[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 174 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51933-51941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20704]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control

31 CFR Part 501


Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury is issuing this interim final rule, 
``Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines,'' as enforcement guidance 
for persons subject to the requirements of U.S. sanctions statutes, 
Executive orders and regulations. This interim final rule supersedes 
the Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines set forth in OFAC's 
proposed rule of January 29, 2003 \1\ (with the exception of the 
proposed Appendix to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR Part 
515, set forth therein) and the Economic Sanctions Enforcement 
Procedures for Banking Institutions set forth in OFAC's interim final 
rule of January 12, 2006.\2\ These Enforcement Guidelines are published 
as an appendix to the Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations, 
31 CFR Part 501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 68 FR 4422-4429 (January 29, 2003).
    \2\ 71 FR 1971-1976 (January 12, 2006).

DATES: The interim final rule is effective September 8, 2008. Written 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
comments may be submitted on or before November 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: 
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Fax: Attn: Request for Comments (Enforcement Guidelines) (202) 622-
1657.
    Mail: Attn: Request for Comments (Enforcement Guidelines), Office 
of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and the Federal Register Doc. number that appears at the end of this 
document. Comments received will be made available to the public via 
regulations.gov or upon request, without change and including any 
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elton Ellison, Assistant Director, 
Civil Penalties, (202) 622-6140 (not a toll-free call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability

    This document and additional information concerning OFAC are 
available from OFAC's Web site (http://www.treas.gov/ofac) or via 
facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on-demand service, tel.: (202) 622-
0077.

Procedural Requirements

    Because this interim final rule imposes no obligations on any 
person, but only explains OFAC's enforcement policy and procedures 
based on existing substantive rules, prior notice and public comment 
are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Because no notice of 
proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply. This interim final 
rule is not a significant regulatory action for purposes of Executive 
Order 12866.
    Although a prior notice of proposed rulemaking is not required, as 
discussed in more detail below, OFAC is soliciting comments on this 
interim final rule in order to consider how it might make improvements 
to these Guidelines. Comments must be submitted in writing. The 
addresses and deadline for submitting comments appear near the 
beginning of this notice. OFAC will not accept comments accompanied by 
a request that all or part of the submission be treated confidentially 
because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. All 
comments received by the deadline will be a matter of public record and 
will be made available to the public via regulations.gov.
    The collections of information related to the Reporting, Procedures 
and Penalties Regulations have been previously approved by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 1505-0164. A small 
adjustment to that collection has been submitted to OMB in order to 
take into account the voluntary self-disclosure process set forth in 
these Guidelines. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. This collection of

[[Page 51934]]

information is described in subpart F of Part I, subpart G of part III 
and subpart B of part V of these Guidelines, which will constitute the 
new Appendix to part 501. The referenced subparts explain that the 
voluntary self-disclosure of an apparent violation to OFAC will be 
considered in determining the appropriate agency response to the 
apparent violation and, in cases where a civil monetary penalty is 
deemed appropriate, the base penalty amount and the proposed penalty 
amount. As set forth in subpart B of part V of the Guidelines, an 
apparent violation involving a voluntary self-disclosure will result in 
a base penalty amount at least 50 percent less than the base penalty 
amount in similar cases that do not involve a voluntary self-
disclosure. This provides an incentive for persons who have or may have 
violated economic sanctions laws to come forward and provide OFAC 
information that it can use to better enforce its economic sanctions 
programs. The submitters who will likely seek to avail themselves of 
the benefits of voluntary self-disclosure are financial institutions, 
businesses, other entities, and individuals who find that they have or 
may have violated a sanctions prohibition and wish to disclose their 
actual or potential violation.
    The estimated total annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: 
1,250 hours. The estimated annual burden per respondent/record keeper: 
10 hours. Estimated number of respondents and/or record keepers: 125. 
Estimated annual frequency of responses: Once or less, given that OFAC 
expects that persons who voluntarily self disclose their violations 
will take better care to avoid future violations. Comments are invited 
on: (a) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether 
the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's 
estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) 
estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, 
maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Comments 
concerning the above information, the accuracy of the estimated average 
annual burden, and suggestions for reducing this burden should be 
directed to OMB, Paperwork Reduction Project, control number 1505-0164, 
Washington, DC 20503, with a copy to the Office of Foreign Assets 
Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20220. Any such comments should be submitted no later 
than November 7, 2008. Comments on aspects of this rule other than 
those involving collections of information subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act should not be sent to OMB.

Background

    The primary mission of OFAC is to administer and enforce economic 
sanctions against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists 
and terrorist organizations, weapons of mass destruction proliferators, 
narcotic traffickers, and others in furtherance of U.S. national 
security, foreign policy, and economic objectives. OFAC acts under 
Presidential national emergency powers, as well as specific 
legislation, to prohibit transactions and block (or ``freeze'') assets 
subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Economic sanctions are designed to 
deprive the target of the use of its assets and deny the target access 
to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade, transactions, 
and services involving U.S. markets, businesses, and individuals. These 
same authorities have also been used to protect assets subject to U.S. 
jurisdiction of countries subject to foreign occupation and to further 
important U.S. nonproliferation goals.
    OFAC administers and enforces economic sanctions programs pursuant 
to Presidential and statutory authorities. OFAC is responsible for 
civil investigation and enforcement of economic sanctions violations 
committed by Subject Persons, as defined in the Guidelines. Where 
appropriate, OFAC may coordinate its investigative and enforcement 
activities with federal, state, local and/or foreign regulators and/or 
law enforcement agencies. Active enforcement of these programs is a 
crucial element in preserving and advancing the national security, 
foreign policy and economic objectives that underlie these initiatives. 
Penalties, both civil and criminal, serve as a deterrent to conduct 
that undermines or prevents these sanctions programs from achieving 
their various goals.
    On January 29, 2003, OFAC published, as a proposed rule, generally 
applicable Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, as well as a 
proposed Appendix to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) 
providing a schedule of proposed civil monetary penalties for certain 
violations of the CACR (Cuba Penalty Schedule). Though this proposed 
rule was not finalized, OFAC has used the generally applicable 
guidelines set forth therein as a general framework for its enforcement 
actions and the Cuban Penalty Schedule as a framework for the 
imposition of civil monetary penalties for the violations of the CACR 
described therein. On January 12, 2006, OFAC published, as an interim 
final rule, Economic Sanctions Enforcement Procedures for Banking 
Institutions which withdrew the January 29, 2003 proposed rule to the 
extent that it applied to banking institutions, as defined in the 
interim final rule.
    On October 16, 2007, the President signed into law the 
International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act (Enhancement 
Act),\3\ substantially increasing the maximum penalties for violations 
of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA),\4\ a 
principal statutory authority for most OFAC sanctions programs. The 
increased maximum penalty amounts set forth in the Enhancement Act, as 
well as its application to pending or commenced cases involving 
apparent violations of IEEPA, prompted the development of these new 
Guidelines for determining an appropriate enforcement response to 
apparent violations of sanctions programs enforced by OFAC (as defined 
in the Guidelines), and, in cases involving civil monetary penalties, 
for determining the amount of any civil monetary penalty. The 
Guidelines set forth in this interim final rule supersede the 
enforcement procedures for banking institutions set forth in the 
interim final rule of January 12, 2006, which is hereby withdrawn, as 
well as the proposed guidelines set forth in the proposed rule of 
January 29, 2003, which is also hereby withdrawn, with the exception of 
the Cuba Penalty Schedule. (Those withdrawn enforcement procedures and 
guidelines continue to apply to the categories of cases set forth in 
OFAC's November 27, 2007 Civil Penalties--Interim Policy.) The 
Guidelines set forth herein are applicable to all persons subject to 
any of the sanctions programs administered by OFAC. As discussed in 
greater detail below, OFAC requests comments on this interim final 
rule. The Guidelines set forth in this interim final rule are not 
applicable to penalty or enforcement actions by other agencies based on 
the same underlying course of conduct, the

[[Page 51935]]

disposition of goods seized by Customs and Border Protection, or the 
release of blocked property by OFAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pub. Law 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (October 16, 2007).
    \4\ Pub. Law 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626 (December 28, 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Guidelines set forth in this interim final rule are applicable 
to all enforcement matters currently pending before OFAC or that will 
come before OFAC in the future, whether such matters fall under IEEPA 
or any of the other statutes pursuant to which OFAC is authorized to 
enforce sanctions (including, but not limited to, the Trading With the 
Enemy Act), with the exception of (i) those categories of cases set 
forth in OFAC's November 27, 2007 Civil Penalties--Interim Policy and 
(ii) those matters addressed in the Cuba Penalty Schedule or the 
Service Provider Program Circular periodically issued by OFAC pursuant 
to the CACR. The Guidelines reflect the factors that OFAC will consider 
in determining the appropriate enforcement response to an apparent 
violation of an OFAC sanctions program, and those factors are 
consistent across programs. The civil penalty provisions of the 
Guidelines take into account the maximum penalties available under the 
various statutes pursuant to which OFAC is authorized to enforce its 
sanctions programs.
    The Guidelines reflect several changes from the 2003 proposed rule 
and the 2006 interim final rule. First, rather than identifying 
``aggravating'' and ``mitigating'' factors, the Guidelines set forth 
General Factors that OFAC will consider in determining an appropriate 
enforcement response to an apparent violation and, if a civil monetary 
penalty is warranted, in establishing the amount of that penalty. The 
General Factors reflect the considerations that OFAC believes are most 
critical to a determination of appropriate agency action. The move away 
from ``aggravating'' and ``mitigating'' factors was motivated in part 
by the realization that in many cases, a particular factor could be 
considered either aggravating or mitigating (e.g., remedial action was 
considered a mitigating factor in the 2003 proposed rule, while the 
absence of remedial action was considered an aggravating factor). 
Rather than list such factors as both aggravating and mitigating 
factors, OFAC believes it is better practice to identify the General 
Factors it will consider as part of a holistic consideration of the 
facts and circumstances of a particular case.
    Second, the Guidelines provide for the issuance of either 
cautionary letters or findings of violation under certain 
circumstances, rather than the cautionary letters and warning letters 
provided for in the 2003 proposed rule and the evaluative letters 
provided for in the 2006 interim final rule. Cautionary letters reflect 
OFAC's enforcement response to an apparent violation when OFAC 
determines either that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that 
a violation has occurred or that a finding of violation is not 
warranted under the circumstances. A cautionary letter does not 
constitute a final agency determination that a violation has or has not 
occurred, but serves to place the Subject Person on notice that any 
such similar conduct in the future may result in a finding of violation 
or the imposition of a civil monetary penalty. Findings of violation 
are reserved for cases in which OFAC determines that a violation has 
occurred and considers it important to document the occurrence of a 
violation, but nevertheless concludes that the imposition of a civil 
monetary penalty is not the most appropriate enforcement response. 
Because a finding of violation constitutes a final agency determination 
that a violation has occurred, OFAC will afford the Subject Person an 
opportunity to respond to OFAC's determination. OFAC will give careful 
consideration to the appropriateness of issuing a cautionary letter or 
finding of violation in lieu of the imposition of a civil monetary 
penalty.
    Third, in recognition of OFAC's position that the enhanced maximum 
civil penalties authorized by the Enhancement Act should be reserved 
for the most serious cases, the Guidelines distinguish between 
egregious and non-egregious civil monetary penalty cases. Egregious 
cases are defined as those representing the most serious sanctions 
violations, based on an analysis of all applicable General Factors, 
with substantial weight given to considerations of willfulness or 
recklessness, awareness of the conduct giving rise to an apparent 
violation, harm to sanctions program objectives, and the individual 
characteristics of the Subject Person. As described below, the 
Guidelines generally provide for significantly higher civil penalties 
for egregious cases. OFAC anticipates that the majority of enforcement 
cases will fall in the non-egregious category.
    Fourth, in those cases in which the imposition of a civil monetary 
penalty is deemed appropriate, the Guidelines provide a new process for 
determining the penalty amount. This process involves first determining 
a base penalty amount. This base penalty amount is based on two primary 
considerations: (i) Whether the conduct, activity, or transaction 
giving rise to a violation is egregious or non-egregious and (ii) 
whether the case involves a voluntary self-disclosure by the Subject 
Person. As discussed above, egregious cases are generally subject to 
significantly higher penalties, a result reflected in the base penalty 
amount for such cases. In keeping with the previous enforcement 
guidelines and in recognition of the importance of voluntary self-
disclosures to OFAC, the existence (or lack) of a voluntary self-
disclosure is a major factor in establishing the penalty amount. The 
base penalty amount for a case involving a voluntary self-disclosure 
reflects a 50 percent or more reduction from the base penalty amount 
that would otherwise be applicable. As set forth in greater detail in 
the Guidelines themselves, once a base penalty amount is calculated 
based on the transaction value and egregiousness/voluntary self-
disclosure factors, the amount may be adjusted upward or downward based 
on the other General Factors set forth in the Guidelines. The resulting 
amount reflects OFAC's proposed civil monetary penalty.
    Pre-penalty notices issued pursuant to these Guidelines will set 
forth the actual civil monetary penalty that OFAC proposes to impose. 
Thus, the pre-penalty notice will provide a Subject Person with notice 
of the actual penalty that the agency deems appropriate under the 
circumstances, rather than merely identifying the maximum possible 
penalty. Subject Persons will be afforded an opportunity to respond to 
a pre-penalty notice with arguments and/or evidence respecting the 
amount of the proposed penalty, which OFAC will consider prior to 
issuing a final penalty notice. By adopting this approach, OFAC intends 
to bring greater transparency to the civil penalty process and to 
provide more useful notice to Subject Persons that may be subject to a 
civil monetary penalty.
    The Guidelines also address the process for settling allegations of 
violations.
    Although this interim final rule is effective immediately, OFAC is 
soliciting comments for a 60-day period with a view to improving the 
Guidelines. Comments are requested on all aspects of the Guidelines, 
but are particularly sought with respect to the following:
     Are the General Factors Affecting Administrative Action 
the appropriate factors the agency should consider in determining the 
type of enforcement response to an apparent violation, and, if a civil 
monetary penalty is warranted, the amount of that penalty? Are there 
other factors that should be identified in the Guidelines? Are there 
factors that should be eliminated? Are there factors that should be 
defined with greater specificity?

[[Page 51936]]

     Is the definition of an egregious case appropriate?
     Are the proposed base penalty amounts appropriate for the 
types of cases to which they are applicable?
     Does the new penalty process, whereby the pre-penalty 
notice sets forth the penalty that OFAC proposes to impose, constitute 
an improvement on current practice? Can the process be improved in 
other ways?

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 501

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Insurance, 
Money service business, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Securities.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 31 CFR Part 501 is amended 
as follows:

PART 501--REPORTING, PROCEDURES AND PENALTIES REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 501 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1189; 18 U.S.C. 2332d, 2339B; 19 U.S.C. 
3901-3913; 21 U.S.C. 1901-1908; 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 2370(a), 
6009, 6032, 7205; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 
1701-1706; 50 U.S.C. App. 1-44.


0
2. Part 501 is amended by revising Appendix A to Part 501 to read as 
follows:

Appendix A to Part 501--Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines

    Note: This appendix provides a general framework for the 
enforcement of all economic sanctions programs administered by the 
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), with the exception of those 
violations set forth in the proposed Appendix to the Cuban Assets 
Control Regulations (CACR), 31 CFR Part 515 (see 68 FR 4422, 4429 
(January 29, 2003)) or in the Service Provider Program Circular 
periodically issued by OFAC pursuant to the CACR.

I. Definitions

    A. Apparent violation means conduct that constitutes an actual 
or possible violation of U.S. economic sanctions laws, including the 
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the Trading 
With the Enemy Act (TWEA), the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation 
Act, and other statutes administered or enforced by OFAC, as well as 
Executive orders, regulations, orders, directives, or licenses 
issued pursuant thereto.
    B. Applicable schedule amount means:
    i. $1,000 with respect to a transaction valued at less than 
$1,000;
    ii. $10,000 with respect to a transaction valued at $1,000 or 
more but less than $10,000;
    iii. $25,000 with respect to a transaction valued at $10,000 or 
more but less than $25,000;
    iv. $50,000 with respect to a transaction valued at $25,000 or 
more but less than $50,000;
    v. $100,000 with respect to a transaction valued at $50,000 or 
more but less than $100,000;
    vi. $170,000 with respect to a transaction valued at $100,000 or 
more but less than $170,000;
    vii. $250,000 with respect to a transaction valued at $170,000 
or more, except that where the applicable schedule amount as defined 
above exceeds the statutory maximum civil penalty amount applicable 
to an apparent violation, the applicable schedule amount shall equal 
such statutory maximum civil penalty amount.
    C. OFAC means the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign 
Assets Control.
    D. Penalty is the final civil penalty amount imposed in a 
Penalty Notice.
    E. Proposed penalty is the civil penalty amount set forth in a 
Pre-Penalty Notice.
    F. Regulator means any federal, state, local or foreign official 
or agency that has authority to license or examine an entity for 
compliance with federal, state, or foreign law.
    G. Subject Person means an individual or entity subject to any 
of the sanctions programs administered or enforced by OFAC.
    H. Transaction value means the dollar value of a subject 
transaction. In export and import cases, the transaction value 
generally will be the domestic value in the United States of the 
goods, technology, or services sought to be exported or imported 
into the United States, as demonstrated by commercial invoices, 
bills of lading, signed Customs declarations, or similar documents. 
In cases involving seizures by U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP), the transaction value generally will be the domestic value as 
determined by CBP. If the apparent violation at issue is a 
prohibited dealing in blocked property by a Subject Person, the 
transaction value generally will be the dollar value of the 
underlying transaction involved, such as the value of the property 
dealt in or the amount of the funds transfer that a financial 
institution failed to block or reject. Where the transaction value 
is not otherwise ascertainable, OFAC may consider the market value 
of the goods or services that were the subject of the transaction, 
the economic benefit conferred on the sanctioned party, and/or the 
economic benefit derived by the Subject Person from the transaction 
in determining transaction value. For purposes of these Guidelines, 
``transaction value'' will not necessarily have the same meaning, 
nor be applied in the same manner, as that term is used for import 
valuation purposes at 19 CFR 152.103.
    I. Voluntary self-disclosure means self-initiated notification 
to OFAC of an apparent violation by a Subject Person that has 
committed, or otherwise participated in, an apparent violation of a 
statute, Executive order, or regulation administered or enforced by 
OFAC, prior to the time that OFAC, or any other federal, state or 
local government agency or official, discovers the apparent 
violation or another substantially similar apparent violation. For 
these purposes, ``substantially similar apparent violation'' means 
an apparent violation that is part of a series of similar apparent 
violations or is related to the same pattern or practice of conduct. 
Notification to OFAC of an apparent violation is not a voluntary 
self-disclosure if: a third party is required to notify OFAC of the 
apparent violation or a substantially similar apparent violation 
because a transaction was blocked or rejected by that third party 
(regardless of whether or when OFAC actually receives such notice 
from the third party and regardless of whether the Subject Person 
was aware of the third party's disclosure); the disclosure includes 
false or misleading information; the disclosure (when considered 
along with supplemental information provided by the Subject Person) 
is materially incomplete; the disclosure is not self-initiated 
(including when the disclosure results from a suggestion or order of 
a federal or state agency or official); or, when the Subject Person 
is an entity, the disclosure is made by an individual in a Subject 
Person entity without the authorization of the entity's senior 
management. Responding to an administrative subpoena or other 
inquiry from, or filing a license application with, OFAC is not a 
voluntary self-disclosure. In addition to notification, a voluntary 
self-disclosure must include, or be followed within a reasonable 
period of time by, a report of sufficient detail to afford a 
complete understanding of an apparent violation's circumstances, and 
should also be followed by responsiveness to any follow-up inquiries 
by OFAC. (As discussed further below, a Subject Person's level of 
cooperation with OFAC is an important factor in determining the 
appropriate enforcement response to an apparent violation even in 
the absence of a voluntary self-disclosure as defined herein; 
disclosure by a Subject Person generally will result in mitigation 
insofar as it represents cooperation with OFAC's investigation.)

II. Types of Responses to Apparent Violations

    Depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case, 
an OFAC investigation may lead to one or more of the following 
actions:
    A. No Action. If OFAC determines that there is insufficient 
evidence to conclude that a violation has occurred and/or, based on 
an analysis of the General Factors outlined in Section III of these 
Guidelines, concludes that the conduct or activity does not rise to 
a level warranting an administrative response, then no action will 
be taken. In those cases in which OFAC is aware that the Subject 
Person has knowledge of OFAC's investigation, OFAC generally will 
issue a letter to the Subject Person indicating that the 
investigation is being closed with no administrative action being 
taken. A no-action determination represents a final determination as 
to the apparent violation, unless OFAC later learns of additional 
related violations or other relevant facts.
    B. Request Additional Information. If OFAC determines that 
additional information regarding the apparent violation is needed, 
it may request further information from the

[[Page 51937]]

Subject Person or third parties, including through an administrative 
subpoena issued pursuant to 31 CFR Sec.  501.602. In the case of an 
institution subject to regulation where OFAC has entered into a 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Subject Person's 
regulator, OFAC will follow the procedures set forth in such MOU 
regarding consultation with the regulator. Even in the absence of an 
MOU, OFAC may seek relevant information about a regulated 
institution and/or the conduct or activity constituting the apparent 
violation from the institution's federal, state, or foreign 
regulator. Upon receipt of information determined to be sufficient 
to assess the apparent violation, OFAC will decide, based on an 
analysis of the General Factors outlined in Section III of these 
Guidelines, whether to pursue further enforcement action or whether 
some other response to the apparent violation is appropriate.
    C. Cautionary Letter: If OFAC determines that there is 
insufficient evidence to conclude that a violation has occurred or 
that a finding of violation is not warranted under the 
circumstances, but believes that the underlying conduct could lead 
to a violation in other circumstances and/or that a Subject Person 
does not appear to be exercising due diligence in assuring 
compliance with the statutes, Executive orders, and regulations that 
OFAC enforces, OFAC may issue a cautionary letter that conveys its 
concerns about the underlying conduct and/or the Subject Person's 
OFAC compliance policies, practices and/or procedures. A cautionary 
letter represents a final enforcement response to the apparent 
violation, unless OFAC later learns of additional related violations 
or other relevant facts, but does not constitute a final agency 
determination as to whether a violation has occurred.
    D. Finding of Violation: If OFAC determines that a violation has 
occurred and considers it important to document the occurrence of a 
violation and, based on an analysis of the General Factors outlined 
in Section III of these Guidelines, concludes that the Subject 
Person's conduct warrants an administrative response but that a 
civil monetary penalty is not the most appropriate response, OFAC 
may issue a finding of violation that identifies the violation, 
conveys OFAC's concerns about the violation and/or the Subject 
Person's OFAC compliance policies, practices and/or procedures, and/
or identifies the need for further compliance steps to be taken. A 
finding of violation represents a final enforcement response to the 
violation, unless OFAC later learns of additional related violations 
or other relevant facts, and constitutes a final agency 
determination that a violation has occurred. A finding of violation 
will afford the Subject Person an opportunity to respond to OFAC's 
determination that a violation has occurred.
    E. Civil Monetary Penalty. If OFAC determines that a violation 
has occurred and, based on an analysis of the General Factors 
outlined in Section III of these Guidelines, concludes that the 
Subject Person's conduct warrants the imposition of a monetary 
penalty, OFAC may impose a civil monetary penalty. Civil monetary 
penalty amounts will be determined as discussed in Section V of 
these Guidelines. The imposition of a civil monetary penalty 
constitutes a final agency determination that a violation has 
occurred and represents a final civil enforcement response to the 
violation.
    F. Criminal Referral. In appropriate circumstances, OFAC may 
refer the matter to appropriate law enforcement agencies for 
criminal investigation and/or prosecution. Apparent sanctions 
violations that OFAC has referred for criminal investigation and/or 
prosecution also may be subject to OFAC civil penalty or other 
administrative action.
    G. Other Administrative Actions. In addition to or in lieu of 
other administrative actions, OFAC may also take the following 
administrative actions in response to an apparent violation:
    1. License Denial, Suspension, Modification, or Revocation. OFAC 
authorizations to engage in a transaction (including the release of 
blocked funds) pursuant to a general or specific license may be 
withheld, denied, suspended, modified, or revoked in response to an 
apparent violation.
    2. Cease and Desist Order. OFAC may order the Subject Person to 
cease and desist from conduct or activities that are prohibited by 
any of the sanctions programs enforced by OFAC when OFAC has reason 
to believe that a Subject Person has engaged in such conduct or 
activities and/or that such conduct or activities are ongoing or may 
recur.

