New Venezuela Sanctions: What They Mean and Why You Should be Aware
On Aug. 5, the president of the United States issued Executive Order 13884, blocking all property of the government of Venezuela in the United States. Banks, companies and individuals, in the United States and worldwide, especially those engaged in international business, should understand what the executive order means, why it’s important to be aware, and what to do.
August 20, 2019 at 09:33 AM
5 minute read
On Aug. 5, the president of the United States issued Executive Order 13884, blocking all property of the government of Venezuela in the United States. Banks, companies and individuals, in the United States and worldwide, especially those engaged in international business, should understand what the executive order means, why it’s important to be aware, and what to do.
|What the New Venezuela Sanctions Mean
Although there are exceptions, in general terms, the order blocks all property of the Venezuelan government in the United States, that comes within the United States, or that is or comes within the possession or control of any U.S. person or entity.
For purposes of the order, the government of Venezuela includes:
- The state and government of Venezuela;
- Any political subdivision of the government of Venezuela;
- Any agency, or instrumentality of the government of Venezuela, including the Central Bank of Venezuela and Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA); and
- Any person or entity owned or directly controlled by any of the foregoing.
The order also blocks the property and interests in property of:
- Any person or entity determined to have materially assisted or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any specially designated national; and
- Any person or entity determined to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the executive order.
As of the time of this writing, more than 200 persons or entities are designated as specially designated nationals under the Venezuela programs of the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
|Why You Need to Be Aware
Cases involving sanctions violations can result in fines, forfeitures and civil monetary penalties, and in some cases, corporate or individual criminal liability.
Although it might seem counterintuitive, aware of the condition of the Venezuelan economy, the same entities and individuals targeted by the order and by sanctions might attempt to get their money out of Venezuela and into more stable economies, including in the United States. To do so, they might employ intermediaries. U.S. persons, meaning U.S. banks, companies and individuals, as well as non-U.S. persons transacting business in U.S. dollars, need to be aware of the risks this creates.
Likewise, because they are blocked from the U.S. financial system, entities and individuals of the Venezuelan government might also use intermediaries not only to acquire goods or services from the United States, but to acquire goods or services from around the world, in transactions involving U.S. dollars and, therefore, in violation of the executive order.
|What You Can Do
- Implement a sanctions compliance program.
Banks and companies, particularly companies engaged in international business or serving international clients or customers, should develop and implement a sanctions compliance program. The program should be risk-based, meaning it should be proportionate to the risk profile of the bank or company.
As described by OFAC earlier in 2019, the five essential elements of a sanctions compliance program are:
- Management commitment;
- Risk assessment;
- Internal controls;
- Testing and auditing; and
- Training.
The time to implement a sanctions compliance program is now, not after a violation.
- Conduct an Internal Investigation.
There are two ways a company can learn it may have violated U.S. sanctions. The company might discover a possible violation on its own; or the company might learn that it has become the subject or target of an investigation by the U.S. government.
If a company discovers on its own that it might have violated U.S. sanctions, then an internal investigation should be conducted by qualified professionals to determine whether there has, in fact, been a violation and whether disclosures will need to be made.
If the company is notified that it has become the subject or target of an investigation by the U.S. government, then a dialogue should be opened with the U.S. government and, again, an internal investigation should be conducted.
If the investigation reveals evidence which would negate the concerns of agents and prosecutors, then that evidence can be presented to the agents and prosecutors, through counsel. Conversely, if the investigation reveals evidence confirming a violation, then counsel can work to legally and ethically resolve the matter.
Venezuela sanctions are intended to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives. As with all executive orders calling for the blocking of property and implementation of sanctions, the Departments of State and Treasury would rather see companies comply, than have to see the OFAC or the Department of Justice investigate, bring enforcement actions or prosecute violations.
Jarrett Wolf, based in Miami and New York, is the president of Wolf Global, an advisory and consulting firm focused on corporate investigations, crisis management, risk mitigation and strategy, for U.S. and international clients and their counsel. He can be reached at [email protected].
|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
© 2024 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 AllAs a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
4 minute readData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute readNavigating Florida's Products Liability Law: Defective Products, Warnings and the Pursuit of Justice
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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