OFAC Guidance on U.S. Dollar Transactions Involving Iran

Oct 11, 2016

Reading Time : 4 min

Together, these clarifications provide guidance of particular relevance to non-U.S. financial services institutions, which, to date, have proven reluctant to support or participate in Iran-related transactions, notwithstanding sanctions relief measures under the JCPOA implemented by the United States and the European Union. The OFAC guidance follows substantial outreach and meetings of senior Obama Administration officials with major institutional lenders and financial institutions in Europe and elsewhere in recent months encouraging greater participation and support for transactions permitted under JCPOA sanctions relief. Those efforts are consistent with apparent U.S. diplomatic and strategic interests in seeing the JCPOA yield tangible benefits within Iran that validate the value of Iran’s commitments under the Agreement espoused by the country’s current government. It remains to be seen in the weeks ahead to what extent this latest guidance will prove effective in providing a level of comfort necessary to overcome legal, business and reputational risk concerns that appear to have deterred foreign financial institutions from participating in Iran-related transactions.

Limited U.S. Dollar Transactions Permissible

The new OFAC guidance provides that FFIs, including non-U.S. subsidiaries of U.S. financial institutions, can process U.S. dollar-denominated transactions and maintain U.S. dollar-denominated accounts outside of the United States on behalf of Iranian parties, including the government of Iran, the Central Bank of Iran and Iranian financial institutions, provided that the transactions or account activities do not directly or indirectly involve:

  • U.S. persons (including the U.S. financial system)
  • any SDN
  • sanctionable conduct, including support for terrorism, Iran’s human rights abuses, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery (including ballistic missiles), and support for persons involved in human rights abuses in Syria or for the Government of Syria.

Notwithstanding sanctions relief under the JCPOA, many FFIs, especially European financial institutions, have been reluctant to resume business involving Iran because of risk that they may unwittingly violate residual U.S. secondary sanctions on Iran or damage established relationships with U.S. banks or institutional investors. Additionally, a substantial number of major European banks have paid large fines—in some cases amounting to billions of dollars in penalties—in recent years for violations of U.S. sanctions and are reasonably weary of exposure to future sanctions liability. While many non-U.S. companies appear eager to engage in authorized transactions with Iran, the reluctance of major FFIs to participate in such transactions has arguably limited the level of Iran-related economic activity that was envisioned following the JCPOA.

While this clarification appears to open the door to FFIs maintaining U.S. dollar accounts on behalf of Iranian parties, the potential transfer of funds to or from such accounts continues to be severely constrained. Specifically, FFIs will need to ensure that U.S. dollar transfers to or from such accounts are not processed through the U.S. financial system, including U.S.-located branches or correspondent accounts, or otherwise involve U.S. financial institutions (including their non-U.S. branches, but not their non-U.S. subsidiaries) or other U.S. persons.

Among other open questions, it remains unclear how U.S. dollar-denominated transactions could be processed without transiting such U.S. touch points in practice, given that these transactions generally are processed through correspondent banking relationships that FFIs maintain with U.S. financial institutions. Moreover, even if the transactions do not involve the U.S. financial system, FFIs will need to ensure that the underlying account activities do not implicate any of the continuing restrictions noted in the new guidance, as described above.

Accordingly, while this is the first time that OFAC has articulated circumstances under which processing U.S. dollar transactions or maintaining U.S. dollar accounts on behalf of Iranian parties is permissible, it is important to recognize that OFAC and other agencies of the Treasury Department have not otherwise amended or eased the transaction monitoring and other compliance obligations and restrictions with which FFIs must comply in the conduct of their activities within U.S. jurisdiction.

Secondary Sanctions

In the new guidance, OFAC also provides clarification that non-U.S. persons will not be subject to U.S. secondary sanctions for engaging in transactions with non-SDNs that are minority owned, or partially or wholly controlled, by an SDN. Remaining U.S. secondary sanctions provide a basis for the United States to sanction any party (including non-U.S. persons) for providing material support to, or engaging in a significant transaction with, entities blocked pursuant to certain U.S. executive orders and included on the OFAC SDN List. In this clarification, OFAC “recommends exercising caution” when engaged in transactions involving entities that are minority owned, or partially or wholly controlled, by SDNs “to ensure that such transactions do not involve Iranian or Iran-related persons on the SDN List.”

Due Diligence Guidance

The guidance also clarifies that, for non-U.S. persons conducting due diligence on a potential Iranian counterparty, screening the name of the Iranian counterparty against the SDN List is a minimum standard that should be met, but is not necessarily sufficient on its own to address potential risks of involvement of U.S.-sanctioned Iranian parties in a transaction. The guidance indicates that non-U.S. persons should engage in additional due diligence procedures, consistent with their internal risk assessment processes and industry best practices. . Further, the guidance reflects OFAC’s expectations that non-U.S. persons will consult with local regulators in the markets where they operate regarding further due diligence expectations. The guidance also includes recommendations for non-U.S. entities to maintain records documenting the due diligence efforts in conjunction with participation in such transactions.

The guidance further specifies OFAC’s expectations that FFIs will perform due diligence on their own customers, but not necessarily on their customer’s Iranian customers. This clarification provides useful and practical guidance to FFIs on OFAC’s expectations regarding the extent to which so-called “KYCC” (know your customer’s customer) practices are required in the context of Iran-related transactions.

Conclusion

While OFAC has taken steps to address practical concerns that have been expressed by non-U.S. FFIs, nonetheless, important questions and uncertainties remain. Accordingly, until OFAC affirmatively authorizes activities necessary for Iran-related transactions outside the United States, such as by reauthorizing “U-Turn” financial transactions that transit the U.S. financial system, it remains to be seen to what extent FFIs will engage in such activities, particularly in consideration of broader legal, business and reputational risk concerns.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.