III. General Factors Affecting Administrative Action

    The type of enforcement action undertaken by OFAC will depend on 
the nature of the apparent violation and the harm caused to the 
relevant sanctions program and its objectives. As a general matter, 
OFAC will consider some or all of the following General Factors in 
determining the appropriate administrative action in response to an 
apparent violation of U.S. sanctions by a Subject Person, and, where 
a civil monetary penalty is imposed, in determining the appropriate 
amount of any such penalty:
    A. Willful or Reckless Violation of Law: a Subject Person's 
willfulness or recklessness in violating, attempting to violate, 
conspiring to violate, or causing a violation of the law. Generally, 
to the extent the conduct, activity or transaction at issue is the 
result of willful misconduct or a deliberate intent to violate, 
attempt to violate, conspire to violate, or cause a violation of the 
law, the OFAC enforcement response will be stronger. Among the 
factors OFAC may consider in evaluating willfulness or recklessness 
are:
    1. Willfulness. Was the conduct at issue the result of a 
decision to take action with the knowledge that such action would 
constitute a violation of U.S. law? Did the Subject Person know that 
the underlying conduct constituted, or likely constituted, a 
violation of U.S. law at the time of the conduct?
    2. Recklessness. Did the Subject Person demonstrate reckless 
disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements or otherwise fail to 
exercise a minimal degree of caution or care in avoiding conduct, 
activities or transactions that led to the apparent violation? Were 
there warning signs that should have alerted the Subject Person that 
an action or failure to act would lead to an apparent violation?
    3. Concealment. Was there an effort by the Subject Person to 
hide or purposely obfuscate its conduct, activities or transactions 
in order to mislead OFAC, federal, state or foreign regulators, or 
other parties involved in the transaction/conduct about an apparent 
violation?
    4. Pattern of Misconduct. Was the apparent violation the result 
of a pattern or practice of conduct or was it relatively isolated 
and atypical in nature?
    5. Prior Notice. Was the Subject Person on notice, or should it 
reasonably have been on notice, that the conduct at issue, or 
similar conduct, constituted a violation of U.S. law?
    6. Management Involvement. In cases of entities, at what level 
within the organization did the willful or reckless misconduct 
occur? Were supervisory or managerial level staff aware, or should 
they reasonably have been aware, of the willful or reckless 
misconduct?
    B. Awareness of Conduct at Issue: The Subject Person's awareness 
of the conduct, activity or transaction giving rise to the apparent 
violation. Generally, the greater a Subject Person's actual 
knowledge of, or reason to know about, the conduct, activity, or 
transaction constituting an apparent violation, the stronger the 
OFAC enforcement response will be. In the case of a corporation, 
awareness will focus on supervisory or managerial level staff in the 
business unit at issue, as well as other senior officers and 
managers. Among the factors OFAC may consider in evaluating the 
Subject Person's awareness of the conduct at issue are:
    1. Actual Knowledge. Did the Subject Person have actual 
knowledge that the conduct, activity, or transaction giving rise to 
an apparent violation took place? Was the conduct, activity, or 
transaction part of a business process, structure or arrangement 
that was designed or implemented with the intent to prevent or 
shield the Subject Person from having such actual knowledge, or was 
the conduct, activity, or transaction part of a business process, 
structure or arrangement implemented for other legitimate reasons 
that made it difficult or impossible for the Subject Person to have 
actual knowledge?
    2. Reason to Know. If the Subject Person did not have actual 
knowledge that the conduct, activity, or transaction took place, did 
the Subject Person have reason to know, or should the Subject Person 
reasonably have known, based on all readily available information 
and with the exercise of reasonable due diligence, that the conduct, 
activity, or transaction would or might take place?
    3. Management Involvement. In the case of an entity, was the 
conduct, activity or transaction undertaken with the explicit or 
implicit knowledge of senior management, or was the conduct, 
activity, or transaction undertaken by personnel outside the 
knowledge of senior management? If the apparent violation was 
undertaken without the knowledge of senior management, was there 
oversight intended to detect and prevent violations, or did the lack 
of knowledge by senior management result from disregard for its 
responsibility to comply with applicable sanctions laws?

[[Page 51938]]

    C. Harm to Sanctions Program Objectives: The actual or potential 
harm to sanctions program objectives caused by the conduct, 
activities, or transactions giving rise to the apparent violation. 
Among the factors OFAC may consider in evaluating the harm to 
sanctions program objectives are:
    1. Economic or Other Benefit to the Sanctioned Individual, 
Entity, or Country: The economic or other benefit conferred or 
attempted to be conferred to sanctioned individuals, entities, or 
countries as a result of an apparent violation, including the 
number, size, and impact of the transactions or incidents 
constituting an apparent violation(s), the length of time over which 
they occurred, and the nature of the economic or other benefit 
conferred. OFAC may also consider the causal link between the 
Subject Person's conduct and the economic benefit conferred or 
attempted to be conferred.
    2. Implications for U.S. Policy: The effect that the 
circumstances of the apparent violation had on the integrity of the 
U.S. sanctions program and the related policy objectives involved.
    3. License Eligibility: Whether the conduct constituting the 
apparent violation likely would have been licensed by OFAC under 
existing licensing policy.
    4. Humanitarian activity: Whether the conduct at issue was in 
support of a humanitarian activity.
    D. Individual Characteristics: The particular circumstances and 
characteristics of a Subject Person. Among the factors OFAC may 
consider in evaluating individual characteristics are:
    1. Commercial Sophistication: The commercial sophistication and 
experience of the Subject Person. Is the Subject Person an 
individual or an entity? If an individual, was the transaction 
constituting the apparent violation conducted for personal or 
business reasons?
    2. Size of Operations and Financial Condition: The size of a 
Subject Person's business operations and overall financial condition 
may be considered, where such information is available and relevant. 
Qualification of the Subject Person as a small business or 
organization for the purposes of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act, as determined by reference to the 
applicable regulations of the Small Business Administration, may 
also be considered.
    3. Volume of Transactions: The total volume of transactions 
undertaken by the Subject Person on an annual basis, with attention 
given to the apparent violations as compared with the total volume.
    4. Sanctions Violation History: The Subject Person's history of 
sanctions violations, including OFAC's issuance of prior findings of 
violations or cautionary, warning or evaluative letters, or other 
administrative actions.
    E. Compliance Program: The existence and nature of a Subject 
Person's OFAC compliance program at the time of the apparent 
violation, where relevant. In the case of an institution subject to 
regulation where OFAC has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) with the Subject Person's regulator, OFAC will follow the 
procedures set forth in such MOU regarding consultation with the 
regulator with regard to the quality and effectiveness of the 
Subject Person's compliance program. Even in the absence of an MOU, 
OFAC may take into consideration the views of federal, state, or 
foreign regulators, where relevant.
    F. Remedial Response: The Subject Person's corrective action 
taken in response to the apparent violation. Among the factors OFAC 
may consider in evaluating the remedial response are:
    1. The steps taken by the Subject Person upon learning of the 
apparent violation. Did the Subject Person immediately stop the 
conduct at issue?
    2. In the case of an entity, the processes followed to resolve 
issues related to the apparent violation. Did the Subject Person 
discover necessary information to ascertain the causes and extent of 
the apparent violation, fully and expeditiously? Where applicable, 
were the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors fully informed? 
If so, when?
    3. In the case of an entity, whether the Subject Person adopted 
new and more effective internal controls and procedures to prevent a 
recurrence of the apparent violation. If the Subject Person did not 
have an OFAC compliance program in place at the time of the apparent 
violation, did it implement one upon discovery or notification of 
the violations? If it did have an OFAC compliance program, did it 
take appropriate steps to enhance the program to prevent the 
recurrence of similar violations? Did the entity provide the 
individual(s) responsible for the apparent violation with additional 
training, and/or take other appropriate action, to ensure that 
similar violations do not occur in the future?
    4. Where applicable, whether the Subject Person undertook a 
thorough review to identify other possible violations.
    G. Cooperation with OFAC: The nature and extent of the Subject 
Person's cooperation with OFAC. Among the factors OFAC may consider 
in evaluating cooperation with OFAC are:
    1. Did the Subject Person voluntarily self-disclose the apparent 
violation to OFAC?
    2. Did the Subject Person provide OFAC with all relevant 
information regarding an apparent violation (whether or not 
voluntarily self-disclosed)?
    3. Did the Subject Person research and disclose to OFAC relevant 
information regarding any other apparent violations caused by the 
same course of conduct?
    4. Was information provided voluntarily or in response to an 
administrative subpoena?
    5. Did the Subject Person cooperate with, and promptly respond 
to, all requests for information?
    6. Did the Subject Person agree to a statute of limitations 
waiver or tolling agreement, if requested by OFAC (particularly in 
situations where the apparent violations were not immediately 
notified to or discovered by OFAC)?
    H. Timing of apparent violation in relation to imposition of 
sanctions: The timing of the apparent violation in relation to the 
adoption of the applicable prohibitions, particularly if the 
apparent violation took place soon after relevant changes in the 
sanctions program regulations or the addition of a new name to 
OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons 
(SDN List).
    I. Other enforcement action: Other enforcement actions taken by 
federal, state, or local agencies against the Subject Person for the 
apparent violation or similar apparent violations, including whether 
the settlement of alleged violations of OFAC regulations is part of 
a comprehensive settlement with other federal, state, or local 
agencies.
    J. Future Compliance/Deterrence Effect: The impact 
administrative action may have on promoting future compliance with 
U.S. economic sanctions by the Subject Person and similar Subject 
Persons, particularly those in the same industry sector.
    K. Other relevant factors on a case-by-case basis: Such other 
factors that OFAC deems relevant on a case-by-case basis in 
determining the appropriate enforcement response and/or the amount 
of any civil monetary penalty. OFAC will consider the totality of 
the circumstances to ensure that its enforcement response is 
proportionate to the nature of the violation.

IV. Civil Penalties for Failure to Furnish Information or Keep Records

    Except in the instance of authorized service providers under the 
Cuban Assets Control Regulations, for whom enforcement guidelines 
appear in the Service Provider Program Circular periodically issued 
by OFAC, as a general matter the following civil penalty amounts 
shall apply to a Subject Person's failure to furnish information or 
maintain records:
    A. The failure to respond to a requirement to furnish 
information pursuant to 31 CFR 501.602, or failure to furnish the 
requested information, may result in a penalty in an amount up to 
$20,000, irrespective of whether any other violation is alleged. 
Where OFAC has reason to believe that the apparent violation(s) that 
is the subject of the request to furnish information involves a 
transaction(s) valued at greater than $500,000, a failure to respond 
to a request to furnish information or failure to furnish the 
requested information may result in a penalty in an amount up to 
$50,000, irrespective of whether any other violation is alleged. A 
failure to respond to a requirement to furnish information or a 
failure to furnish the requested information shall be considered a 
continuing violation, and the penalties described above may be 
imposed each month that a party has continued to fail to respond or 
to furnish the requested information. OFAC may also seek to have a 
requirement to furnish information judicially enforced. Imposition 
of a civil monetary penalty for failure to respond to a requirement 
to furnish information or a failure to furnish the requested 
information does not preclude OFAC from seeking such judicial 
enforcement.
    B. The late filing of a required report, whether set forth in 
regulations or in a specific license, may result in a civil monetary 
penalty in an amount up to $2,500, if filed within the first 30 days 
after the report is due, and a penalty in an amount up

[[Page 51939]]

to $5,000 if filed more than 30 days after the report is due. If the 
report relates to blocked assets, the penalty may include an 
additional $1,000 for every 30 days that the report is overdue, up 
to five years.
    C. The first failure to maintain records in conformance with the 
requirements of OFAC's regulations or of a specific license may 
result in a penalty in an amount up to $5,000. Each additional 
violation in this regard may result in a penalty in an amount up to 
$10,000.

V. Civil Penalties

    OFAC will review the facts and circumstances surrounding an 
apparent violation and apply the General Factors for Taking 
Administrative Action in Section III above in determining whether to 
initiate a civil penalty proceeding and in determining the amount of 
any civil monetary penalty. OFAC will give careful consideration to 
the appropriateness of issuing a cautionary letter or finding of 
violation in lieu of the imposition of a civil monetary penalty.

A. Civil Penalty Process

    1. Pre-Penalty Notice. If OFAC has reason to believe that a 
violation of U.S. sanctions has occurred and that a civil monetary 
penalty is warranted, it will issue a Pre-Penalty Notice in 
accordance with the procedures set forth in the particular 
regulations governing the conduct, activity, or transactions giving 
rise to the apparent violation. The amount of the proposed penalty 
set forth in the Pre-Penalty Notice will reflect OFAC's preliminary 
assessment of the appropriate penalty amount, based on information 
then in OFAC's possession. The amount of the final penalty may 
change as OFAC learns additional relevant information. If, after 
issuance of a Pre-Penalty Notice, OFAC determines that a penalty in 
an amount that represents an increase of more than 10 percent from 
the proposed penalty set forth in the Pre-Penalty Notice is 
appropriate, or if OFAC intends to allege additional violations, it 
will issue a revised Pre-Penalty Notice setting forth the new 
proposed penalty amount and/or alleged violations.
    a. In general, the Pre-Penalty Notice will set forth the 
following with respect to the specific violations alleged and the 
proposed penalties:
    i. Description of the alleged violations, including the number 
of violations and their value, for which a penalty is being 
proposed;
    ii. Identification of the regulatory or other provisions alleged 
to have been violated;
    iii. Identification of the General Factors that were most 
relevant to the determination of the proposed penalty amount, 
including the base category (defined below) according to which the 
proposed penalty amount was calculated;
    iv. The maximum amount of the penalty to which the Subject 
Person could be subject under applicable law; and
    v. The proposed penalty amount, determined in accordance with 
the provisions set forth in these Guidelines.
    b. The Pre-Penalty Notice will also include information 
regarding how to respond to the Pre-Penalty Notice including:
    i. A statement that the Subject Person may submit a written 
response to the Pre-Penalty Notice by a date certain addressing the 
alleged violation(s), the General Factors Affecting Administrative 
Action set forth in Section III of these Guidelines, and any other 
information or evidence that the Subject Person deems relevant to 
OFAC's consideration.
    ii. A statement that a failure to respond to the Pre-Penalty 
Notice likely will result in the imposition of a civil monetary 
penalty in the amount set forth in the Pre-Penalty Notice.
    2. Response to Pre-Penalty Notice. A Subject Person may submit a 
written response to the Pre-Penalty Notice in accordance with the 
procedures set forth in the particular regulations governing the 
conduct, activity or transactions giving rise to the apparent 
violation. Generally, the response should either agree to the 
proposed penalty set forth in the Pre-Penalty Notice or set forth 
reasons why a penalty should not be imposed or, if imposed, why it 
should be a lesser amount than proposed, with particular attention 
paid to the General Factors Affecting Administrative Action set 
forth in Section III of these Guidelines. The response should 
include all documentary or other evidence available to the Subject 
Person that supports the arguments set forth in the response. OFAC 
will consider all relevant materials submitted.
    3. Penalty Notice. If OFAC receives no response to a Pre-Penalty 
Notice within the time prescribed in the Pre-Penalty Notice, or if 
following the receipt of a response to a Pre-Penalty Notice and a 
review of the information and evidence contained therein OFAC 
concludes that a violation warranting a civil monetary penalty has 
occurred, a Penalty Notice generally will be issued in accordance 
with the procedures set forth in the particular regulations 
governing the conduct, activity or transactions giving rise to the 
violation. A Penalty Notice constitutes a final agency finding that 
a violation has occurred. The penalty amount set forth in the 
Penalty Notice will take into account relevant additional 
information provided in response to a Pre-Penalty Notice. In the 
absence of a response to a Pre-Penalty Notice, the penalty amount 
set forth in the Penalty Notice will generally be the same as the 
proposed penalty set forth in the Pre-Penalty Notice.
    4. Referral to Financial Management Division. The imposition of 
a civil monetary penalty pursuant to a Penalty Notice creates a debt 
due the U.S. Government. OFAC will advise Treasury's Financial 
Management Division upon the imposition of a penalty. The Financial 
Management Division may take follow-up action to collect the penalty 
assessed if it is not paid within the prescribed time period set 
forth in the Penalty Notice. In addition or instead, the matter may 
be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for appropriate action 
to recover the penalty.
    5. Final Agency Action. The imposition of a penalty pursuant to 
a Penalty Notice constitutes final agency action with respect to the 
violation(s) for which the penalty is assessed.

B. Amount of Civil Penalty

    1. Egregious case. In those cases in which a civil monetary 
penalty is deemed appropriate, OFAC will make a determination as to 
whether a case is deemed ``egregious'' for purposes of the base 
penalty calculation. This determination will be based on an analysis 
of the applicable General Factors. In making the egregiousness 
determination, OFAC generally will give substantial weight to 
General Factors A (``willful or reckless violation of law''), B 
(``awareness of conduct at issue''), C (``harm to sanctions program 
objectives'') and D (``individual characteristics''), with 
particular emphasis on General Factors A and B. A case will be 
considered an ``egregious case'' where the analysis of the 
applicable General Factors, with a focus on those General Factors 
identified above, indicates that the case represents a particularly 
serious violation of the law calling for a strong enforcement 
response. A determination that a case is ``egregious'' will be made 
by the Director or Deputy Director.
    2. Pre-Penalty Notice. The penalty amount proposed in a Pre-
Penalty Notice shall generally be calculated as follows, except that 
neither the base amount nor the proposed penalty will exceed the 
applicable statutory maximum amount:
    a. Base category calculation
    i. In a non-egregious case, if the apparent violation is 
disclosed through a voluntary self-disclosure by the Subject Person, 
the base amount of the proposed civil penalty in the Pre-Penalty 
Notice shall be one-half of the transaction value, capped at a 
maximum base amount of $125,000 per violation.
    ii. In a non-egregious case, if the apparent violation comes to 
OFAC's attention by means other than a voluntary self-disclosure, 
the base amount of the proposed civil penalty in the Pre-Penalty 
Notice shall be the ``applicable schedule amount,'' as defined above 
(capped at a maximum base amount of $250,000 per violation).
    iii. In an egregious case, if the apparent violation is 
disclosed through a voluntary self-disclosure by a Subject Person, 
the base amount of the proposed civil penalty in the Pre-Penalty 
Notice shall be one-half the statutory maximum penalty applicable to 
the violation.
    iv. In an egregious case, if the apparent violation comes to 
OFAC's attention by means other than a voluntary self-disclosure, 
the base amount of the proposed civil monetary penalty in the Pre-
Penalty Notice shall be the statutory maximum penalty amount 
applicable to the violation.
    The following matrix represents the base amount of the proposed 
civil penalty for each category of violation:

[[Page 51940]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE08.003

    The base penalty amount will not exceed the applicable statutory 
maximum amount.
    b. Adjustment for applicable relevant General Factors
    The base amount of the proposed civil penalty may be adjusted to 
reflect applicable General Factors for Administrative Action set 
forth in Section III of these Guidelines. Each factor may be 
considered mitigating or aggravating, resulting in a lower or higher 
proposed penalty amount. As a general matter, in those cases where 
the following General Factors are present, OFAC will adjust the base 
proposed penalty amount in the following manner:
    i. In cases involving substantial cooperation with OFAC but no 
voluntary self-disclosure as defined herein, including cases in 
which an apparent violation is reported to OFAC by a third party but 
the Subject Person provides substantial additional information 
regarding the apparent violation and/or other related violations, 
the base penalty amount generally will be reduced between 25 and 40 
percent. Substantial cooperation in cases involving voluntary self-
disclosure may also be considered as a further mitigating factor.
    ii. In cases involving a Subject Person's first violation, the 
base penalty amount generally will be reduced up to 25 percent. The 
extent of any such mitigation will be based, in part, on whether the 
Subject Person had previously been issued a cautionary, warning or 
evaluative letter.
    In all cases, the proposed penalty amount will not exceed the 
applicable statutory maximum.
    In cases involving a large number of apparent violations, where 
the transaction value of all apparent violations is either unknown 
or would require a disproportionate allocation of resources to 
determine, OFAC may estimate or extrapolate the transaction value of 
the total universe of apparent violations in determining the amount 
of any proposed civil monetary penalty.
    3. Penalty Notice. The amount of the proposed civil penalty in 
the Pre-Penalty Notice will be the presumptive starting point for 
calculation of the civil penalty amount in the Penalty Notice. OFAC 
may adjust the penalty amount in the Penalty Notice based on:
    a. Evidence presented by the Subject Person in response to the 
Pre-Penalty Notice, or otherwise received by OFAC with respect to 
the underlying violation(s); and/or
    b. Any modification resulting from further review and 
reconsideration by OFAC of the proposed civil monetary penalty in 
light of the General Factors for Administrative Action in Section 
III above.
    In no event will the amount of the civil monetary penalty in the 
Penalty Notice exceed the proposed penalty set forth in the Pre-
Penalty Notice by more than 10 percent, or include additional 
alleged violations, unless a revised Pre-Penalty Notice has first 
been sent to the Subject Person as set forth above. In the event 
that OFAC determines upon further review that no penalty is 
appropriate, it will so inform the Subject Person in a no-action 
letter, a cautionary letter, or a finding of violation.

C. Settlements

    A settlement does not constitute a final agency determination 
that a violation has occurred.
    1. Settlement Process. Settlement discussions may be initiated 
by OFAC, the Subject Person or the Subject Person's authorized 
representative. Settlements generally will be negotiated in 
accordance with the principles set forth in these Guidelines with 
respect to appropriate penalty amounts. OFAC may condition the entry 
into or continuation of settlement negotiations on the execution of 
a tolling agreement with respect to the statute of limitations.
    2. Settlement Prior to Issuance of Pre-Penalty Notice. Where 
settlement discussions occur prior to the issuance of a Pre-Penalty 
Notice, the Subject Person may request in writing that OFAC withhold 
issuance of a Pre-Penalty Notice pending the conclusion of 
settlement discussions. OFAC will generally agree to such a request 
as long as settlement discussions are continuing in good faith and 
the statute of limitations is not at risk of expiring.
    3. Settlement Following Issuance of Pre-Penalty Notice. If a 
matter is settled after a Pre-Penalty Notice has been issued, but 
before a final Penalty Notice is issued, OFAC will not make a final 
determination as to whether a sanctions violation has occurred. In 
the event no settlement is reached, the period specified for written 
response to the Pre-Penalty Notice remains in effect unless 
additional time is granted by OFAC.
    4. Settlements of Multiple Apparent Violations. A settlement 
initiated for one apparent violation may also involve a

[[Page 51941]]

comprehensive or global settlement of multiple apparent violations 
covered by other Pre-Penalty Notices, apparent violations for which 
a Pre-Penalty Notice has not yet been issued by OFAC, or previously 
unknown apparent violations reported to OFAC during the pendency of 
an investigation of an apparent violation.

    Dated: September 2, 2008.
Adam J. Szubin,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
[FR Doc. E8-20704 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4811-45-P