PRINT
Case No. CU-2015-324039-1
[ ]
Berenthal & Associates, P.C.
777 Third Avenue
Suite 22-D
New York, NY 10017
Dear Mr. [ ]:
This is in reply to your November 20, 2015 request, on behalf of Berenthal & Associates, P.C., to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for guidance on the application of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515 (CACR).
The CACR prohibit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from dealing in property in which Cuba or a Cuban national has an interest, unless the activities at issue are authorized or exempt from prohibition. CACR, §§ 515.201, 515.206.
Berenthal & Associates is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction under the CACR, and the proposed transactions are prohibited. However, as you note, the...
Click the appropriate link below for access to this file.
Click the appropriate link below for access to this file.
1) The redactions leave not much to see here, but this letter is notable as an additional example of OFAC licensing using constructions such as the following:
"Because the proposed activities appear to be authorized by general license, they require no further authorization from OFAC." Compare Case No. CU-2015-322096-1.
Hedging language such as "may" or "appear", when used in these determinations, does not necessarily signal a degree of uncertainty requiring the applicant to wonder whether OFAC actually regards the activities at issue as being illegal. Otherwise, it would not follow that OFAC would refuse to issue a specific license. Indeed, where OFAC is genuinely doubtful as to whether a given activity is covered by a GL or exemption but unwilling to rule it out, the standard mechanism for addressing that is to issue a