PROCESSING...

Anti-Money Laundering
Consulting Services & Strategies

0 Items - Total: $0.00 CAD

Now We Wait… Canada’s Proposed AML Updates

As of last Friday (September 7, 2018) the comment period for Canada’s draft AML amendments has closed (if you have something to say, they’ll likely still accept submissions for a few more days).

TLDR?

Check out our summary here, or this panel digging into the details.

Want to read our submissions? Here they are!

2018Sep07_OutlierCanada Submission to Finance

2018Sep07_Apendix_SurveyResults

What Now?

The Department of Finance is going to head back to the Bat Cave to revise the policy. We expect that a final version will be published at some point in 2019, and that the content will include “dealing in virtual currency” (including businesses like bitcoin exchanges).

Once the final version is published, there will be a transition period (we expect a year or more) before everything is in force. In the meantime, if you’re expecting to be considered a money services business (MSB) when the final version is published, we recommend checking out some of the community events for MSBs, like the Canadian MSB Association (CMSBA)’s Fall Conference in Toronto.

We’re Here To Help

If you have questions about virtual currency and regulation in Canada, or regulation in Canada in general, please contact us.

AML Changes For The Real Estate Sector

Here We Go Again! Canada’s Proposed AML Changes for Real Estate Developers, Brokers and Sales Representatives

 

On June 9th, 2018, draft amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its enacted regulations (there are five separate regulations that we’re going to collectively call regulations here for simplicity’s sake). This article is intended to give a high-level summary of the proposed amendments as they relate to the real estate industry.

This article should not be considered advice (legal, tax or otherwise). That said, any of the content shared here may be used and shared freely – you don’t need our permission. While we’d love for content that we’ve written to be attributed to us, we believe that it’s more important to get reliable information into the hands of community members (meaning that if you punk content that we wrote, we may think you’re a jerk but we’re not sending an army of lawyers).

Finally, we want to encourage the community to discuss the proposed changes and submit meaningful feedback for policy makers. The comment period for this draft is 90 days. After this, the Department of Finance takes the feedback to the bat cave and drafts a final version of the amendments. From the time that the final version is published, the draft indicates that there will be 12 months of transition to comply with the new requirements.

What does this mean for my business?

While there are quite a number of proposed changes (the draft is about 200 pages in length), some are likely to have more of an impact on for real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives than others. We’ve summarized the changes that we expect to have the most impact below. Remember these are just proposed changes so there is no need to update your compliance material just yet.

What’s New?

Virtual Currency:

While there are not many proposed amendments that will introduce new requirements for real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives the draft regulations introduce reporting requirements for the receipt of CAD 10,000 or more of virtual currency. These basically are the same as large cash reporting obligations and will require reporting entities to maintain a large virtual currency transaction record.

The requirements for reporting and recordkeeping for virtual currency will be very similar to cash reporting requirements.

What existing requirements are changing?

24-hour rule:

The draft regulations clarify that multiple transactions performed by or on behalf of the same customer or entity within a 24-hour period are considered a single transaction for reporting purposes when they total CAD 10,000 or more. Only one report would need to be submitted to capture all transactions that aggregate to CAD 10,000 or more. For real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives this would apply to recipient of cash deposits. Specifically, this will apply to large cash transactions or CAD 10,000 or more. 

Identification:

The draft regulations replace the word “original” with “authentic” and states that a document used for verification of identity must be “authentic, valid and current. This would allow for scanned copies of documentation and/or for software that can authenticate identification documents to be used for the dual process method for real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives that identify clients in a non-face-to-face manner. Another change, related to measures for verifying identity, is that the word “verify” has been replaced with “confirm” and “ascertain” has been replaced with confirm. What this will mean exactly is still unclear (FINTRAC will need to provide more guidance once the final amendments are released). We are hopeful that it will allow for easier customer identification – especially for customers outside of Canada.

Records:

There have been some changes to the details that must be recorded in records that real estate broker or sales representative must maintain. In particular, the draft regulations add the requirement that information records must contain details of every person or entity for which they act as an agent or mandatary in respect of the purchase or sale of real property. Under the existing regulations information related to the person or entity purchasing real estate only.

Risk Assessment:

Under current regulations, reporting entities are required to assess the risks associated with its business and develop a risk assessment specific to your situation. For real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives a risk assessment must address the following four areas:

  • Products, services, and delivery channels (to better reflect the reality of the real estate sector, this workbook will now only refer to services and delivery channels);
  • Geography;
  • Clients and business relationships; and
  • Other relevant factors

A proposed amendment would require all reporting entities to assess the risk related the use of new technologies, before they are implemented.  This has been a best practice since the requirement to conduct a risk assessment came into force, but this change would make this a formal requirement.

Suspicious Transaction Reporting:

Under current regulations if a reporting entity has reasonable grounds to suspect that a transaction or attempted transaction is related to money laundering or terrorist financing, a report must be submitted to FINTRAC within 30 days of the date that a fact was discovered that caused the suspicion. The revised regulations add to this requirement by stating:

“The person or entity shall send the report to the Centre within three days after the day on which measures taken by them enable them to establish that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the transaction or attempted transaction is related to the commission of a money laundering offence or a terrorist activity financing offence.

This would require reports to be submitted to FINTRAC within three days after the reporting entity conducts an analysis that established reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Schedules:

The draft regulations introduce changes to reporting schedules, requiring more detailed information to be filed with FINTRAC then previously was required. This is in addition to including information that is marked as optional, if a reporting entity has the information. As it relates real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives these changes will impact attempted suspicious and suspicious transaction reporting, terrorist property reporting and large cash reporting. Some of the additional proposed data fields are:

  • every reference number that is connected to the transaction,
  • every other known detail that identifies the receipt (of cash for large cash transactions),
  • type of device used by person who makes request online,
  • number that identifies device,
  • internet protocol address (IP address) used by device,
  • person’s user name, and
  • date and time of person’s online session in which request is made.

Such changes may be onerous for reporting entities, especially for transactions that are conducted online.

Training:

Under current regulation, if real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives use agents, mandataries or other persons to act on their behalf, they must develop and maintain a written, ongoing compliance training program for those agents, mandataries or other persons. The draft regulations introduces an additional requirement in which there must be a documented plan for the ongoing compliance training program and delivering of that the training.

What’s Next?

If you’ve read this far, congratulations and thank you!

We hope that you will contribute your thoughts and comments. You can do this by contacting the Department of Finance directly. Their representative on this file is:

Lynn Hemmings
Acting Director General
Financial Systems Division
Financial Sector Policy Branch
Department of Finance
90 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G5
Email: fin.fc-cf.fin@canada.ca

If you would like assistance drafting a submission, or have questions that you would like Outlier to answer, please get in touch!

Breach of Security Safeguards Regulations

Back in June of 2015, the Digital Privacy Act received royal assent, resulting in amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Most amendments came into force at that time, except for the much-anticipated requirements related to breach notification. These requirements will come into force once regulations have been developed and put into place, and will affect any organization that collects, uses or discloses personal information in the course of commercial activities.

On September 2, 2017, a draft of those regulations was published in the Canada Gazette. The draft regulations will require organizations to report, to the privacy commissioner, any breach of security safeguards involving personal information under its control if it is reasonable to believe the breach creates a real risk of significant harm. The draft regulations state that such a report would have to contain the following:

  • a description of the circumstances of the breach and, if known, the cause;
  • the day or the period in which the breach occurred;
  • a description of the personal information that was involved in the breach;
  • an estimate of the number of individuals impacted – where the breach creates a real risk of significant harm;
  • the steps that the organization has taken to reduce the risk of harm to the impacted individuals;
  • the steps that the organization has taken or will take to notify impacted individuals; and
  • the name and contact information of a person who can answer, on behalf of the organization, the Privacy Commissioner’s questions about the breach.

Organizations that experience such a breach will also have to do the  following:

  • Determine if the breach poses a “real risk of significant harm” to any individual whose personal information was involved in the breach by conducting a risk assessment;
  • Notify affected individuals if it is determined that there is a real risk of significant harm. How the notification will take place depends on serval factors such as if contact information of the impacted individuals is known, cost, and if the method chosen to deliver such a notification will cause further harm;
  • Issue notification that contains:
    • a description of the circumstances of the breach;
    • the day or period during which the breach occurred;
    • a description of the personal information that was involved in the breach;
    • the steps that the organization has taken to reduce the risk of harm to the impacted individuals;
    • the steps that the impacted individuals could take to reduce the risk of harm resulting from the breach;
    • a toll-free number or email address that the impacted individuals can use to obtain further information about the breach; and
    • information about the organization’s internal complaint process and about the individual’s rights under PIPEDA, and that they can make a complaint with the privacy commissioner;
  • Notify other organizations or government institutions if they believe they may be able to reduce the risk of harm to the impacted individuals (i.e. law enforcement agencies). If this is the case, consent of individuals is not required for such disclosures; and
  • Keep records of any data breach for a minimum of 24 months.

The determination if there is a real risk of significant harm to an individual, and reporting “as soon as feasible” requirements, are likely to be the most challenging for organizations.

In determining if there is a “real risk of significant harm”, the assessment of risk conducted must consider factors such as the sensitivity of the personal information involved, whether or not the data was data encrypted, whether the personal information could be misused, if the information has been recovered, etc. The true risk of such factors may not always be known at the time that the risk assessment is first conducted. If not known, it may be best to use a worst case scenario in the assessment.

In reporting “as soon as feasible” after an organization determines that the breach has occurred, to both the Privacy Commissioner and impacted individuals, organizations may be hesitant to provide specific information. Reasons why organizations may be hesitant may include, details and information may change as further investigating of the breach is conducted, or for fear of litigation risk down the road. Additionally, there is reputational risk that organizations will be concerned about. When notifying the Privacy Commissioner, organizations may want to state that the investigation is ongoing and that updates will be provided in a timely manner. When notifying impacted individuals, organizations should ensure that all required information is contained in the notification. It is best to be transparent and truthful in such notifications, as not doing so may cause even greater litigation and reputational risk.

Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulations

The draft regulations are open for a comment period, to read full details of the draft and the accompanying regulatory impact analysis statement please visit the Canada Gazette.

We’re Here To Help

If you have questions regarding this or any questions related to privacy legislation in general, please contact us.

An MSB by Any Other Name

What’s in an MSB?

Under Canadian federal legislation, a money services business (MSB), in Canada, is a person or entity engaged in the business of any of the following activities:

  • Foreign exchange dealing;
  • Remitting or transmitting funds by any means or through any person, entity or electronic funds transfer network; or
  • Issuing or redeeming money orders, traveller’s cheques or other similar negotiable instruments (except for cheques payable to a named person or entity).

More detailed guidance on these specifications can be found in FINTRAC Interpretation Notice no. 1, published by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC). There is also a number of excellent guidance documents for MSBs available on FINTRAC’s website.

Payment Service Providers (PSPs) and Payment Processors

We’ve had a lot of MSBs lately calling to ask if they can simply declare themselves as payment service providers (PSPs) or payment processors rather than MSBs.

The short answer is “no.”

The long answer is “only if you change your business model to include only PSP activities.”

PSP or payment processing services, in FINTRAC’s view are quite restricted. These include providing payment processing services for the purposes of:

  • Payroll and commission payments, or
  • Tuition fee payments, or
  • Utility bill payments, or
  • Mortgage and rent payment.

These services do not, generally, involve any element of foreign exchange. While this is probably not the answer that many MSBs are looking for, especially those that are labouring to maintain banking relationships in the current climate, it is important information. Operating an MSB without registering with FINTRAC or maintaining a compliance program can lead to penalties including administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) and the publication of the MSB’s name on FINTRAC’s website. To date, 36 MSBs have received a total of $814,805 in AMPs.

Corollary Services

There are also cases where MSB type activities are performed as a “corollary” another product or service. In these instances, the business does not offer MSB type products or services to the public as standalone services, but provides these in order to facilitate other services. The most common exemption that we have seen relates to lending services.

For example: A company that is in the business of automotive lending (loans) might make a payment on its customer’s behalf to a car dealership. In this case, the payment that is remitted to the car dealership could be considered “remitting or transmitting funds by any means or through any person, entity or electronic funds transfer network” (which would be an MSB service), however, it is only remitted for the purpose of issuing the loan, and is considered a corollary.

There are, however, a number of cases that might appear to be corollary services on the surface, which are not. Unless your business model is identical to a business model where FINTRAC has already issued a policy interpretation citing the MSB services offered as a corollary, we highly recommend seeking a policy interpretation from FINTRAC in order to ensure that you are not carrying out MSB business in the regulator’s view.

FINTRAC’s Policy Interpretations – Just Ask

Fortunately, FINTRAC publishes its policy interpretations on its website. We’ve pulled together the most relevant of these in this document.

MSB PSP FINTRAC Policy Interpretation at 16Jan2017

FINTRAC’s policy positions are provided as guidance to the industry. If you have specific questions about your business model, you may contact FINTRAC directly via email at: guidelines-lignesdirectrices@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca.

There is no cost to contacting FINTRAC directly, however, it generally takes 4-8 weeks (in our experience) to receive a response in writing. We recommend reading and referring to FINTRAC’s existing guidance (including guidelines and policy interpretations) in order to frame your question effectively.

Need a Hand?

If you have questions about this document, would like to receive a copy in Word, or need assistance with compliance, please feel free to contact us. We aim to answer all queries within 2 business days.

Phone: (844) 919-1623

Email: info@outliercanada.com

Web Form: https://www.outliercanada.com/contact-us/

FINTRAC’s 2016 Real Estate Brief

Quick Overview

A little over a month ago, FINTRAC published an operational brief for the Canadian real estate industry.  The brief was intended to assist reporting entities in meeting the obligations to report suspicious transactions or attempted suspicious transactions that related to potential money laundering or terrorist financing.  The publication provided some common indicators that may be present in a transaction that suggest money laundering or terrorist financing could be involved.

What Does it Mean?

The suspicious indicators provided by FINTRAC list circumstances or activities that might signal potentially illicit activity.  This does not mean that if one or more of the indicators are present that the transaction is definitely suspicious and must be reported to FINTRAC, it is meant to ensure that you are aware of the potential that suspicious activity may be taking place.  In that context, if you are involved in real estate transactions, you must be aware of the indicators in the brief.  If you do encounter a transaction that may be considered suspicious, you will need to collect additional information that will aid in your decision to report it or document why it was not considered suspicious.

What Now?

In order to ensure familiarity for anyone who interacts with customers and their transactions, the list of FINTRAC’s indicators should be included in your ongoing AML compliance training program.  Furthermore, the indicators should also be included in your procedure manuals, allowing easy access to the information.  Finally, the indicators should be incorporated into your Risk Assessment documentation.  Specifically, when determining customer risk and the controls used to effectively mitigate potential risks.

We’ve made it easier for you to integrate this content into your program by putting the indicators in a Word document for you.

Need a Hand?

Outlier has taken the list of indicators provided by FINTRAC and formatted them into an easy to use Microsoft Word document, which can be downloaded here: FINTRAC Indicators Specific to Real Estate Transactions.  This should allow companies within the real estate sector to easily update their documentation and ensure they are sufficiently monitoring for potentially suspicious activity.  If you aren’t sure what to do with this information and would like some assistance, please feel free to contact us.

Would You Recognize Real Estate Red Flags?

Rodney_FINTRACOn November 14th, 2016 FINTRAC released a brief for all reporting entities who may be involved in real estate transactions.  The briefing is intended as guidance to provide some examples of indicators that may be present in transactions that may suggest they are linked to money laundering or terrorist financing.  The indicators described have been taken from transactions suspected of being related to money laundering or terrorist financing reported internationally.  The briefing focuses on the potential risks and vulnerabilities within the real estate industry and provides suggestions on how to ensure reporting entities are sufficiently meeting suspicious transaction reporting obligations.

The briefing is meant to provide operational guidance given the small overall number of suspicious transactions that have been reported to FINTRAC by the Real Estate industry.  The briefing states that these indicators will be used by FINTRAC to assess compliance with your reporting obligations.  If you are a reporting entity that interacts with the real estate industry in one form or another, the indicators and scenarios outlined in this brief should be considered when updating your Risk Assessment and training materials.

To put things into perspective, though the actual size of the real estate market is difficult to determine precisely, CMHC has produced some statistics.  CMHC suggests that between 2003 and 2013 over $9 trillion of mortgage credits were negotiated and roughly 5 million sales took place through Multiple Listing Services (MLS).  In contrast, FINTRAC received only 127 Suspicious Transactions Reports (STRs) from real estate brokers, agents and developers and 152 by other types of reporting entities, such as banks and trust/loan companies.  To go a step further, in FINTRAC’s 2015 Annual Report, between April 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015, a total of 92,531 STRs were filed across all reporting entities.

 

re-strs-filed-vs-sales

This evidence supports FINTRAC’s assertion that operational guidance for the real estate industry is needed.

The indicators and examples covered in the brief outline numerous scenarios that may suggest that a transaction is related to a money laundering or terrorist financing offense.  It also speaks to how the appearance of legitimacy obfuscates the clarity of suspicious transactions and requires more than a just “gut feel”.  What is required is the consideration of the facts related to the transaction and their context.  Does the transaction with all the known factors, positive or negative, make sense?

 

What This Means to Your Business? 

First off, FINTRAC will be using the indicators provided to assess your compliance with reporting obligations.  This has a couple different applications.  The first being, does your AML compliance program documentation make reference to the suspicious indicators that are provided.  Basically, are staff aware of the elements that may be present in a transaction that would suggest money laundering or terrorist financing may be occurring?

Secondly, is there an oversight process to ensure if there are transactions that contain one or more of these indicators where an STR was not submitted, is reviewed?  If so, does the process ensure supporting evidence that the Compliance Officer reviewed the transaction and determined there were not reasonable grounds to suspect its relation to money laundering or terrorist financing?  When you encounter a transaction involving any of the indicators provided, it is very important that you collect as much information as possible to assist the Compliance Officer with their determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a transaction, or attempted transaction, may be related to money laundering or terrorist financing.  Alternatively, even if none of the indicators provided by FINTRAC are present but we still feel there is “something off” about our customer’s transaction, speak with your Compliance Officer.  They will be able to provide some insight on additional information that may assist our decision.  Once you have collected any additional information you may still not feel comfortable, but this does not mean you cannot complete the transaction, but that you must be sure your Compliance Officer is provided with all the information, which includes our reason for the escalation, so that they can decide whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect it may be related to a money laundering or terrorist financing offense.  The Compliance Officer will document their decision and, if necessary, submit an STR to FINTRAC.

Need a Hand?

If you are a reporting entity that interacts with the real estate industry and would like assistance updating your AML compliance program documentation or simply have some questions, please contact us.

Sanctions This Week: July 25th – 29th, 2016

 

OSFISanctions Pic

There were no updates released from OSFI this week.

Go to the OSFI lists page.

OFAC

The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Branch, The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), released four updates last week.  One update was related to the publication of Cuba-related Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), covering some of the recent changes made to the sanctions that had previously been placed on Cuba.  Other updates included the removal of 12 individuals from the Counter Terrorism Designations List, the issuance of a Finding of Violation and the publication of Iran General License J.

OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.  The sanctions target countries, regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the U.S.

The update to the Cuba-related FAQs was for the issuance of a new FAQ (#38) and a revision of an existing FAQ (#39), relating to certain information collection and recordkeeping requirements for persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction who provide authorized carrier or travel services to or from Cuba for specifically licensed travelers.

The update to the Counter Terrorism Designations List included the removal of 12 individuals of Libyan origin who are currently residing in the UK.

The Finding of Violation was issued to Compass Bank, which uses the trade name BBVA Compass, for violations of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations. From June 12, 2013 to June 3, 2014, Compass maintained accounts on behalf of two individuals on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the “SDN List”).

The final update of the week was related to OFAC issuing “General License J”, authorizing the re-exportation of certain civil aircraft to Iran on temporary sojourn and related transactions.

See the Cuba-related FAQ update on OFAC’s website.

See the Counter Terrorism Designations List update on OFAC’s website.

See the issuance of a Finding of Violation to Compass Bank on OFAC’s website.

See the Iran General License J details on OFAC’s website.

See OFAC’s recent actions page.

Need A Hand?

We would love to hear from you.  If there are subjects in this post that you would like to know more about, or if you need assistance with your compliance program, please contact us.

Sanctions This Week: July 18th – 22nd, 2016

OSFIOutlier3_032

On July 18th and 22nd, 2016, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC’s) Al’Qaida and Taliban regulations updates to the sanctions list, deleting one individual and amending another.

The individuals are subject to the assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo set out in paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 2253 (2015) adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.

The review of the individual who was deleted from the list was triggered by regularly scheduled updates.  However, no additional information was available regarding the justification.

The amendment of one individual’s information included the following:

  • A physical description;
  • The confirmation of the most recent position held within the Taliban, as of April 2015; and
  • That they are currently involved in drug trafficking and operate a heroin laboratory in Afghanistan.

See the July 18th update on the United Nations (UN) website.

See the July 22nd update on the United Nations (UN) website.

Go to the OSFI lists page.

OFAC

The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Branch, The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), released three updates last week.  One update was related to the addition of three individuals to the Counter Terrorism Designations list.  The second update was related to the addition of multiple individuals and entities to the Syria and Non-proliferation Designations lists.  The final update last week was to the Kingpin Act and Panama-related Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding General Licenses.

OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.  The sanctions target countries, regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the U.S.

The changes to the Counter Terrorism Designations list included three individuals of different nationalities, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Algeria, though all have been linked to Al Qa’ida.

The update to the Syria Sanctions list included eight individuals, all of whom are Syrian.  The seven entities, which range from construction, to finance to manufacturing industries and vary in location, which include:

  • Syria;
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis;
  • Cyprus;
  • UAE; and

The update to the Kingpin Act and Panama-related FAQs are specific General License 5B and 6B

See the Counter Terrorism Designations list update on OFAC’s website.

See the Syrian and Non-proliferation Designations lists update on OFAC’s website.

See the Kingpin Act and Panama-related General License FAQs update on OFAC’s website.

See OFAC’s recent actions page.

Need A Hand?

We would love to hear from you.  If there are subjects in this post that you would like to know more about, or if you need assistance with your compliance program, please contact us.

Sanctions This Week: July 11th – 15th, 2016

OSFIOutlier3_036

There were no updates released from OSFI this week.

Go to the OSFI lists page.

OFAC

The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Branch, The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), released one update last week.  The update was related to the addition of two Russian individuals who were added to the Counter Terrorism Designations list.

OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.  The sanctions target countries, regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the U.S.

No other information was available on the individuals who were added.

See the Counter Terrorism Designations list update on OFAC’s website.

See OFAC’s Recent Actions page.

Need A Hand?

We would love to hear from you.  If there are subjects in this post that you would like to know more about, or if you need assistance with your compliance program, please contact us.

Sanctions This Week: July 4th – 8th, 2016

OSFISanctions Pic

On July 5th, 2016, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC’s) Al’Qaida and Taliban regulations update to the sanctions list, removing one individual.

Individuals who are included in the list are subject to the assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo set out in paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 2253 (2015) adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. The individual delisted was decided following a review, initiated by a request that was submitted to the Ombudsperson.  The individual is a German national and has been imprisoned in Germany since 2007.

See the update on the United Nations (UN) website.

Go to the OSFI lists page.

OFAC

The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Branch, The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), released three updates last week.  The first update, released on July 5th, 2016 was related to the settlement of a potential civil liability for apparent violations of the Iranian and Sudanese transactions and sanctions regulations.  The second update was related to the addition of multiple North Korean individuals and entities to the North Korean Designations List.  The final update was further clarification to the new Cuba-related Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).

OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.  The sanctions target countries, regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the U.S.

The settlement on July 5th for apparent violations of the Iranian and Sudanese sanctions was levied against Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Alcon Management SA.  In the course of the investigations, Alcon produced documents and information where it appeared that from August 2008 to December 2011, Alcon violated Iranian sanctions on 452 occasions and Sudanese sanctions on 61 occasions.  Alcon engaged in the sale and exportation of medical end-use surgical and pharmaceutical products from the United States to distributors located in Iran and Sudan without OFAC authorization. OFAC determined that Alcon did not make a voluntary self-disclosure and that the apparent violations were not egregious. The statutory maximum civil monetary penalty amount for the Apparent Violations was $138,982,584 USD and the base penalty amount was $16,927,000 USD.  Ultimately, Alcon paid $1,317,150 USD.

The North Korean sanctions list update included numerous individuals and entities, some of whom are high-ranking officials with titles such as:

  • Director of the Fifth Bureau of the Reconnaissance;
  • Director of the Workers’ Party of Korea Propaganda and Agitation Department; and
  • Minister of People’s Security.

The update to the Cuba-related FAQs were specific to the issuance of two new questions added, #43 and #50, regarding the use of the U.S. dollar in certain transactions.

See the Enforcement Action update on OFAC’s website.

See the North Korea Designations List update on OFAC’s website.

See the Cuba-related FAQ update on OFAC’s website.

See OFAC’s Recent Actions page.

Need A Hand?

We would love to hear from you.  If there are subjects in this post that you would like to know more about, or if you need assistance with your compliance program, please contact us.

Return to Blog Listing