Acronyms/Glossary

a contrario

We use the term 'a contrario,' or 'a contrario reading' to refer to the occasionally employed practice of reading general licenses as implicit statements concerning the scope of the prohibitions to which they relate, or in the case of specific licenses, the scope of the prohibitions to which they relate as well as the scope of pre-existing general licenses. See General Note on the a contrario (or "Negative") Reading of Certain Specific and General Licenses (System Ed. Note).

13599-only Banks

'13599-only bank' is shorthand for Iranian depository institutions whose property and interests in property are (or were) blocked solely pursuant to Executive Order 13599, whether or not they appear on the SDN list. Virtually all such banks are, as of Oct. 8, 2020, blocked pursuant to both EO 13599 and EO 13902 (see Comment on the Designation of the Iranian Financial Sector Pursuant to EO 13902). We now occasionally refer to such banks as "[IRAN] and [IRAN-EO13902] Financial Institutions."

200-level

The terms '.200' level, '.300-level' and so on refer to the way in which regulatory provisions implemented in the CFR are numbered by provision type. '200-level' refers to 'prohibitions,' which all carry six-digit numbers beginning in 200. 'Definitions' are numbered in the 300s, 'interpretations' in the 400s and 'licenses, authorizations, and statements of licensing policy' in the 500s.

300-level

The terms '.200' level, '.300-level' and so on refer to the way in which regulatory provisions implemented in the CFR are numbered by provision type. '200-level' refers to 'prohibitions,' which all carry six-digit numbers beginning in 200. 'Definitions' are numbered in the 300s, 'interpretations' in the 400s and 'licenses, authorizations, and statements of licensing policy' in the 500s.

400-level

The terms '.200' level, '.300-level' and so on refer to the way in which regulatory provisions implemented in the CFR are numbered by provision type. '200-level' refers to 'prohibitions,' which all carry six-digit numbers beginning in 200. 'Definitions' are numbered in the 300s, 'interpretations' in the 400s and 'licenses, authorizations, and statements of licensing policy' in the 500s.

50% Rule

The '50% rule' refers to OFAC's practice of treating persons owned 50% or greater by one or more blocked persons as being blocked by 'operation of law.' Refer to Notes Common to the "50 Percent Rule" .400-Level Interpretive Provision.

5XX.101

'5XX.101,' for example, is used to refer to all six-digit provisions that end in .101, irrespective of the sanctions program in which they appear. Certain six-digit regulatory provisions carry the same last three numbers in all sanctions programs, e.g. .101 (Relation of this part to other laws and regulations). Others correspond to the same substantive provision in the vast majority of sanctions programs (e.g. .201 which in virtually all list-based programs is the provision titled “Prohibited transactions involving blocked property” or “Prohibited transactions.”)

Affirmative Determination

The term 'affirmative determination' refers to the specific action that OFAC must take before a sanction it is authorized to impose is actually imposed. Contrast the term 'self-executing' prohibition, which refers to prohibitions that are active without the need for an 'affirmative determination.' Relevant background reading: General Note on the Scope of the Self-executing Blocking Prohibitions Depending on Whether OFAC has made an Affirmative Determination as to a Given Set of Facts (System Ed. Note).

Ag/med

'Ag/med' is sometimes used to refer to agricultural commodities, food, medical devices, medicine and medical supplies that are either within the scope of the types of products covered by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA), or at least closely related to such items. The term is used irrespective of whether TSRA actually covers a given transaction. Compare 'TSRA-related items' and 'TSRA-related goods.'

Applicant

In the context of discussions concerning requests for licenses and/or interpretive guidance, the term 'applicant' refers to the individual or entity submitting the request to OFAC. The term 'applicant' is used by OFAC (and us) to refer to persons requesting interpretive guidance, even where no license application is made. The term 'application' refers to the request made.

Authorized

The term 'authorized' is generally used to refer to transactions that are within the scope of one or more OFAC-administered prohibitions and licensed by OFAC, but not statutorily exempt from regulation. In rare cases, OFAC has used the term to refer to exempt transactions and transactions that are described by a license but are not otherwise within the scope of one or more OFAC-administered prohibitions as a threshold matter. Refer to General Note on the terms "Exempt," "Authorized," "Licensed," "Prohibited, "Not Prohibited" and "Sanctionable" (System Ed. Note).

Berman Amendment

'Berman Amendment' refers to Sec. 1702(b)-(3)-(4) of IEEPA and Sec. 5(b)(4) of TWEA, i.e. the exemptions for transactions ordinarily incident to travel (IEEPA only) and certain transactions related to information and informational materials (IEEPA and TWEA). The term refers to the referenced statutory provisions as they first appeared in 1989 and as they were amended in 1994. The term excludes the IEEPA exemptions for “personal communications” and certain humanitarian-related donations (Sec 1702(b)(1)-(2)); those exemptions appeared in IEEPA as it was initially enacted in 1977.

Boilerplate

We use the term 'boilerplate' to refer to language of legal provisions—statutory, regulatory and in executive orders—that is either linguistically identical or substantively identical across sanctions authorities. See e.g. Notes Common to "5XX.101" Provisions (Titled "Relation of this part to other laws and regulations") (System Ed. Note), for a discussion of what we refer to as a “boilerplate” regulatory provision.

Counterfactual

There are a number of sanctions provisions that are drafted such that their application to a given set of facts may require the analyst to imagine the existence of a transaction other than the one at issue. These are referred to as 'counterfactual analyses.' For example, § 560.556: 'Foreign entities owned or controlled by U.S. persons authorized to engage in transactions that are authorized by general license if engaged in by a U.S. person or in the United States. (a) Except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, an entity owned or controlled by a United States person and established or maintained outside the United States (a “U.S.-owned or -controlled foreign entity”) is authorized to engage in a transaction otherwise prohibited by § 560.215 that would be authorized by a general license set forth in or issued pursuant to this part if engaged in by a U.S. person or in the United States, provided the U.S.-owned or -controlled foreign entity is authorized to engage in the transaction only to the same extent as the U.S. person is authorized to engage in the transaction and subject to all the conditions and requirements set forth in the general license for the U.S. person.' Refer to General Note on Sanctions Provisions for which Determining Applicability Requires "Counterfactual" Analysis of Transactions (System Ed. Note).

Dealing in

As used by OFAC and us, the term “deal in,” or “dealing in,” is a legal term or art that corresponds to the range of conduct in which a person subject to blocking prohibitions may not engage with respect to blocked property. The scope of the term is broad and can be difficult to pin down at the margins. See Note Common to all "Transfer" Definitional Provisions, and the Meaning of “Transferred, Paid, Exported, Withdrawn, or Otherwise Dealt in (System Ed. Note).

Derivative Designation

The term 'derivative designation,' sometimes 'tier 2' designation, is used to describe designation authorities, generally excluding 'secondary sanctions,' that OFAC is authorized to use in response to activities that may or may not be within the scope of primary sanctions prohibitions and/or U.S. jurisdiction. We distinguish 'derivative' designation criteria from 'primary' designation criteria. As these are not legal terms of art, the distinction can be blurry at the margins, but in general “derivative” designation criteria are those that are common across sanctions programs and apply as a result of relations with sanctioned persons (e.g. being owned or controlled by a designated person; materially assisting a designated person), while “primary” designation criteria are specific to a given national emergency and are applied in connection with activity that is inherently “nefarious” (e.g. engaging in human rights abuses, etc.). See General Note on Secondary Sanctions and “Derivative Designation” Criteria; Identification of the Gap Between the Theoretical and Practical Scopes of Authorities Targeting Transactions with no U.S. Nexus; Enforcement Risk Management (System Ed. Note).

Dissipation

The term 'dissipation,' or dissipation of assets, as occasionally used by OFAC, refers to the discretionary unblocking of assets in which blocked persons have an interest and which are within the United States or in the possession or control of a person subject to blocking regulations, e.g. a U.S. person.

EAR99

Certain OFAC-administered regulatory provisions and other documents make reference to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). If an item falls under U.S. Department of Commerce jurisdiction and is not listed on the Commerce Control List, it is designated as EAR99. Consult this page.

Exempt; Exemption

In the context of OFAC-administered sanctions prohibitions, the term 'exempt' generally refers to transactions over which the President (i.e. OFAC) does not have jurisdiction to regulate. Those are statutory exemptions, e.g. those required by the Berman Amendment. Less common are “exemptions” that are not mandated by statute, but included in executive orders implemented by OFAC. See General Note on the terms "Exempt," "Authorized," "Licensed," "Prohibited, "Not Prohibited" and "Sanctionable" (System Ed. Note). Depending on the context, the distinction between 'exempt' and 'licensed' transactions can be significant.

Helms-Burton Act

Another term to describe the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996

IEEPA-based

We use the term “IEEPA-based,” as in “IEEPA-based embargo” or “IEEPA-based” sanctions program, to refer to sanctions programs whose statutory authority derives from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. One important distinction between IEEPA-based sanctions programs and others, such as those based on the Trading With The Enemy Act (TWEA) or the Kingpin Act, is that exemptions apply to transactions prohibited in IEEPA-based sanctions programs that do not apply in other programs. Another is that, in the context of embargoes, most prohibitions based on the authority of IEEPA, as opposed to TWEA, tend to be structured identically across programs. Technically, all IEEPA-based sanctions programs also rely in part on the authority of the National Emergencies Act (NEA), insofar as the NEA requires a valid national emergency to be declared before IEEPA powers can be employed, and most cite the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 in connection with restrictions on the unrestricted immigrant and non-immigrant entry into the United States of certain persons. For ordinary compliance purposes, however, the common invocation of those two statutes is not relevant.

Interest

The term 'interest' is a legal term of art used strictly to characterize the relationship between a given blocked person and a given piece of property that results in the property being blocked. Refer to Notes Common to most "Prohibited transactions" and "Prohibited transactions involving blocked property" Provisions; an Introduction to the Basic Blocking Language (System Ed. Note).

List-based

The term 'list based,' as in 'list-based sanctions program,' refers to sanctions programs/authorities other than those that include full embargoes on the importation and/or exportation of goods and services to/from a given destination. For such programs, the scope of the program is defined by a 'list,' i.e. a list of specifically named entities that are included on the SDN list or otherwise blocked by operation of law, e.g. pursuant to the 50% rule. As of 10/2019, we consider the Venezuela program to constitute a “list-based” program, even though it is irregular insofar as the Government of Venezuela is blocked but without the embargo prohibitions that are generally associated with countries whose governments are blocked.

Material Assistance

The term 'material assistance,' or 'materially assist,' is frequently used as shorthand to describe activities falling within the scope of the boilerplate 'derivative designation' criterion allowing for the designation of persons affirmatively determined 'to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of' certain persons and/or activities.

Non-blocking prohibitions

The term "primary Sanctions prohibitions" refers to conduct that is unlawful, i.e. "prohibited," rather than merely "sanctionable." Within the scope of "prohibitions" are (i) those related to "blocking prohibitions" and (ii) all others. The we use the term "non-blocking prohibitions" to refer to all prohibitions other than blocking prohibitions, e.g. prohibitions on the importation and exportation of goods and services from comprehensively embargoed destinations, such as Iran and Crimea.

Not Prohibited

'Not prohibited' is a legal term of art used to describe transactions that are either i) exempt, ii) licensed or iii) outside the scope of OFAC-administered sanctions regulations altogether. See General Note on the terms "Exempt," "Authorized," "Licensed," "Prohibited, "Not Prohibited" and "Sanctionable" (System Ed. Note).

OFAC-administered Sanctions Laws

We use the terms 'OFAC-administered sanctions laws' and 'OFAC-administered sanctions authorities' to refer to all legal provisions that OFAC administers, whether or not OFAC responsibilities are shared with the Department of State. For example, there are many 'secondary sanctions' provisions for which the determination of whether a person is sanctioned is made by the Department of State (see e.g. Sec. 3 of EO 13846). Where one or more of the potentially applicable sanctions imposed by the Department of State is administered by OFAC—e.g. asset blocking or correspondent account-related sanctions—we consider the entirety of the sanctions provision to fall within the scope of the term 'OFAC-administered sanctions laws,' meaning that both the State Department-administered designation criteria and the prohibitions administered by OFAC subsequent to a designation are within the scope of the authorities included in the Research System.

Operation of Law

The term 'operation of law,' as used by us and OFAC, refers to legal consequences that obtain without the need for an 'affirmative determination' or any particular action by OFAC. A person blocked pursuant to the 50% rule and not listed on the SDN list is blocked 'by operation of law.' We also use the term to describe persons blocked because they are controlled by blocked persons, even where the 50% rule does not apply, such as persons 'controlled,' but not owned, by blocked governments. See e.g. 542.305.

Owned or Controlled

When the terms 'owned or controlled' appear in OFAC-produced documents and our comments, the scope of the terms 'ownership' or 'control' can vary significantly depending on the legal context. The scope of the term will depend on the context in which it is used. Refer to General Note on "Control" and "Otherwise Controlled" within the Meaning of the Sanctions Regulations (System Ed. Note).

Primary Sanctions

The term 'primary sanctions' refers to sanctions programs and/or provisions that define the scope of 'prohibited' conduct, as opposed to conduct that is merely 'sanctionable' but may not otherwise be 'prohibited.' Engaging in 'prohibited' conduct in violation of 'primary sanctions' provisions is a violation of law punishable by civil penalties and/or criminal prosecution, while engaging in conduct that is 'sanctionable,' but not otherwise 'prohibited,' can result in a variety of consequences—e.g. addition to the SDN list—but not the imposition of civil penalties and/or criminal prosecution. See General Note on the terms "Exempt," "Authorized," "Licensed," "Prohibited, "Not Prohibited" and "Sanctionable" (System Ed. Note).

Prohibited

The term 'prohibited' refers to conduct in violation of OFAC-administered sanctions laws that can result in civil penalties and/or criminal prosecution. Contrast the term 'sanctionable.' See General Note on the terms "Exempt," "Authorized," "Licensed," "Prohibited, "Not Prohibited" and "Sanctionable" (System Ed. Note).

Quasi-secondary Sanctions

The term 'quasi secondary sanctions' is used to refer to ordinary designation criterion—most commonly 'derivative designation' criteria such as the one allowing for the designation of persons that 'materially assist' certain blocked persons—that OFAC uses to sanction or threaten the sanctioning of what may amount to ordinary international trade transactions, not in violation of international law or the law of any of the countries having jurisdiction over the potentially “sanctionable” transaction(s). When employed in this fashion, the distinction between ordinary “derivative designation” authorities and what OFAC refers to as 'secondary sanctions' can be of little practical importance. For more information on this issue in general, see General Note on Secondary Sanctions and “Derivative Designation” Criteria; Identification of the Gap Between the Theoretical and Practical Scopes of Authorities Targeting Transactions with no U.S. Nexus; Enforcement Risk Management (System Ed. Note).

Sanctionable

Engaging in 'prohibited' conduct in violation of 'primary sanctions' provisions is a violation of law punishable by civil penalties and/or criminal prosecution, while engaging in conduct that is 'sanctionable,' but not otherwise 'prohibited,' can result in a variety of consequences—e.g. addition to the SDN list—but not the imposition of civil penalties and/or criminal prosecution. See General Note on the terms 'Exempt,' 'Authorized,' 'Licensed,' 'Prohibited, 'Not Prohibited' and 'Sanctionable' (System Ed. Note). Note that the term “sanctionable,” as it is used by OFAC as a term of art, also refers to conduct within the scope of OFAC’s designation criteria, e.g. “materially assisting” certain blocked persons.” OFAC does not use the term “secondary sanctions” to refer to ordinary designation authorities. See General Note on Secondary Sanctions and “Derivative Designation” Criteria; Identification of the Gap Between the Theoretical and Practical Scopes of Authorities Targeting Transactions with no U.S. Nexus; Enforcement Risk Management (System Ed. Note).

Sanctioned Person

As we use it, the term 'sanctioned person' refers to all counterparties, whether or not they are individuals or entities, with whom transacting may result in violations of OFAC-administered sanctions laws. The term includes persons that are 'blocked,' as well as non-blocked persons that are 'in' or are 'ordinarily resident in' certain sanctioned countries/territories, e.g. Iran or Crimea. Such persons are 'sanctioned' insofar as most dealings with them require licenses from OFAC, even though they are not blocked. OFAC generally uses the term 'sanctioned person' in the same fashion.

Secondary Sanctions

The term 'secondary sanctions' refers to sanctions programs and/or provisions that define the scope of conduct that is 'sanctionable,' but may or may not be “prohibited.” Engaging in 'prohibited' conduct in violation of 'primary sanctions' provisions is a violation of law punishable by civil penalties and/or criminal prosecution, while engaging in conduct that is 'sanctionable,' but not otherwise 'prohibited,' can result in a variety of consequences—e.g. addition to the SDN list—but not the imposition of civil penalties and/or criminal prosecution. See General Note on the terms 'Exempt,' 'Authorized,' 'Licensed,' 'Prohibited, 'Not Prohibited' and 'Sanctionable' (System Ed. Note). Note that the term “sanctionable,” as it is used by OFAC as a term of art, also refers to conduct within the scope of OFAC’s designation criteria, e.g. “materially assisting” certain blocked persons.” OFAC does not use the term “secondary sanctions” to refer to ordinary designation authorities. See General Note on Secondary Sanctions and “Derivative Designation” Criteria; Identification of the Gap Between the Theoretical and Practical Scopes of Authorities Targeting Transactions with no U.S. Nexus; Enforcement Risk Management (System Ed. Note).

Self-executing

Compare 'affirmative determination.' 'Self-executing' sanctions provisions are those that attach consequences to circumstances or facts without OFAC needing to make an 'affirmative determination' as to whether such circumstances or facts exist. The difference between the 'affirmative determination' and “self-executing” contexts is most important for the questions of whether one set of persons 'owns or controls' another, and whether a person has an 'interest' in property. On those issues, the scope of the terms 'control' and 'interest' are markedly broader in the 'affirmative determination' context than they are the 'self-executing' context. Refer to General Note on the Scope of the Self-executing Blocking Prohibitions Depending on Whether OFAC has made an Affirmative Determination as to a Given Set of Facts (System Ed. Note).

Subject to Sanctions

The meaning of the term 'subject to,' when used in the context of 'subject to sanctions prohibitions,' generally means 'within the scope of,' but can vary depending on the context. Persons 'subject to sanctions prohibitions' (or 'regulations') are generally persons, e.g. U.S. persons, whose activities are within OFAC's jurisdiction and must comply with sanctions prohibitions. In contrast, property 'subject to' blocking prohibitions can refer to property, wherever located, in which U.S. persons may not deal. This is because such property is within the scope of blocking prohibitions. The term 'subject to sanctions,' is also used as a legal term of art that sometimes refers to a circumscribed set of sanctioned persons. For example, Sec. 10(a) of SSIDES, as amended by Sec. 228 of CAATSA, provides for secondary sanctions for any person that knowingly: 'facilitates a significant transaction or transactions, including deceptive or structured transactions, for or on behalf of...any person subject to sanctions imposed by the United States with respect to the Russian Federation; or...any child, spouse, parent, or sibling of [a person subject to sanctions imposed by the United States with respect to the Russian Federation].' In this context, the term 'subject to sanctions' includes entities on the 'SSI List,' but excludes persons that are not blocked but are otherwise 'ordinarily resident' in Crimea. In that case, the latter are persons that OFAC would refer to as 'sanctioned persons' for the purposes of defining the scope of the prohibition on exporting services to Crimea, but not 'person subject to sanctions imposed by the United States with respect to the Russian Federation' for the purposes of Sec. 10(a) of SSIDES. See FAQ # 546. OFAC has also used the term 'subject to sanctions' to refer to activity that is 'sanctionable,' but not necessarily 'prohibited.' See e.g. FAQ # 303.

Subject to the ITSR

The term 'subject to the ITSR' refers to persons that are subject to the prohibitions of the ITSR in the sense that they must comply with the prohibitions, e.g. U.S. persons and U.S.-owned or -controlled foreign firms. Contrast 'subject to sanctions.'

TSRA-related

We use the term TSRA-related, as in 'TSRA-related items,' to refer to agricultural commodities, food, medical devices, medicine and medical supplies, or transactions involving such items, that are either within the scope of the types of products covered by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA), or at least closely related to such items. The term is used irrespective of whether TSRA actually covers a given transaction. Compare 'ag/med.' Though infrequently, OFAC also uses the term 'TSRA-related' in this manner. See e.g. this page, referring to 'Specific TSRA-Related Regulatory Amendments.'

USOOC Foreign Entity

We occasionally use this term to describe “non-U.S. persons” that are subject to the ITSR as a result of 560.215 of the ITSR. The term is synonymous with “an entity that is owned or controlled by a United States person and established or maintained outside the United States.”