#ofac sanctions compliance program

[acsstraining]

Empowering Excellence: Sanctions Training with Sanctions Association

Sanctions Association, your premier destination for comprehensive and cutting-edge Sanctions Training. In today's globalized business environment, staying compliant with international sanctions is not just a necessity; it's a strategic imperative. Our commitment at Sanctions Association is to empower individuals and organizations with the knowledge and expertise needed to navigate the intricate world of sanctions effectively.

Understanding the Need for Sanctions Training: International sanctions play a pivotal role in shaping the global economic and political landscape. Staying abreast of these regulations is crucial for businesses to mitigate risks, avoid penalties, and maintain ethical operations. Sanctions training goes beyond mere compliance; it equips individuals with the skills to proactively identify and manage risks associated with sanctions, fostering a culture of responsibility and diligence within organizations.

Why Sanctions Training Matters:

Risk Mitigation: Sanctions training provides a deep understanding of the ever-evolving landscape of international sanctions, enabling individuals to identify and mitigate potential risks effectively. This knowledge is instrumental in safeguarding businesses from legal and financial consequences.

Enhanced Compliance: A well-trained workforce is essential for maintaining compliance with complex sanctions regimes. Sanctions training ensures that employees are equipped to navigate the intricacies of regulatory frameworks, reducing the likelihood of inadvertent violations.

Professional Development: Individuals who undergo sanctions training enhance their professional capabilities, positioning themselves as experts in the field. This not only contributes to personal growth but also adds value to the organizations they serve.

How Sanctions Association Elevates Your Training Experience:

Comprehensive Curriculum: Sanctions Association offers a comprehensive curriculum designed to cover all aspects of international sanctions. From understanding the basics to mastering advanced risk assessment techniques, our training programs are curated to meet the diverse needs of professionals across industries.

Expert Instructors: Our training programs are led by seasoned experts with extensive experience in the field of sanctions and compliance. Benefit from their real-world insights and practical knowledge as you navigate the complexities of international regulations.

Customized Training Solutions: Recognizing that every organization is unique, Sanctions Association offers tailored training solutions. Whether you are a multinational corporation or a small business, our programs can be customized to address your specific industry and compliance requirements.

Conclusion: Embrace a future of compliance excellence with Sanctions Association's unparalleled Certified Sanctions Specialist. Whether you are an individual looking to enhance your skills or an organization striving for a culture of compliance, our training programs are designed to meet your needs.

[relyservices1]

Importance Of BPO Regulatory Compliance

BPO Regulatory compliance has become an increasingly important issue for companies in the business process outsourcing (BPO) industry. With the growth of global operations and international data transfers, BPO providers must navigate complex regulations around data privacy, security, and governance. Adhering to compliance standards demonstrates a commitment to ethical business practices and helps build trust with clients.

Recent regulations like GDPR in the EU and CCPA in California underscore the need for vigilant compliance policies. As noted in sources like LiveVox and Unity Connect, regulatory non-compliance can damage a BPO provider's reputation and lead to substantial fines or litigation. By prioritizing compliance and staying current with changing regulations, BPO companies can remain compliant, avoid penalties, and assure clients their data and processes are being handled securely. A focus on compliance ultimately helps attract and retain clients in today's heavily regulated business environment.

Understanding Compliance In BPO Services

Effective compliance programs are critical for BPO services like Healthcare BPO and Finance and accounting BPO to demonstrate rigorous data governance and build trust with clients.

Compliance techniques like audits, training, and control testing help BPO providers implement compliant processes, correct issues and validate their programs. This proactive compliance helps avoid fines, litigation, and reputation damage. It also enhances communication by assuring clients their sensitive data will be handled ethically and securely according to regulations.

Compliance in Healthcare Support OutsourcingFor healthcare BPO, compliance means adhering to healthcare privacy rules like HIPAA to protect patient information. Providers must have safeguards for medical records, billing data, and other sensitive data. Robust HIPAA compliance policies ensure healthcare BPO handles protected health information appropriately.

Compliance in Finance OutsourcingSimilarly, finance and accounting BPO must prioritize compliance with regulations like SOX, PCI DSS, and GLBA to securely manage financial data. This includes having controls around accounting records, statements, credit card information, and other sensitive client data. Strict financial compliance assures that data will be governed properly.

Overall, vigilant compliance helps BPO services demonstrate commitment to clients while avoiding regulatory penalties. It is a key advantage in today's regulated outsourcing landscape.

Key Regulations Affecting BPO

Compliance in Healthcare Support Outsourcing

Healthcare BPOs must comply with regulations like HIPAA, HITECH, and various state privacy laws to protect sensitive patient health information. HIPAA establishes safeguards around medical records, billing details, test results, and other protected health information. Providers must have physical, administrative, and technical controls to secure data. HIPAA also restricts healthcare data sharing and disclosure. Staying updated on HIPAA and properly training staff is crucial for healthcare BPO compliance.

Compliance in Call Center Outsourcing

Call centres handle sensitive customer data, so privacy regulations are critical. CPNI rules govern telecom data privacy. TCPA focuses on telemarketing calls and texts. Privacy laws like GDPR restrict data collection and sharing. Call centres must also comply with DNC registry rules on telemarketing. With increasing regulation around data and communications, call centre compliance is essential to avoid large fines.

Compliance in Finance Outsourcing

Finance and accounting BPO must comply with many financial regulations. SOX establishes controls around financial reporting and accounting integrity. PCI DSS protects credit card data security. GLBA governs data privacy in financial institutions. OFAC restricts transactions with sanctioned parties. Finance BPO providers must implement strong controls and auditing around financial data handling and reporting to satisfy these critical regulations.

Best Practices For Ensuring Compliance

1. Comprehensive Training and Awareness

Regular training and awareness building across the organization are critical for effective business process outsourcing compliance. Detailed onboarding and ongoing education on relevant regulations and internal policies ensure staff handle sensitive data properly. Training should cover requirements around data privacy, restricted data transfers, safeguards, record retention, and other areas.

Companies should document training completion and assess comprehension. Fostering a culture of compliance is also important. When staff understand the importance of governance policies, they will help uphold them. Continual training and awareness is essential for healthcare BPO, call centers, finance BPO, and other services handling regulated data.

2. Robust Data Security Measures

Strong physical, technical and administrative safeguards are essential to secure sensitive client data and prevent unauthorized access or breaches. Data centers should have restricted physical access. Network perimeter security, malware protection, access controls, encryption, and patching safeguard systems and data. Policies like least-privilege access, remote wiping of devices, and password requirements enhance administrative security. Multilayered controls and redundancy help mitigate risks. Security vulnerabilities should be quickly remediated. Robust security is foundational to compliance programs for financial data, healthcare records, customer details, and other regulated information handled by BPO providers.

3. Dedicated Compliance Teams

Having dedicated compliance staff is vital for governance policy development, training, monitoring, and issue remediation. The team should include privacy and security professionals who can assess controls and risks. IT staff should help implement safeguards and security tools. The team oversees training, handles diligence assessments, coordinates audits, monitors changes in regulations, and takes corrective actions if policies are violated. They guide the organization on requirements. The compliance team helps ingrain governance into operations. Their focus and oversight are critical for effective regulatory conformance and data protection.

4. Regular Audits and Assessments

Frequent internal and external audits of BPO regulatory compliance program effectiveness help identify any gaps or process weaknesses that need remediation. Internal audits proactively assess risks. External audits by qualified firms add an independent evaluation.

Assessments should cover areas like security controls, training completion, data handling practices, breach response plans, and policy conformance. identified issues can then be remediated through corrective actions like added training, strengthened controls, and updated policies. Regular auditing and assessments help validate that governance measures are working as intended to meet regulations. They are indispensable for organizations like healthcare BPO companies and financial services firms handling sensitive client information and transactions.

The Approach of Rely Services

At Rely Services, BPO regulatory compliance is central to our approach to providing exceptional BPO solutions. We recognize the trust placed in us to handle sensitive client data ethically and securely. That's why we invest heavily in compliance training, security controls, dedicated teams, and rigorous auditing to meet healthcare, financial, and other regulatory obligations. We monitor changing regulations and update our policies accordingly.

Our comprehensive HIPAA, PCI DSS, SOX, and data privacy programs help us deliver compliant, transparent services. We believe effective compliance not only meets legal duties but also builds client trust and loyalty. With our diligent governance and security measures validated through regular internal and external audits, Rely Services gives you confidence your processes and data will be handled to the highest standards. Contact our experts today to learn more about our BPO regulatory compliance, and risk-based approach to managing your outsourcing needs. Partner with Rely Services for responsible, value-driven business process solutions.

[alanshemper]

Binance founder Changpeng "CZ" Zhao pleaded guilty to money laundering charges and agreed to step down as CEO of Binance, the largest global cryptocurrency exchange. He will pay a $50 million fine and faces the possibility of 18 months in prison.

Binance agreed to pay $4.3 billion in restitution for widespread wrongdoing including failure to implement proper anti-money laundering programs, unlicensed money transmitting, and sanctions violations. Binance will be allowed to continue operating, but will be subjected to a three-year-long monitorship program to ensure AML and sanctions compliance.

Simultaneously with the DOJ action, Binance reached agreements with the CFTC, FinCen, and OFAC on ongoing legal issues. Notably, the SEC lawsuit was not among those settled.

CZ posted a long thread on Twitter, admitting "I made mistakes, and I must take responsibility," carefully sidestepping mentioning what any of those mistakes were.

25 November 2023

[etiennekissborlase]

Poloniex Settles With US Authorities Pays $7.6 Million For Violation Of Sanctions

Poloniex Settles With US Authorities, Pays $7.6 Million For Violation Of Sanctions https://bitcoinist.com/poloniex-exchange-settles-us-pays-million-violation/ Poloniex Exchange, a well-established player in the cryptocurrency exchange space, has come under scrutiny for violating multiple sanctions programs and has reached a settlement with the United States Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC). The apparent violation of multiple sanctions could be traced back to January 2014 when Poloniex Inc., registered then, operated an online trading and settlement platform. Recent reports from the Department of Treasury state that Poloniex is settling 65,942 apparent violations of multiple sanctions programs. Poloniex Exchange Violates US Multiple Sanction Programs According to a recent update, the Treasury released a detailed enforcement of the settlement between Poloniex and OFAC. Poloniex was required to pay $7,591,630 as settlement for its apparent violations of US multiple sanction programs from when it started trading operations in January 2014. Poloniex, which created a platform for digital asset trading, enabled its customers to fund their accounts and engage in other trading activities easily. Some customers at the initial launch and operation of Poloniex included users from US-sanctioned jurisdictions and countries. At the time of its trading platform launch in 2014, it was reported that the Poloniex had no KYC (know your customer) process or sanctions compliance program for its users. But this changed in May 2015 when the exchange established a sanctions compliance program and KYC to verify supported users, according to US laws. However, OFAC had already determined that Poloniex exchange violated the US multiple sanction programs when it failed to exercise due diligence at inception and operated without a sanctions compliance program on its platform for 16 months. Also, OFAC raised that even when Poloniex implemented a KYC process for users and a sanction compliance program, existing user accounts in sanctioned jurisdictions prior to its KYC development were not revisited to comply with its sanctions compliance program. Cumulatively, between January 2014 and November 2019, the volume of trades stemming from users in the sanctioned jurisdictions and countries amounted to $15,335,349 on the Poloniex exchange and trading platform. This was an apparent violation of US multiple sanction programs, which prohibited users from the sanctioned locations from participating in the US-based registered trading platform. The US-sanctioned locations and jurisdictions at the time included countries and locations such as Sudan, Crimea, Syria, Iran, and Cuba. OFAC Settles With Poloniex According to the enforcement release and report from the Treasury, the statutory maximum civil monetary penalty for an apparent violation of US multiple sanctions is $19,692,872,800. However, the OFAC had determined and resolved in this case that Poloniex’s apparent violations were not voluntarily self-disclosed and were non-egregious. Nonetheless, OFAC enforcement guidelines stipulate that the minimum civil monetary penalty applicable in this case is $99,237,000 and a settlement amount of $7,591,630, reflecting general factors under its enforcement guideline as seen in this report.   via Bitcoinist.com https://bitcoinist.com May 02, 2023 at 06:09AM

[customsmanagerorg]

Who are Sanctions Specialists?

A sanctions specialist is a professional who specializes in the field of international sanctions and trade restrictions. Sanctions are measures imposed by governments and international organizations to restrict or limit trade with certain countries, entities, or individuals for various reasons, including political, economic, or security concerns. The role of a sanctions specialist is to ensure that organizations comply with these restrictions and avoid violating sanctions laws and regulations.

1.       Knowledge of sanctions laws: A sanctions specialist must have a thorough understanding of international sanctions laws and regulations, as well as a deep knowledge of the political and economic context in which sanctions are imposed. This requires a strong background in international law, economics, and political science.

2.       Monitoring compliance: One of the primary responsibilities of a sanctions specialist is to monitor the organization's compliance with sanctions laws and regulations. This includes keeping abreast of changes in sanctions regimes and ensuring that the organization's trade activities comply with all applicable sanctions.

3.       Risk assessment: A sanctions specialist must be able to assess the risk of sanctions violations and develop strategies to mitigate those risks. This requires a thorough understanding of the organization's trade activities, as well as a deep knowledge of the sanctions regimes and the countries and entities that are subject to restrictions.

4.       Implementing controls: In addition to monitoring compliance, a sanctions specialist must also implement controls to ensure that sanctions violations do not occur. This may include developing and implementing policies and procedures, conducting regular training and awareness programs, and conducting regular audits and reviews to ensure that sanctions laws and regulations are being followed.

5.       Liaison with government agencies: A sanctions specialist may also be required to interact with government agencies, such as the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), to obtain licenses or clarify sanctions requirements. This requires strong communication and negotiation skills, as well as an ability to work effectively with government agencies.

6.       Career development: A career as a sanctions specialist can be highly rewarding and offer opportunities for professional growth and advancement. Sanctions specialists may progress to more senior positions within their organizations, or move into related areas such as trade compliance or international trade law.

In conclusion, a sanctions specialist is a critical role in ensuring that organizations comply with international sanctions laws and regulations. With a deep understanding of sanctions laws, a keen ability to assess risk, and strong implementation skills, a sanctions specialist is essential for organizations operating in an increasingly complex and regulated global trade environment.

[iep-ambassador]

WASHINGTON — Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is designating seven senior leaders within Iran’s government and security apparatus for the shutdown of Iran’s Internet access and the continued violence against peaceful protesters in the wake of the tragic death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, who was arrested for allegedly wearing a hijab improperly, and died in the custody of Iran’s Morality Police. Today’s action follows OFAC’s September 22 designation of Iran’s Morality Police, its senior leadership, and other senior leaders of Iran’s security organizations. Together with the release of Iran General License D-2, which authorizes exports of additional tools to assist Iranians in accessing the Internet, these designations demonstrate the United States’ commitment to free, peaceful assembly and open communication. “The rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly are vital to guaranteeing individual liberty and dignity,” said Under Secretary of the Treasury Brian Nelson. “The United States condemns the Iranian government’s Internet shutdown and continued violent suppression of peaceful protest and will not hesitate to target those who direct and support such actions.” Today’s actions are taken pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13553, which authorizes sanctions with respect to serious human rights abuses by the Government of Iran, and E.O. 13846,%...

[sanctionsassociation]

What Do You Need to Know About Ofac Training in USA?

If you're planning to work in the United States, you'll need to undergo OFAC training. OFAC stands for the Office of Foreign Assets Control. It's an agency within the US Department of the Treasury that regulates financial and economic activities of foreign countries.

The training that you need will depend on the type of work that you hope to do. For example, if you're a finance professional, you'll need to acquire knowledge about foreign money laundering and sanctions provisions.

Visit Us For More Information:- https://sanctionsassociation.org/certificate-ofac/

[creepingsharia]

Senate Investigation Finds Obama Admin Knowingly Funded al-Qaeda Affiliate

Non-profit humanitarian agency World Vision United States improperly transacted with the Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA) in 2014 with approval from the Obama administration, sending government funds to an organization that had been sanctioned over its ties to terrorism, according to a new report.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) recently released a report detailing the findings of an investigation his staff began in February 2019 into the relationship between World Vision and ISRA.

The probe found that World Vision was not aware that ISRA had been sanctioned by the U.S. since 2004 after funneling roughly $5 million to Maktab al-Khidamat, the predecessor to Al-Qaeda controlled by Osama Bid Laden.

However, that ignorance was born from insufficient vetting practices, the report said.

“World Vision works to help people in need across the world, and that work is admirable,” Grassley said in a statement. “Though it may not have known that ISRA was on the sanctions list or that it was listed because of its affiliation with terrorism, it should have. Ignorance can’t suffice as an excuse. World Vision’s changes in vetting practices are a good first step, and I look forward to its continued progress.”

The investigation was sparked by a July 2018 National Review article in which Sam Westrop, the director of the Middle East Forum’s Islamist Watch, detailed MEF’s findings that the Obama administration had approved a “$200,000 grant of taxpayer money to ISRA.”

Government officials specifically authorized the release of “at least $115,000” of this grant even after learning that it was a designated terror organization, Westrop wrote.

According to the Senate report, World Vision submitted a grant application to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to carry out its Blue Nile Recovery Program on January 21, 2014. The proposed program sought to provide food security, sanitation equipment, and health services to areas hard-hit by conflict in the Blue Nile region of Sudan.

USAID awarded World Vision a $723,405 grant for the program. The next month, ISRA agreed to provide humanitarian services to parts of the Blue Nile Region for World Vision, according to the report. The two organizations had also collaborated on several projects in 2013 and 2014.

World Vision only discovered ISRA was sanctioned after the Evangelical humanitarian non-profit discussed partnering with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) on a separate humanitarian project in Sudan. In performing a routine vetting of World Vision and its partners, IOM discovered ISRA’s sanctioned status and reached out to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Compliance Team to confirm.

After receiving confirmation from OFAC, IOM rejected World Vision’s offer to collaborate, the report says.

World Vision’s legal department was notified of ISRA’s potential status as a sanctioned entity in September 2014 and immediately halted all payments to the organization while it investigated.

The non-profit sent a letter to OFAC on November 19, 2014, asking for clarification regarding ISRA’s status, and requesting that, in the event that ISRA was sanctioned, it be awarded a temporary license to finish out the organizations’ existing contract.

Two months later, Treasury responded, confirming that ISRA is sanctioned and denying the request for a license to work with the organization, as that would be “inconsistent with OFAC policy.”

One month later, World Vision submitted another request for a license to transact with ISRA to pay them $125,000 for services rendered, lest it face legal consequences and potential expulsion from Sudan.

On May 4, 2015, the Obama administration’s State Department recommended OFAC grant World Vision’s request for the license to transact. The next day, OFAC granted the license to pay ISRA $125,000 for services rendered, and later sent the non-profit a “cautionary letter” making it aware that its collaboration with ISRA appeared to have violated the Global Terrorism Sanction Regulations.

The report said the investigation “did not find any evidence that World Vision intentionally sought to circumvent U.S. sanctions by partnering with ISRA.”

“We also found no evidence that World Vision knew that ISRA was a sanctioned entity prior to receiving notice from Treasury,” the report adds. “However, based on the evidence presented, we conclude that World Vision had access to the appropriate public information and should have known how, but failed to, properly vet ISRA as a sub-grantee, resulting in the transfer of U.S. taxpayer dollars to an organization with an extensive history of supporting terrorist organization [sic] and terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden.”

The report calls World Vision’s system for vetting prospective sub-grantees “borderline negligent” and says the organization “ignored elementary level investigative procedures.”

World Vision spent weeks after being informed by IOM of ISRA’s sanction status investigating the claim and was unable to reach a conclusion, relying upon “what could only be described as flawed logic,” the report says.

The report accuses World Vision of attempting to eschew blame, and notes that IOM “was able to quickly vet ISRA and determine their status as a sanctioned entity.”

“Had World Vision employed the same due diligence and similar methods employed by IOM, taxpayer dollars would not have exchanged hands with an organization that is known to fund terrorist organizations,” it said.

While World Vision has instituted additional screening methods, “the Finance Committee staff has reservations” about its ability to avoid similar situations in the future, the report says.

“World Vision has a duty to ensure that funds acquired from the U.S. government or donated by Americans do not end up supporting terrorist activity,” it says. “Particularly concerning to this Committee is World Vision’s attempt to shift the blame to the federal government for their own inability to properly vet a subcontractor. A more robust and fundamentally sound system of screening and vetting is needed to restore the public’s trust that contributions made to World Vision are not funding illicit organizations.”

“Moreover, although we find no reason to doubt World Vision’s assertion that the funds in their entirety were used by ISRA for humanitarian purposes, that money inevitably aids their terrorist activities,” it concludes.

World Vision said in a statement that it “takes our compliance obligations seriously and shares Sen. Grassley and the committee staff’s objective for good stewardship.”

“We appreciate the acknowledgement that the committee staff’s report to the chairman ‘found no evidence that World Vision knew that ISRA was a sanctioned entity prior to receiving notice from Treasury,’” it added. “Terrorism runs counter to everything World Vision stands for as an organization and we strongly condemn any act of terrorism or support for such activities.”

---------------------------------------------

Related: USAID Has A Terror Finance Problem

[bitcofun]

This is a transcribed excerpt of the "Bitcoin Magazine Podcast," hosted by P and Q. In this episode, they are signed up with by Matthew Pins to speak about the regulative landscape and how the federal government may attempt to enact laws Bitcoin. Watch This Episode On YouTube Or Rumble Listen To The Episode Here: Apple Spotify Google Libsyn Matthew Pines: You can presume any circumstance you desire. I can picture a situation where solar flare erases the grid and it's bad for Bitcoin, however is that pertinent for anybody's choice making? I do not believe there's a possible circumstance where Elizabeth Warren herself, takes executive power and prohibits Bitcoin. I can build an unlimited variety of these sorts of unfavorable circumstances. The concern is just how much credence do you put in them? I believe it's like balance. For each unfavorable drawback circumstance, exists a similarly most likely, upside circumstance? What would be the political conditions? We're actually making a political evaluation here. We're not making a financial evaluation. We're not making an evaluation about when the next block's gon na strike, it's like completely a political judgment. I do not put much stock in anybody's capability to anticipate any type of political advancement. Then it's a matter of what's the affordable, bad case situation, what's the sensible finest case situation and where we're gon na more most likely end up someplace in the middle. I believe you're most likely gon na see, particularly in the Biden administration, an increasing desire to press the limitations of the nationwide security validation versus Bitcoin, and the environment sort of argument versus Bitcoin. There's not a combined front. There's individuals in great deals of parts of the federal government that are neutral, unfavorable, favorable, and it's a complex, untidy type of administrative maker. Any specific instrument of power is quite detached from every other instrument. You can get rather detached, if not totally kind of incoherent policy-making on various things. I believe what we need to most likely anticipate is a disadvantage situation, like Tornado Cash-style sorts of OFAC things that simply end up being far more aggressive on Bitcoin. This is to attempt to incrementally boil the frog on Bitcoin miners. They'll attempt to get them to come into more of a wall garden, so to speak. It's not always striking the application layer, they're attempting to strike the business layer. There's layers to Bitcoin beyond simply the social agreement layer, Bitcoin layer. There's the political, financial, social layer of corporations, like state and regional regulative programs and nationwide enforcement. I believe it's an intriguing test case to see how far they believe they can press things like the OFAC power, which is a truly distinct power? The Tornado Cash validation originated from the National Emergencies Act and through a different worldwide financial act, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, that generally permits them to sanction foreign home and entities related to foreign home. I believe there's gon na be some lawsuits about precisely, to what level, wise agreements can be thought about an individual or a residential or commercial property or an entity. That would be where I 'd be looking would be the technocratic "wield the sanctions power," and after that truly frighten compliance into business-- not always need it, however generally, leave the obscurity open. As we saw with the Ethereum things, self censorship takes location? It's not forced. It is terrifying a lot of individuals that are VCs or executives that do not wan na get in difficulty and will simply act upon a preventive concept and will simply do something about it themselves, even if they might not be needed to. That to me is the more drawback situation. They do this and after that a lot of executive Bitcoin miners and other folks at the business layer, like they flinch. I believe

that is more the type of video game you're most likely gon na see play out rather than the huge hammer of the state's gon na boil down and a lot of jack-booted goons are gon na come take your hardware wallet. It's not gon na take place. Eventually, those sorts of things wind up in courts. It's extremely dull? It's like these sorts of things wind up in claims and 2 years later on, after great deals of lawsuit, you learn that like perhaps there's brand-new case law, possibly there isn't. I believe individuals are overstating just how much of there's gon na be some significant crackdown and even like significant legalization, instead of simply this random semi-drunken walk through an unique regulative landscape. Read More

[acsstraining]

Mastering OFAC Sanctions Compliance Programs for Global Excellence

Unlock the power of compliance with Sanctions Association's OFAC Sanctions Compliance Program. Tailored for global businesses, our expert solutions provide a strategic edge, ensuring seamless adherence to OFAC regulations. Elevate your company's compliance standards with our comprehensive programs, expert guidance, and continuous monitoring.

[newstfionline]

The Trump Administration Loves Issuing Sanctions, Not Enforcing Them

Bloomberg, September 28, 2018

Since Donald Trump took office, the U.S. Department of the Treasury unit that implements sanctions has emerged as a high-profile foreign policy weapon, advancing U.S. interests by economically isolating Iran, Russia, and other hostile governments. The agency has blacklisted hundreds of people and companies around the globe and rolled out sanctions programs targeting everyone from foreign meddlers in U.S. elections to buyers of North Korean coal.

But with 2018 three-quarters gone, a crucial element of sanctions enforcement has all but disappeared: the actual enforcement. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control is on track to bring the lowest number of cases and penalties in 15 years, according to a Bloomberg Businessweek analysis of agency data. OFAC typically files dozens of cases a year against people and companies that breach sanctions orders, imposing hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. So far this year, OFAC has filed exactly one case. The haul: $146,000.

The decline has occurred in tandem with lighter enforcement at other U.S. agencies under the sway of a more business-friendly Trump administration. Regardless of the explanation, lawyers and former officials agree the change is stark. “You have an administration that loves using the sanctions powers afforded to it to forward foreign policy objectives,” says Dan Tannebaum, a former OFAC official and PwC executive who advises companies on sanctions compliance. “It would be even more impactful if you were not just revising and rolling out new programs, but enforcing violations for existing programs that are out there. All they’re doing is implementing, and not really enforcing.”

Rather than attribute the decrease in enforcement to a lax attitude, former officials point to factors including staff turnover, distracted leadership, and the complexity of the cases, which take years of painstaking investigation to build. Enforcement, policy, and blacklisting designations are each handled by a different part of the sanctions apparatus, but to bring a case ultimately requires the involvement of top officials within OFAC.

Whatever the reason for the Trump administration’s slow pace in investigating sanctions violators, it stands in stark contrast to its rhetoric on policing trade networks.

[mystlnewsonline]

Indonesian Co. Admits Deceiving US Banks To Trade With North Korea

Indonesian Company Admits To Deceiving U.S. Banks In Order To Trade With North Korea, Agrees To Pay A Fine Of More Than $1.5 Million (STL.News) A global supplier of cigarette paper products, PT Bukit Muria Jaya (“BMJ”), has agreed to pay a fine of $1,561,570 and enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department for conspiring to commit bank fraud in connection with the shipment of products to North Korean customers.  BMJ, which is incorporated in Indonesia, has also entered into a settlement agreement with the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). In entering the deferred prosecution agreement, BMJ admitted and accepted responsibility for its criminal conduct and agreed to pay a fine commensurate with the offense.  BMJ agreed to implement a compliance program designed to prevent and detect violations of U.S. sanctions laws and regulations and to regularly report to the Justice Department on the implementation of that program.  BMJ also committed to report violations of relevant U.S. laws to the Justice Department and to cooperate in the investigation of such offenses. “Through a sophisticated and illegal multinational scheme, BMJ intentionally obfuscated the true nature of its transactions in order to sell its wares to North Korea,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Demers.  “BMJ duped U.S. banks into processing payments in violation of our sanctions on North Korea.  Read the full article

[sanctionsassociation]

OFAC Compliance Training Program in USA | ACSS

In order to meet the need for more in-depth training on OFAC Essentials and mitigate the risk of costly sanctions violations, we have developed an online sanctions training program, which teaches vital OFAC principles and background all OFAC sanctions compliance staff should understand. Target audience OFAC/Sanctions Compliance Officers OFAC Analysts OFAC investigators General Counsels OFAC Compliance Managers OFAC Testing Analysts

[acsstraining]

Strategic Compliance Excellence: Sanctions Association's Sanctions Compliance Program

Sanctions Association leads the way in fostering a culture of compliance with our cutting-edge Sanctions Compliance Program. Tailored to meet the unique needs of your business, our program is a comprehensive solution designed to ensure adherence to regulatory standards.

[newstfionline]

Trump May Already Be Violating the Iran Deal

Peter Beinart, The Atlantic, Apr 29, 2018

As anyone who reads the news knows, Donald Trump will decide by May 12 whether to “withdraw from” or “pull out of” or “abandon” or “scrap” or “jettison” (the synonyms keep coming) the nuclear deal with Iran. Why May 12? Because last October, Trump declared that Iran isn’t complying with the agreement. Under a law passed by Congress, that “decertification” means Trump can reimpose the sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear activities that were waived as part of the deal. Trump hasn’t reimposed those sanctions yet. But he’s demanded that Iran make vast new concessions. And he’s threatened that if Iran does not do so by May 12, “American nuclear sanctions would automatically resume.”

There’s an irony here. For all of the drama surrounding Trump’s decision to decertify Iranian compliance with the deal, there’s little doubt that Iran is complying. The International Atomic Energy Agency has said so nine times. America’s European allies have said so. So has Trump’s own Defense Secretary, James Mattis. This very month, Trump’s State Department issued a report declaring that, “Iran continued to fulfill its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),” the technical name for the nuclear deal. (The deal’s opponents often cite the two times Iran narrowly exceeded the agreement’s 130 metric ton cap on heavy water, which is used in nuclear reactors: In both cases Iran shipped the excess out of the country, and it remains in compliance with the deal.)

The more interesting question isn’t whether Iran has been complying with the nuclear deal. It’s whether America has. American journalists often describe the agreement as a trade. In the words of one CNN report, it “obliges Iran to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the suspension of economic sanctions.” But there’s more to it than that. The deal doesn’t only require the United States to lift nuclear sanctions. It requires the United States not to inhibit Iran’s reintegration into the global economy. Section 26 commits the U.S. (and its allies) “to prevent interference with the realisation of the full benefit by Iran of the sanctions lifting specified” in the deal. Section 29 commits the U.S. and Europe to “refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran.” Section 33 commits them to “agree on steps to ensure Iran’s access in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy.”

The Trump administration has likely been violating these clauses. The Washington Post reported that at a NATO summit last May, “Trump tried to persuade European partners to stop making trade and business deals with Iran.” Then, in July, Trump’s director of legislative affairs boasted that at a G20 summit in Germany, Trump had “underscored the need for nations … to stop doing business with nations that sponsor terrorism, especially Iran.” Both of these lobbying efforts appear to violate America’s pledge to “refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran.”

The Trump administration may have committed other violations as well. Section 22 of the deal specifically obliges the United States, subject to some restrictions, to “allow for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts and services to Iran.” To do business with Iran, any U.S. company--or even any foreign company that gets more than 10 percent of its components from U.S. companies--must get a permit from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). OFAC must certify, for instance, that the transaction isn’t with an Iranian company designated under other U.S. sanctions programs such as those targeting terrorism. And under the Obama administration, OFAC began issuing these permits, albeit slowly. In November 2016, for instance, OFAC allowed the sale of 106 planes by Airbus to Iran Air.

But since Trump took over, notes Al-Monitor, “requests concerning permits to export planes to Iran have been piling up … OFAC has not responded to aircraft sales licensing requests since the first of such licenses were issued during the Barack Obama administration.” Erich Ferrari, a lawyer in Washington who works on sanctions issues, told me there’s “definitely been a shift. Certain transactions that we’ve seen licensed in the past under the Obama administration, are now being denied.”

The Trump administration still issues licenses for routine personal divestment transactions: for instance, people who want to sell off their property or close their bank accounts in Iran. But as far as Ferrari can tell, the Trump administration has issued few, if any, licenses for commercial transactions. That’s hard to verify: There is no public database of OFAC licenses, and the Treasury Department didn’t respond to my request for comment. But in recent months, two close observers of the Iran deal have echoed Ferrari’s observation. As the pro-nuclear deal National Iranian American Council’s Reza Marashi reported earlier this year, “To hear senior Western diplomats tell it, the Trump administration has not approved a single Iran-related OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) license since taking office.” If true, this too likely violates the Iran deal.

We’ve seen a version of this movie before. In 1994, the Clinton administration signed a nuclear deal with North Korea. Pyongyang promised to freeze its nuclear program. In return, the U.S. promised to provide “heavy fuel oil” to compensate for the electricity North Korea would lose by shutting down its plutonium reactor; to help build an entirely new, “light water” reactor; and to move toward normalizing relations. But that November, Republicans--many of whom were skeptical of the deal--took control of the House and Senate. And in the following years Congress hindered both America’s promised delivery of fuel oil and its promised help in building a light-water reactor. The North Koreans warned that if the U.S. didn’t abide by the deal, they wouldn’t either.

And they didn’t. While North Korea mostly met its promises not to build a bomb using plutonium, it secretly operated an alternative nuclear program based on enriched uranium.

Whether North Korea cheated in response to U.S. cheating, or intended to cheat all along, is a subject of debate. Either way, the Bush administration in 2002 confronted Pyongyang about its uranium-enrichment program. North Korean officials conceded its existence, while falsely claiming the deal covered only the plutonium route to a bomb. And they proposed a new, more comprehensive agreement, which would also cover uranium enrichment and require the U.S. to recognize North Korea, stop threatening it militarily, and lift sanctions. But the hawks in the Bush administration, who had opposed the 1994 deal from the beginning, refused to negotiate seriously. As John Bolton explained, the uranium-enrichment program “was the hammer I had been looking for to shatter the Agreed Framework.”

Now Bolton is back, and looking for another hammer. If Trump stops him from wielding it, and the U.S. doesn’t reimpose nuclear sanctions on Iran, many in the media will celebrate America’s decision to continue complying with the nuclear deal. But that will be wrong. The Trump administration has never fully complied with the nuclear deal, and likely never will. The real question isn’t whether Trump violates it, but how.

The truth is that, at least in the post-Cold War era, the United States hasn’t always been very good about keeping the promises it makes in nuclear deals. It’s important Americans know that. It might be nice to think that the U.S., as a democracy, is more trustworthy than its authoritarian adversaries. But America’s government won’t hold itself to a higher standard unless its people do.

[bowsetter]

New York Orders Bittrex to Cease Operations but Approves Bitstamp

New York State’s financial regulator has ordered Bittrex to cease operating in the state after rejecting its application for a Bitlicense. Multiple deficiencies were cited, some of which Bittrex immediately disputed. Meanwhile, Bitstamp has been green-lighted to offer the trading of five cryptocurrencies in the state.

Also read: Indian Supreme Court Postpones Crypto Case at Government’s Request

One Approval, One Rejection

The New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) approved one crypto exchange for a Bitlicense and then rejected another the following day. The regulator announced Wednesday that it has denied “the applications of Bittrex Inc. to engage in virtual currency business and money transmission activity in New York.”

A representative at the NYDFS told news.Bitcoin.com Wednesday:

There is no appeals process following a denial but the company could reapply.

Bittrex has approximately 1.67 million users globally including those in about 40 U.S. states, approximately 35,000 of which are in New York, the regulator noted. “Effective April 11, 2019, Bittrex must immediately cease operating in New York State and within 60 days wind down its business in New York,” the announcement reads. Bittrex must also provide a plan for how it will wind down business with existing New York customers, due within 14 days. There will be penalties for non-compliance.

NYDFS vs Bittrex

Bittrex applied for a Bitlicense on Aug. 10, 2015. In its decision letter, the NYDFS revealed that it conducted a four-week onsite review at Bittrex’s Seattle and Washington D.C. offices and sample transactions between Jan. 1, 2017 and Dec. 31 last year were analyzed.

The department claims to have found a number of inadequate measures, particularly in the exchange’s compliance program for the Bank Secrecy Act, Anti-Money Laundering, and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Bittrex immediately issued a statement that “fully disputes” the NYDFS’ findings, citing “several factual inaccuracies.”

The regulator says that the exchange’s KYC and customer due diligence “are seriously deficient,” with “a substantial number of aliases” found as user account names such as “Give me my money,” “Elvis Presley,” and “Donald Duck.”

It also alleges that “a large number of transactions for customers domiciled in sanctioned countries (including Iran and North Korea) had passed through screening and were processed.” Disputing the allegations, Bittrex declared:

The Iranian customers referenced in the letter were reported to OFAC in January 2018; we do not have and have never had any North Korean customers.

Unrealistic Demands

Most notably, Bittrex claims that in January the NYDFS asked it to sign “a supervisory agreement that, if agreed to, would have resulted in the issuance of a Bitlicense and a Money Transmission License,” noting that there are three key conditions it could not agree to.

The first is that Bittrex would have to agree to limit its offering to New York residents to only 10 cryptocurrencies, with restrictions on the process of offering new coins. Secondly, the department has imposed “unrealistic capital requirements” that are “far in excess of that of any other state,” Bittrex believes. Lastly, the exchange would need to obtain the regulator’s approval to form or acquire any other entity.

Bittrex decided it could not sign this agreement and “attempted to negotiate the terms of the supervisory agreement but were told that these terms were non-negotiable,” the exchange revealed. “We were not provided an opportunity to see or even comment on the findings before they were made public.”

Bitstamp Gained Approval

While Bittrex has to exit the state of New York, another crypto exchange, Bitstamp, is planning an expansion into the state as the same regulator approved its application the previous day.

A U.S. subsidiary of Bitstamp Ltd., Bitstamp USA Inc., became the 19th company to receive a Bitlicense on April 9. According to the company’s announcement:

Bitstamp’s Bitlicense allows it to offer trading in five cryptocurrencies – BTC, ETH, XRP, LTC and BCH – in addition to others it may add in the future.

What do you think of the NYDFS approving Bitstamp’s application but rejecting Bittrex’s? Let us know in the comments section below.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

The post New York Orders Bittrex to Cease Operations but Approves Bitstamp appeared first on Bitcoin News.

READ MORE http://bit.ly/2YZgKv7