statute poses a significant challenge. Some EU firms have opted to withdraw from Iran and cited "unspecified issues of 'commercial viability' for their decision to leave Iran," utilizing this carve-out provided in the blocking statute, which may mitigate the risk of EU enforcement of the blocking statute.3

Despite activation of the blocking statute and other EU initiatives — including the contemplated creation of a special purpose vehicle to channel investment to Iran, purportedly beyond the reach of U.S. jurisdiction — the U.S. government has consistently pledged strict enforcement of the reimposed Iran sanctions and "a lot more" activity relating to Iran in the near future.4

In the near term, navigating the Iran sanctions promises to be a challenging and costly endeavor for international businesses and investors.


On April 6, OFAC designated seven Russian oligarchs, 12 oligarch-controlled companies, 17 senior Russian government officials, a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and a Russian bank to the SDN list.5 At the time, several of these parties held significant ownership stakes in major international companies, which resulted in the temporary blocking of certain companies pursuant to OFAC's "50 percent rule."6

The April 6 action caused immediate turmoil across global markets, requiring both U.S. and non-U.S. firms to reassess their sanctions exposure and, in some cases, to divest interests in (or held by) the targeted Russian parties. OFAC granted multiple wind-down licenses to ease the burden of the new designations on U.S. companies, some of which have been extended multiple times. The aftermath of the April 6 designations demonstrates the broad extraterritorial effects of U.S. sanctions policy, as well as the (often unanticipated) difficulties that U.S. and non-U.S. parties may face in extricating themselves from commercial relationships in response to new sanctions designations.

On Sept. 20, the U.S. State Department and OFAC coordinated to impose broad sanctions and additional restrictions on China's Equipment Development Department — a major component of the Chinese military — and its director, Li Shangfu, pursuant to the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA. The Sept. 20 action marked the first time that the U.S. government has exercised its authority to impose sanctions under section 231 of CAATSA, which authorizes the U.S. government to target parties that knowingly engage in a significant transaction involving the Russian defense or intelligence sectors.

Collectively, these developments suggest that the U.S. government intends to continue aggressively countering perceived malign activities of the Russian government through economic sanctions. This aggressive posture, and the extraterritorial reach of CAATSA's secondary sanctions provisions, means that both U.S. and non-U.S. companies face significant Russia-related sanctions risk.


Since August 2017, Venezuela has been the subject of "quasi-sectoral" sanctions implemented pursuant to Executive Order 13808, which prohibits certain transactions involving new debt of the government of Venezuela, as well as certain transactions involving securities of, or certain bonds issued by, the government of Venezuela. Throughout 2018, the United States has strengthened sanctions targeting Venezuela through the issuance of executive orders, including:

Executive Order 13827 (March 19), which prohibits dealings in government of Venezuela-backed cryptocurrencies;

Executive Order 13835 (May 21), which prohibits dealings in debt owed to the government of Venezuela, such as accounts receivable; and

Executive Order 13850 (Nov. 1), which authorizes OFAC to designate to the SDN list, inter alia, individuals and entities who operate in Venezuela's gold sector or engage in "transactions involving deceptive practices or corruption and the Government of Venezuela."

On its face, the language of Executive Order 13850 is remarkably broad. In particular, Executive Order 13850 authorizes OFAC to designate "any person determined ... to operate in the gold sector of the Venezuelan economy or in any other sector of the Venezuelan economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State."

In an accompanying FAQ, OFAC advised that the agency "expects to use its discretion to target ... those who operate corruptly in the gold or other identified sectors of the Venezuela economy, and not those who are operating legitimately in such sectors."7 Still, Executive Order 13850 accords OFAC significant discretion to target additional sectors of the Venezuelan economy, and thereby may have laid the groundwork for further sanctions targeting the beleaguered country.


Less than a month after Executive Order 13850, Trump issued Executive Order 13851, creating a new sanctions program targeting Nicaragua. On the same day, OFAC designated Nicaragua's vice president and first lady to the SDN list.

Although the Nicaragua sanctions program is in its infancy, national security advisor John Bolton recently grouped Nicaragua with Cuba and Venezuela, which he collectively referred to as the "Troika of Tyranny,"8 possibly portending further sanctions activity involving one or more of these countries in the near future.

Enforcement Activity

As of Dec. 4, OFAC had announced five enforcement actions in 2018 that netted $60,963,487 in penalties, as compared to eighteen enforcement actions and $118,307,445 in penalties last year. The 2018 penalty total is misleadingly low, however, as it reflects only a small portion ($53,996,916.05, or approximately 4 percent) of Société Générale SA's $1.34 billion global settlement with OFAC and other U.S. regulators to resolve apparent violations of U.S. sanctions targeting Cuba, Iran and Sudan.

Financial Institutions Remain Under Scrutiny

Following a 10+ year sweep of the financial services industry, recent sanctions enforcement activity largely has focused on nonfinancial institutions, including enforcement targets in the energy, life sciences and telecommunications industries. In 2018 to date, however, financial institutions have accounted for the two largest enforcement actions, including the massive Société Générale settlement and a $5.26 million settlement with JPMorgan Chase Bank NA. And, based on public reporting, Standard Chartered and CBZ Bank of Zimbabwe are the subject of potential multimillion dollar enforcement actions currently pending before OFAC.9

At this juncture, it is too soon to assess whether these enforcement actions are holdovers from the previous industry sweep, or early indications of a new wave of enforcement activity targeting the financial industry. On the one hand, most of the violations in the Société Générale action occurred over five years ago, and were similar in nature (e.g., wire stripping) to the conduct at issue in previous enforcement actions targeting financial institutions, suggesting that the Société Générale settlement is part of the prior wave of enforcement activity.10

On the other hand, Standard Chartered and JPMorgan have both previously been the targets of enforcement actions, suggesting that OFAC may be renewing its focus on financial institutions' sanctions compliance (or merely reflective of the fact sanctions compliance continues to present significant practical challenges, even for large, well-resourced financial institutions).

OFAC Quietly Resolved a Long-Standing and Contentious Enforcement Action

On Sept. 13, OFAC and Epsilon Electronics Inc., a California-based auto electronics company, finally settled their long-standing dispute over purported violations of the Iran sanctions. In July 2014, OFAC fined Epsilon over $4 million, alleging that Epsilon knew — or should have known — that a Dubai-based purchaser would re-export the company's products to Iran. Epsilon challenged the penalty notice in federal district court arguing, inter alia, that OFAC had not proven that Epsilon's products ever reached Iran.

OFAC prevailed in district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the district court's findings with respect to 34 of 39 violations (reasoning that Epsilon had "reason to know," based on publicly available information, that its Dubai-based purchaser was linked to Iran).11

Pursuant to the September 2018 settlement, Epsilon agreed to pay $1.5 million (approximately 37 percent of the penalty initially imposed by OFAC) to resolve the company's apparent sanctions liability. Notwithstanding the decrease in final penalty amount, OFAC's successful defense of an expansive assertion of jurisdiction may encourage the agency to pursue similar, aggressive enforcement theories in the future.

OFAC Has a Long Memory

Two 2018 enforcement actions (Société Générale and Ericsson Inc./Ericsson AB) involved alleged violations of the since-revoked Sudanese Sanctions Regulations that occurred in 2012 or earlier, and a third enforcement action (JPMorgan) involved conduct that occurred prior to 2015. The general statute of limitations for violations of U.S. sanctions is five years from the date of violation. However, enforcement targets routinely enter into tolling agreements with OFAC, in an effort to secure full cooperation credit, that extend the applicable statute of limitations (in some cases, significantly).

OFAC's enforcement guidelines state that an enforcement target's "entering into a tolling agreement" will be deemed "a basis for mitigating the enforcement response or lowering the penalty amount," but clarify that "refusal to enter into a tolling agreement will not be considered an aggravating factor in assessing ... cooperation or otherwise."12 The fact that OFAC enforcement targets routinely enter into tolling agreements suggests that companies (and sanctions practitioners) continue to view cooperation with OFAC as a worthwhile proposition (likely due, at least in part, to the comparatively transparent way in which such cooperation factors into penalty determinations).

