Sunday, December 15, 2019
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
    • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Industry News
  • Jobs
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
    • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Industry News
  • Jobs
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Risk

Hide and Seek: Asia-Pacific Puts Sanctions Due Diligence to the Test

by Wendy Wysong
July 25, 2016
in Risk
Managing compliance in high-risk regions

with contributing author Nick Turner

The Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is opening new commercial opportunities while underscoring the importance of due diligence in the context of economic sanctions. This should be a familiar topic to companies doing business in Asia, where Myanmar and North Korea pose similar challenges owing to the large number of specially designated nationals (SDNs) and the presence of front companies operating on behalf of SDNs. Knowing and verifying the identity of commercial counterparties is essential to managing this risk on a proactive footing.

Iran Challenges

The JCPOA, whose one-year anniversary was July 20, 2016, promised an influx of new business to Iran as a result of the lifting of many global sanctions. While U.S. persons are still largely prohibited from doing business with Iran, the U.S. government eased some secondary sanctions against non-U.S. persons which had targeted Iran’s energy, shipping, software, automotive and other sectors. Additionally, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License H, which permits non-U.S. subsidiaries of U.S. companies to engage in certain activities which were previously prohibited.

Despite the changes, many non-U.S. companies are hesitant to act for fear of attracting unwanted regulatory scrutiny. For their part, U.S. officials have attempted to assuage concerns and demystify expectations concerning Iran. For example, in May 2016, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with executives from major European banks to encourage them to take on Iranian customers after conducting “normal due diligence.”

In theory, non-U.S. companies should be able to engage in new business in Iran, provided they do not transact with SDNs or entities owned by SDNs. That is easier said than done because of the significant involvement of SDNs in commercial activities in the country. For example, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which continues to be sanctioned by the United States, is known to play a substantial—albeit opaque—role in numerous economic sectors.

These concerns are compounded by the country’s elevated risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. Until June 2016, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) encouraged its member states to apply countermeasures against Iran due to deficiencies in the country’s anti-money laundering and countering of terrorist financing regime—among them, the difficult task of obtaining beneficial ownership information of Iranian firms.

Not Just Iran

Regulators have long warned that North Korea’s government uses agents and front companies for illicit activities, from counterfeiting U.S. dollars to developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. In June 2016, the U.S. Treasury Department named North Korea a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern, citing its government’s use of “an extensive overseas network of front companies, shell companies, joint ventures and opaque business relationships.”

In mid-2015, U.S. financial institutions were forced to freeze or reject shipping documents, wire transfers and other transactions after learning that a major port facility in Yangon, Myanmar was owned by the Asia World Group, an SDN conglomerate. Shipments and financing were stymied until December 2015, when the OFAC issued General License 20 to except certain trade-related transactions from sanctions. In March 2016, the OFAC extended the license to cover goods moving within Myanmar in apparent recognition of the control SDNs exercise over roads and other basic infrastructure. Another SDN, the military-controlled Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited is the major shareholder of the country’s largest brewery, among other interests.

Compliance

Regulators increasingly expect companies engaged in international trade to have compliance programs commensurate with their risk profiles—including sanctions risk. For U.S. persons, failing to conduct adequate due diligence on counterparties’ beneficial owners could form the basis for an OFAC enforcement action, were the counterparty owned by an SDN. The action would likely turn on whether the U.S. person knew or should have known about the SDN involvement.

Non-U.S. persons could potentially face secondary sanctions or other measures for engaging in significant business with SDNs. Meanwhile, financial institutions may independently elect to reject or freeze wire transfers or other transactions that appear to relate to SDNs or sanctioned countries.

The task of verifying a commercial counterparty’s beneficial ownership is complicated further because OFAC regulations state that the property of an entity that is owned 50 percent or more by one or more SDNs is also blocked. This means that due diligence must establish the aggregate interest of all SDNs involved in the ownership chain. In markets that lack reliable public records, this task is even more daunting.

Recommended Actions

Companies are advised to conduct periodic assessments of the risks associated with the geographies where they operate and their major counterparties as part of their ongoing compliance program. This is especially pertinent in higher risk regions such as Asia and the Middle East. Companies should undertake due diligence on higher-risk counterparties to ascertain beneficial ownership and investigate completely potential red flags revealed in the course of the review, using both publicly available information and, where appropriate, specialized commercial databases or investigative services.

Counterparties may be asked in agreements to divulge beneficial ownership, report on changes to beneficial ownership or provide reps and warranties, as circumstances warrant. A documented legal analysis can be essential for decision-making and regulatory risk management where due diligence reveals potential sanctions risks. Finally, companies may wish to provide this and other information to their banking partners prior to engaging in higher risk transactions to facilitate internal compliance reviews.


Previous Post

Freight Invoice Audits: What They Are and Why They Matter

Next Post

CII Statement on Corporate Governance Principles Endorsed by Corporate Leaders

Wendy Wysong

Wendy L. Wysong, a litigation partner with Clifford Chance, maintains offices in Hong Kong and Washington D.C.  She offers clients advice and representation on compliance and enforcement under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Arms Export Control Act, International Traffic in Arms Regulations, Export Administration Regulations, and OFAC Economic Sanctions.  She was appointed by the State Department as the ITAR Special Compliance Official for Xe Services (formerly Blackwater) in 2010.

Ms. Wysong combines her experience as a former federal prosecutor with the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for 16 years with her regulatory background as the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement at the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.  She managed its enforcement program and was involved in the development and implementation of foreign policy through export controls across the administration, including the Departments of Justice, State, Treasury, and Homeland Security, as well as the intelligence community.]

Ms. Wysong received her law degree in 1984 from the University of Virginia School of Law, where she was a member of the University of Virginia Law Review.

Contact information:

Wendy L. Wysong
Clifford Chance
28th Floor Jardine House
One Connaught Place
Hong Kong
+852 2826 3460
+852 9280 3612 (cell)

And

2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
+1 202 912 5030
+1 202 290 7634
[email protected]

Related Posts

stack of newspapers on laptop

The Social Construction of a Scandal

December 9, 2019
"bias" on green post-it note on pink background

The Curious Case of Bias in Risk Assessments

December 3, 2019
double exposure of android bust over binary code

The 3 Final Pillars of the Cognitive Risk Framework

November 22, 2019
hazy image of businesspeople facing front, concept of future team

Preparing for Generation Z – The Future of the Front Line in Risk Management

November 19, 2019
Next Post
CII Statement on Corporate Governance Principles Endorsed by Corporate Leaders

CII Statement on Corporate Governance Principles Endorsed by Corporate Leaders

Free Downloads

OFAC whitepaper cover
Compliance Job Interview Q&A
Reputation Risk Management Research

RSS SEC Litigation News

  • John Special, Defendant, and Michael Murphy, Relief Defendant, John Kenneth Davidson December 12, 2019
    SEC Obtains $3 Million Settlement in Insider Trading Action
  • Palm Beach Atlantic Financial Group, LLC and William A. Smith December 11, 2019
    SEC Charges Florida Resident and His Corporate Entity for Fraudulent Securities Offerings
  • Nanotech Engineering, Inc., Michael James Sweaney (also known as Michael Hatton), David Sweaney, and Jeffery Gange December 11, 2019
    SEC Obtains Asset Freeze to Halt Alleged Offering Fraud

Jump to a Topic:

anti-corruption anti-money laundering/AML Artificial Intelligence/A.I. automation banks Big Data blockchain board of directors board risk oversight bribery CCPA/California Consumer Privacy Act Cloud Compliance communications management corporate culture corporate governance culture of ethics cyber risk data analytics data breach data governance decision-making Dodd-Frank DOJ due diligence fcpa enforcement actions GDPR GRC HIPAA information security internal audit internet of things (IoT) KYC/know your customer machine learning monitoring regtech reputation risk risk assessment Sanctions SEC social media risk technology third party risk management tone at the top training whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS Feed

Category

  • Audit
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • HR Compliance
  • Leadership and Career
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Whitepapers

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • News
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Whitepapers
  • eBooks
  • Events
  • Jobs
  • Subscribe

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights