Case No. VENEZUELA-2018-358620-1

Ed. Note: if you’re new to TURBOFAC, please take note that the text string filtration function generally shouldn’t be used for terms such as “ordinarily resident,” “causing” or “new debt”. For research on the meaning of words and phrases such as those, i.e. terms central to the key legal issues in sanctions law that appear on a cross-programmatic basis, you’re typically better off locating and checking the appropriate box in the “Key Legal Issues” search category, which will limit the results to those that have been manually assessed as being relevant for the interpretation of the terms at issue.

Try typing your search term (“ordinarily resident,” “new debt,” or something else) in the “Find a Search Filter” box at the top of the page, and the corresponding “Key Legal Issues” check box will pop up instantly, if one exists. Once you check the box (e.g. “new debt,” with ~55 results), you can always use the text string filtration function to further refine your search (e.g. by typing “invoice” and narrowing the ~55 results to ~10).

Note in addition that the same applies to text string searches such as “14071” (if you’re looking for items related to EO 14071). By typing “14071” in the “Find a Search Filter” field up top, you will be able to instantly narrow the results down to items manually assessed as relating to EO 14071. Ditto terms such as “515.204” or “Iran General License G” (try the “Discrete Legal Provision” search category). Please contact [email protected] or [email protected] with any questions on search results and efficiency.

Please click "Apply Text String Filters" again after clicking the "Close" button immediately below.

TURBOFAC Commentary (664 words)

Notes:

1) This guidance letter appears to provide crucial guidance concerning the scope of the standard “new debt” prohibition, as well as the scope of the blocking prohibition. The letter involves a Swiss subsidiary of a U.S. person requesting guidance allowing U.S. persons to be involved in certain dealings in a debt of an entity (or entities) in Venezuela that had “dealt predominantly with PDVSA in the past.” This “predominant” past dealing is why the applicant sought a license “out of an abundance of caution”. (Note that the Venezuelan entity at issue here may be Venequip, S.A., an entity that had “distributed, sold, and serviced Caterpillar equipment in Venezuela” exclusively for two decades prior to 2019 (see https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.409204/gov.uscourts.ilnd.409204.22.0.pdf).

2) In concluding that “the proposed activities would not trigger the [new debt-related] prohibitions of E.O. 13808,” while noting that “U.S....

Welcome!

Welcome!

Case No. VENEZUELA-2018-358620-1

TURBOFAC Commentary (664 words)