Thursday, February 25, 2021
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Information Security
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Information Security
  • 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 is a partner at Steptoe & Johnson. She served previously as a litigation partner with Clifford Chance, offering 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. Wendy 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. Wendy 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.

Related Posts

blue road sign with arrow on black asphalt background

Dynamic Risk Governance: Linking Strategy and Risk Management

February 15, 2021
three red dice on green felt tabletop

The COVID Trio: 3 Top Risks from a Year of Upset

February 4, 2021
Deloitte: Global Risk Management Survey, 12th Edition

Deloitte: Global Risk Management Survey, 12th Edition

February 2, 2021
illustration of businessman holding giant shield to protect him from falling arrows

Is Your Risk Culture Aligned With the Realities of the Digital Age?

February 2, 2021
Next Post
CII Statement on Corporate Governance Principles Endorsed by Corporate Leaders

CII Statement on Corporate Governance Principles Endorsed by Corporate Leaders

Access realtime data
Addressing systemic racism in the workplace SAI Global
Dynamic Risk Assessments with Workiva
Top 10 Risk and Compliance Trends

Special Coverage

Special COVID page graphic

Jump to a Topic:

anti-corruption anti-money laundering/AML Artificial Intelligence/A.I. automation banks board of directors board risk oversight bribery CCPA/California Consumer Privacy Act Cloud Compliance communications management Coronavirus/COVID-19 corporate culture crisis management cyber crime cyber risk data analytics data breach data governance decision-making diversity DOJ due diligence fcpa enforcement actions financial crime GDPR GRC HIPAA information security KYC/know your customer machine learning monitoring ransomware regtech reputation risk risk assessment Sanctions SEC social media risk supply chain 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

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

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights

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

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights