Cuba, Iran OFAC Sanctions Add Up to $5.3M for JPMorgan Chase
The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control counted dozens of suspect transactions for two undisclosed airline associations with members in the U.S. and abroad.
October 09, 2018 at 05:38 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
JPMorgan Chase Bank's $5.3 million civil settlement of allegations that the bank handled dozens of payments benefiting Iranian and Cuban targets of U.S. sanctions in the airline industry suggests the U.S. Treasury Department won't be lenient with banks that make sanctions-related missteps, several trade law and compliance experts said.
The enforcement action centered on 87 net-settlement payments totaling more than $1 billion that JPMorgan Chase Bank and a foreign bank processed from 2008 to 2013 for two undisclosed airline associations with hundreds of members in the U.S. and abroad.
The settlement with the Office of Foreign Assets Control on Friday also highlights the importance of following rigorous compliance procedures, they said.
“The Trump administration hasn't, up to this point, seemed real keen on strict enforcement of the sanctions programs,” said Ron Oleynik, a partner at Holland & Knight's office in Washington, D.C. He heads the firm's head of the international trade practice. “But this one, to me, is the administration waking up and saying, 'Oh, right we've gotta make sure people are toeing the line.'”
While the activity in question occurred years ago, Oleynik noted that the government could have “let it die on the vine. They could have kept it quiet. But they've pursued it to the end, and they're publicizing it.”
He added the sanctions programs can be used as “a tool to press foreign policy. But to do that, they need to be taken seriously.”
A small percentage of the transactions, about $1.5 million, allegedly benefited several sanctioned airlines, which were not clients of the bank, and ran afoul of Cuban Assets Control Regulations, Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations and the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations, according to the federal government.
OFAC said the bank, which self-reported the alleged violations and agreed to pay $5.26 million, “appears to have acted with reckless disregard for its sanctions compliance obligations” by failing to screen members of the airline associations.
The bank also “engaged in a pattern of conduct” by missing “red flags and other warning signs on several occasions” when its clients revealed sanctioned entities were involved in the payments, OFAC found.
Oleynik and two other sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because of potential conflict-of-interest issues, said the big takeaway is the importance of having stringent client-screening procedures in place, regular training for employees and periodic reviews of transactions.
And even then, it's difficult to catch every potential violation.
“I'm no longer surprised by what slips through the cracks for any company or any bank of any size,” Oleynik said. “Things are complicated. It's easy to miss something.”
Since the alleged violations came to light, JPMorgan Chase has taken several steps to tighten its ship, including ending its relationship with the clients at the center of the case and screening every settlement participant to prevent further violations. The bank also said it increased its compliance staff, began using new sanctions-screening software and stepped up employee training.
Brian Marchiony, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, wrote in an email that the bank was “pleased to resolve this issue, which we self-identified and voluntarily disclosed more than six years ago. We have since upgraded our systems and made substantial enhancements to our sanctions compliance program.”
In the same enforcement action, OFAC issued a separate violation finding that the bank had processed 85 transactions totaling more than $46,000 from 2011 to 2014 for six sanctioned customers sanctioned as drug kingpins or in violation of Syrian sanctions. JPMorgan Chase also reported those alleged violations.
OFAC concluded the violations were “non-egregious” and the result of the bank's reliance on a third-party's flawed screening system. The bank now uses a different system.
Read the Treasury Department enforcement information:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWinston & Strawn Snags Sidley Austin Cross-Border Transactions Partner in Miami
2 minute readMiami’s Arbitration Week Aims To Cement City’s Status as Dispute Destination
3 minute readBrazil Is Quickly Becoming a Vital LatAm Market for Greenberg Traurig, Other US Law Firms
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250