Settlements in brief:
Clearstream and
Bank of Moscow settle Iran sanctions
offence
This article is available in English only
Clearstream
Clearstream Banking SA of Luxembourg (Clearstream) agreed to pay USD 152 million to
settle U.S. Treasury claims that it allowed Iran to evade US sanctions rules by providing
access to the US banking system. According to the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC), Clearstream held an account at a US-based financial institution
through which it enabled the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) to hold beneficial ownership
interests in 26 securities. The securities had a nominal value of USD 2.8 billion.
Clearstream continued to hold the account even after informing US regulators in late 2007
and early 2008 that it had ended all of its business with Iranian clients. OFAC’s enforcement
information described that, according to the facts, Clearstream was well aware that CBI was
the beneficial owner of the securities.
Although these are all aggravating factors, Clearstream’s strong remedial response and
substantial cooperation with OFAC were taken into account and were a major factor in
OFAC’s mitigation of the settlement amount. Clearstream has undertaken significant
remedial action by enhancing its sanctions compliance policies and procedures to prevent a
recurrence of the apparent violations.
Bank of Moscow
The Bank of Moscow agreed to pay USD 9.5 million over allegations that it handled money
transfers with Bank Melli Iran ZAO (Melli), despite US sanctions. OFAC stated in an
enforcement notice that the Bank of Moscow (formally known as the Joint-Stock Commercial
Bank) sent 69 transfers totalling more than USD 41 million through the US between January
2008 and July 2009 on behalf of Melli, which was designated under US sanctions in October
2007.
According to OFAC, the Bank of Moscow failed to exercise an appropriate degree of caution
or care in avoiding the conduct that led to the alleged violation and it resulted in significant
harm to US sanctions program objectives. Also, the Bank of Moscow does not appear to
have had adequate compliance policies or procedures in place at the time the alleged
violations occurred.
De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek - 1 / 2 - 10.03.20142
One of the issues with the funds transfers, according to OFAC, stemmed from the payment
messages the Bank of Moscow submitted to the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunication (SWIFT). Those payment messages did not include any references to
“Melli” or “Iran”. Instead of using the SWIFT identification code for the Iranian bank, the
Bank of Moscow used other abbreviations to identify Melli.
Mitigating factors for OFAC were that the Bank of Moscow took remedial actions to improve
compliance with US sanctions laws and regulations. OFAC also took into consideration that
the Bank of Moscow cooperated with OFAC’s investigation by signing a statute of limitations
tolling agreement.
According to OFAC, these enforcement actions highlight the particular sanctions risk faced
by foreign financial institutions or other firms operating in the securities industry. These
settlements should serve as “a clear alert to be vigilant with respect to dealings with
sanctioned parties, and that omnibus and custody accounts require ensuring compliance
with relevant sanctions law.”
http://www.debrauw.com/newsletter/settlements-brief-clearstream-bank-moscow-settle-iran-sanctions-offence/?output=pdf
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen