Legal Research On The Impact Of International Sanctions On Domestic Criminal Enforcement Actions
1. BNP Paribas Case (U.S., 2014)
Facts:
BNP Paribas, a French global bank, processed billions of dollars of transactions for Sudan, Iran, and Cuba, which were under U.S. sanctions.
The bank deliberately stripped identifying information from transactions to hide the involvement of sanctioned entities.
Legal Basis:
Violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA).
Conspiracy to violate U.S. sanctions, money laundering, and false statements.
Outcome:
BNP pleaded guilty to criminal charges.
Paid a criminal fine of $8.8 billion, one of the largest in U.S. history.
Demonstrated the U.S. courts’ jurisdiction over foreign banks using the U.S. financial system.
Implications:
Even non-U.S. banks are liable if they interact with U.S. financial channels.
Signaled the importance of strict compliance programs for multinational banks.
2. United States v. Mehmet Hakan Atilla (2018)
Facts:
Atilla, a Turkish executive at Halkbank, helped Iran circumvent U.S. sanctions.
Used fraudulent documents and front companies to disguise payments for Iran as legitimate trade transactions.
Legal Basis:
Conspiracy to violate IEEPA, bank fraud, and money laundering.
Outcome:
Convicted on multiple counts in U.S. federal court.
Sentenced to 32 months in prison.
Implications:
State-controlled banks and foreign officials can face personal liability in U.S. courts.
Highlighted the risk of sanctions evasion schemes using deceptive trade practices.
3. United States v. Mahmoud Reza Banki (2012)
Facts:
An Iranian-American received money from Iran through informal transfer systems (hawala).
The transfers allegedly violated U.S. sanctions on Iran.
Legal Basis:
Conspiracy to violate U.S. sanctions, operating an unlicensed money-transmission business, and making false statements.
Outcome:
Convicted by a jury on several counts.
Fines and partial forfeiture imposed, but personal assets were largely protected.
Implications:
Individuals, not just corporations, can be criminally liable for sanctions violations.
Demonstrates the difficulty in distinguishing legitimate personal transfers from prohibited financial activities.
4. United Kingdom – Dmitrii Ovsiannikov (2023)
Facts:
Ovsiannikov, a Russian politician, received funds in a UK account despite being under UK sanctions.
Third parties (family members) transferred money and paid expenses on his behalf.
Legal Basis:
Violation of UK Russia-related sanctions regulations.
Money laundering and enabling sanctions violations through third-party facilitation.
Outcome:
Convicted on multiple counts.
Sentenced to 40 months in prison; his brother received a suspended sentence.
Implications:
UK enforcement demonstrates that third-party facilitation is criminally prosecutable.
Shows domestic courts actively enforcing international sanctions with prison sentences.
5. United States v. Zarrab / Halkbank Scheme (2016–2018)
Facts:
Reza Zarrab orchestrated a network to help Iran evade sanctions using Halkbank.
Created fake contracts and documents to disguise the nature of transactions.
Legal Basis:
Conspiracy to violate IEEPA and money laundering.
Outcome:
Zarrab testified against Atilla in exchange for a plea deal.
Exposed a sophisticated financial network for sanctions evasion.
Implications:
Reinforced U.S. jurisdiction over sanctions evasion even through foreign banks.
Demonstrated complex international financial fraud techniques in sanctions cases.
6. European Union – First Criminal Prosecution for Sanctions Violation (2024)
Facts:
EU Member State prosecuted individuals and companies for violating EU sanctions against a foreign country.
Activities included trading prohibited goods and transferring funds to sanctioned persons.
Legal Basis:
Newly harmonized EU criminal sanctions framework.
Criminal liability applied to both individuals and legal entities.
Outcome:
Prison sentences for individuals and fines for companies.
Marked the first criminal enforcement under the new EU directive.
Implications:
Harmonization of sanctions enforcement in the EU increases predictability and deterrence.
Signals that EU countries will treat sanctions violations as serious criminal offenses.
Key Themes Across Cases
Jurisdiction: U.S. and EU courts can assert jurisdiction over foreign entities if transactions touch domestic financial systems.
Individual & Corporate Liability: Executives, state actors, and private individuals can all be criminally prosecuted.
Complexity of Evidence: Prosecutors rely on financial trails, false documentation, and transaction concealment.
Deterrence & Compliance: These cases highlight the necessity for robust compliance programs to avoid criminal exposure.
Third-Party Facilitation: Using family members, front companies, or informal transfers does not shield individuals from liability.
RELATED Blog
comments