JP Morgan Chase's $5.3M Sanctions Settlement is a Warning to Banks
Trade law and compliance experts say the settlement is a sign that U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control is not easing enforcement against financial institutions that violate trade sanctions.
October 09, 2018 at 05:38 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s nearly $5.3 million civil settlement quashing 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 Oct. 5 enforcement action by the Office of Foreign Assets Control 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 that sanctions programs can be used as “a tool to press foreign policy. But to do that, they need to be taken seriously.”
The enforcement action centered on 87 net-settlement payments totaling more than $1 billion that J.P. Morgan Chase and a foreign bank processed between 2008 and 2013 for two unnamed airline associations with hundreds of members in the U.S. and abroad.
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 held that the bank, which self-reported the alleged violations and has agreed to pay $5,263,171, “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 that sanctioned entities were involved in the settlements, OFAC found.
Oleynik and two other sources who would not comment on the record because of potential conflict-of-interest issues, said that the big takeaway here is that it's important to have 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, J.P. Morgan 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 J.P. Morgan 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 between 2011 and 2014 for six sanctioned customers. J.P. Morgan Chase also reported those alleged violations.
OFAC concluded that 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 more:
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 AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
- 1Holland & Knight Launches Export Control Disputes and Advocacy Team
- 2Blake Lively's claims that movie co-star launched smear campaign gets support in publicist's suit
- 3Middle District of Pennsylvania's U.S. Attorney Announces Resignation
- 4Vinson & Elkins: Traditional Energy Practice Meets Energy Transition
- 5After 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
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