Screening Gaps Can Lead to Liability

As discussed above, OFAC's April 6 designation of Russian companies and oligarchs prompted many international companies and investors to reassess their sanctions compliance protocols (including, in particular, with respect to OFAC's 50 percent rule).

On Nov. 27, OFAC announced a relatively modest settlement ($87,507) with Cobham Holdings Inc. on behalf of Cobham's former subsidiary, Aeroflex/Metelics Inc., for three apparent violations of the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations. Notwithstanding the limited penalty imposed, the settlement illustrated some of the most common — and easily overlooked — gaps in multinational companies' sanctions compliance programs.

The Cobham/Metelics settlement involved three indirect shipments, via distributors, to Russia. In connection with the first shipment, Metelics screened its Russian end user; however, the company's screening protocol did not account for OFAC's 50 percent rule, which generally prohibits transactions with parties majority owned (individually or in the aggregate) by blocked parties on the SDN list. According to OFAC's enforcement notice, the Russian end user was 51 percent owned by a sanctioned Russian party (and therefore also blocked pursuant to OFAC's 50 percent rule).

By the time of the second and third shipments, the Russian end user was itself included on the SDN list and, as a result, the shipments should have been flagged by Metelics' interdiction software. According to the enforcement notice, the company's interdiction software did not detect the second and third shipments, as the software "used an all word match criteria that would only return matches containing all of the searched words."13

The Cobham/Metelics settlement is a useful reminder that restricted party screening protocols should be periodically reviewed and tested, to ensure that they are sufficiently broad and functioning appropriately (particularly where an organization has operations in, or sales to, jurisdictions that present elevated sanctions risk).

Looking Forward

Sanctions developments continued to evolve at a rapid pace in 2018, and there is no indication that the pace of change will be different in 2019. U.S. and non-U.S. companies must continue to monitor sanctions developments, and adjust their related controls, to remain in compliance with a constantly evolving regulatory regime.


1 Gardiner Harris, U.S. Reimposes Sanctions on Iran but Undercuts the Pain With Waivers, The New York Times (Nov. 2, 2018),

2 Jonathan Eyal, Europe appears to buckle under US sanctions on Iran, The Straits Times (Nov. 6, 2018, 8:17 PM),

3 European companies will struggle to defy America on Iran, The Economist (Nov. 8, 2018),

4 Guy Faulconbridge, U.S. not concerned by Europe's idea for Iran trade as companies moving out, Reuters (Nov. 12, 2018, 11:37 AM),

5 Press Release, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury Designates Russian Oligarchs, Officials, and Entities in Response to Worldwide Malign Activity (Apr. 6, 2018),

6 Pursuant to OFAC's "50 percent rule," U.S. persons are prohibited from doing business with any entity in which a sanctioned party — or multiple sanctioned parties taken together — hold a 50 percent or greater ownership interest. In practical terms, the 50 percent rule means that U.S. persons are prohibited from dealing with entities — majority-owned by sanctioned parties (including the newly designated Russian SDNs) — that are not, themselves, included on OFAC's SDN list.

7 FAQ #629, OFAC FAQs: Other Sanctions Programs,

8 Rafael Bernal, Bolton dubs Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua the "Troika of Tyranny", The Hill (Nov. 1, 2018, 1:47 PM),

9 Margot Patrick and Aruna Viswanatha, Standard Chartered Seeks Resolution With U.S. Over Iran Sanctions Breaches, The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 9, 2018, 2:08 PM),; CBZ not worried by OFAC penalty, Business Daily (Sept. 7, 2018),

10 Likewise, the violations described in the JPMorgan settlement occurred prior to 2015.

11 Epsilon Elecs. v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, 857 F.3d 913, 926-27 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

12 Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, 74 Fed. Reg. 57593, 57598 (Nov. 9, 2009).

13 OFAC, Cobham Holdings, Inc. Settles Potential Civil Liability for Apparent Violations of the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations (Nov. 27, 2018),

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Morrison & Foerster LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions