United States Imposes Cybersecurity Sanctions on Russia

January 5, 2017

Reading Time : 6 min

On January 4, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) added the five entities newly designated as SDNs to the Entity List. As a result of such designations, additional licensing requirements and restrictions apply to exports, re-exports, and transfers (in-country) to these entities under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

The State Department also announced that it is denying Russian access to two Russian government-­owned recreational compounds in Maryland and New York and is declaring “persona non grata” 35 officials from the Russian Embassy in Washington and the Russian Consulate in San Francisco. The State Department announced that these measures were part of a comprehensive response to Russia’s interference in the U.S. election; a pattern of harassment of U.S. diplomats overseas (including arbitrary police stops, physical assault and the broadcast on Russian State TV of personal details about our personnel that put them at risk); and Russian government actions that the State Department maintained impeded U.S. diplomatic operations.

Finally, on December 29, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released declassified technical information on Russian civilian and military intelligence service cyber activity to allow for the public to be able to better identify, detect and disrupt “Russia’s global campaign of malicious cyber activities.” This Joint Analysis Report follows the October 7, 2016, joint statement by Secretary Johnson and Director Clapper that the intelligence community was confident that the Russian government directed recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions and that the disclosures of alleged hacked emails was consistent with the Russian­-directed efforts, both in the United States and to influence public opinion in Europe and Eurasia. The full Joint Analysis Report can be found here.

President Obama suggested that additional actions are already under way and forthcoming: “These actions are not the sum total of our response to Russia’s aggressive activities. We will continue to take a variety of actions at a time and place of our choosing, some of which will not be publicized.”

Congressional leaders have generally supported the December 29 actions by President Obama, with certain senior Republican members of Congress remarking that measures should have been taken earlier.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has indicated that he will not take retaliatory measures at this time and will await the inauguration of President-­elect Donald Trump. In response, President-­elect Trump praised President Putin’s restrained response to these measures.

These and other sanctions involving Russia are subject to potential change by executive order. Although the U.S. Congress is considering legislation to codify existing sanctions and/or impose additional sanctions against Russia, President-­elect Trump may seek to roll back these executive actions after he takes office on January 20, 2017. An initial indication of what is to come will likely occur during the upcoming confirmation hearings for Rex Tillerson as the nominee for Secretary of State, who has extensive business experience in Russia.

Cybersecurity Executive Order Expanded to Cover Election Interference

As originally issued in April 2015, Executive Order 13694 created an authority for the U.S. government to respond more effectively to the most significant cyber threats and targeted persons who engage in malicious cyber­-enabled activities. The President amended Executive Order 13694 to authorize sanctions on those who engage in malicious cyber­-enabled activities that have the purpose or effect of “tampering with, altering, or causing a misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions.”

Specific Additions to the SDN List

Under this new authority, President Obama added five entities and four individuals to the SDN List. The Fact Sheet issued by the White House explained the basis for each of these additions, indicating that each of these entities and individuals had tampered, altered or caused a misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with the 2016 U.S. election processes, as explained below:

  • Two Russian intelligence services: the Main Intelligence Directorate (aka Glavnoe Razvedyvatel’noe Upravlenie) (GRU), which was involved in external collection using human intelligence officers and a variety of technical tools; and the Federal Security Service (aka Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti) (FSB), which assisted the GRU in conducting the activities described above
  • Three companies that provided material support to the GRU’s cyber operations: the Special Technology Center (aka STLC, Ltd. Special Technology Center St. Petersburg), which assisted the GRU in conducting signals intelligence operations; Zorsecurity (aka Esage Lab), which provided the GRU with technical research and development; and Autonomous Noncommercial Organization “Professional Association of Designers of Data Processing Systems” (ANO PO KSI), which provided specialized training to the GRU
  • Four individual officers of the GRU: Igor Valentinovich Korobov, the current Chief of the GRU; Sergey Aleksandrovich Gizunov, Deputy Chief of the GRU; Igor Olegovich Kostyukov, a First Deputy Chief of the GRU; and Vladimir Stepanovich Alexseyev, also a First Deputy Chief of the GRU.

In addition, OFAC designated two Russian individuals under a pre­existing portion of Executive Order 13694 for using cyber­-enabled means to cause misappropriation of funds and personal identifying information, explaining the bases for such designations as indicated below:

  • Evgeniy Mikhailovich Bogachev, who engaged in significant malicious cyber­-enabled misappropriation of financial information for private financial gain; Bogachev and his associates were responsible for the theft of more than $100 million from U.S. financial institutions, Fortune 500 firms, universities and government agencies
  • Aleksey Alekseyevich Belan, who engaged in significant malicious cyber-enabled misappropriation of personal identifiers for private financial gain; Belan compromised the computer networks of at least three major United States­-based e­commerce companies, and he used his unauthorized access to steal user data belonging to approximately 200 million accounts worldwide and then actively engaged in successful efforts to sell the stolen information for private financial gain.

Both men have multiple arrest warrants pending in the United States for various computer­-related crimes and remain on the FBI’s Most Wanted List.

U.S. persons are prohibited from dealing with SDNs, and all assets of SDNs that are currently in, or come within, the United States or the possession or control of a U.S. person are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. Any entities that these SDNs own (defined as a direct or indirect ownership interest of 50 percent or more) are also blocked, regardless of whether those entities are separately named on the SDN List, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with such entities as well. The individuals designated as SDNs will also be denied entry into the United States.

Corresponding Additions to the Entity List

Following OFAC’s designations, BIS added the two Russian intelligence agencies (GRU and FSB) and the three companies (Special Technology Center, Zorsecurity and ANO PO KSI) to the Entity List.

As a result of such designations, additional licensing requirements and restrictions apply to exports, re-exports and transfers (in-country) under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to such entities. Specifically, a license is required where items subject to the EAR are to be exported, re-exported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the entities added to the Entity List or in which such entities act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. No license exceptions are available and BIS has imposed a presumption of denial policy to any license applications for the export, re-export or transfer of items subject to the EAR to these entities. 

Practical Implications

Entities and individuals subject to U.S. jurisdiction should ensure that they do not engage in impermissible transactions with persons named on OFAC’s SDN List or any entity owned by such persons. Exporters should also ensure that their export compliance programs have adequate measures in place to address the export, re-export and transfer restrictions imposed by BIS.  Additionally, U.S. officials are encouraging the public to review the declassified technical information relating to the cyber activities by Russia to help identify, detect and disrupt cyber activities that may have occurred or remain ongoing.

Additional Information

The White House: Amended Executive Order , President Obama’s Statement on the Executive Order  and Fact Sheet

The White House Blog: The Administration’s Response to Russia: What You Need to Know 

Bureau of Industry and Security: Addition of Certain Entities to the Entity List

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Trade Law

July 19, 2024

Views expressed by Alan Yanovich.1

...

Read More

Trade Law

February 9, 2023

With the enactment of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the announcement of the European Union (EU) Green Deal Industrial Plan, there is now a full-fledged subsidy war between the United States and the European Union. While these subsidies are meant to encourage green technologies, incentivizing firms to produce locally would seem to be an almost as important policy goal. And it is not limited to the U.S. and the EU. Global Trade Alert recently reported that, in 2022, production subsidies accounted for half of all trade-distorting measures, making it the mostly commonly used harmful trade policy measure.1

...

Read More

Trade Law

2023-01-26

At the end of last year, World Trade Organization (WTO) members agreed that the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the WTO will take place in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in February 2024. There is no doubt that the WTO is facing headwinds and is in need of a vigorous push forward. The UAE’s success in transforming itself into a global trade and digital hub and a leader in services trade could serve to drive a successful outcome at MC13.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2023-01-17

On December 21, 2022, the appeal arbitrators in the Colombia – Frozen Fries (DS591) World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute circulated their award (the “Award”). This was the second appeal conducted under Article 25 of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and the first appeal under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), a framework created by a group of WTO members to overcome the challenges posed by the non-operational Appellate Body.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2022-02-10

The United Kingdom just issued a new statutory instrument, effective immediately, which extends the authority to designate persons and entities under the U.K. sanctions against Russia.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2022-01-24

Washington, D.C. partner Kevin Wolf, London partner Jasper Helder and Emily Kilcrease with the Center for New American Security submitted a detailed comment to U.S. and EU export control authorities to help guide and inform efforts to rationalize U.S. and EU export controls.  It can also be a useful resource for anyone interested in the topic and wanting to understand the history and context to current export control policy issues. They note that the US-EU Joint Statement on the role and purpose of export controls “is far more significant than generally recognized because it is the first time the EU (represented by the EC) or any other US ally has stated so explicitly and publicly since the end of the Cold War an agreement with the US that export controls should be used to achieve country-specific and other policy objectives not directly related to weapons of mass destruction or conventional military items.”

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-06-10

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin Gump’s webinar, “Protecting the Crown Jewels - New U.K. National Security Rules for Foreign Investment in a Post-COVID-19, Post-Brexit World.

...

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.