PRINT
Case No. Ukraine-EO13661-2015-321199-1
[ ]
Vice President – Finance
The French Oil Mill Machinery Company
1035 West Greene Street
P.O. Box 920
Piqua, OH 45356
Dear Ms. [ ]:
This responds to your request dated August 7, 2015, as supplemented on August 21, 2015 and October 8, 2015 (collectively, the “Application”), to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), seeking authorization to export replacement spare parts for a polymer dewatering screw press (the “Goods”) to JSC Voronezhsintezkauchuk, a synthetic rubber manufacturer in Russia. According to the Application, Voronezhsintezkauchuk is owned by SIBUR Holding. You further state that it is the understanding of the French Oil Mill Machinery Company (the “French Oil Mill”) that Gennady Timchenko (“Timchenko”), a person whose property and interest in property are blocked pursuant to the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R....
Click the appropriate link below for access to this file.
Click the appropriate link below for access to this file.
1) From a legal perspective, this letter is straightforward. The applicant wants to deal with a Russian entity that was not blocked, but was indirectly 15.3% owned by a blocked person. This is not prohibited absent some sanctions-implicating fact other than the 15.3% blocked person ownership. From a procedural perspective, the letter is notable for the fact that something this straightforward took over three years to reply to (not uncommon in cases where the transaction at issue is legal but not exactly one that advances policy interests), and the language OFAC uses in the guidance is also notable. Compare Case No. BEL-2018-351645-1, in which OFAC uses almost identical language:
“OFAC encourages a risk-based approach to OFAC compliance. Persons making an effort to comply with OFAC rules and regulations should conduct appropriate due diligence regarding the ownership structure of a particular entity and...