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.
1) The opinion referred to the in the FAQ can be found here.
Compare FAQ # 881, addressing the "transliteration error" concerning Luokung that was corrected prior to the issuance of the injunction at issue in this FAQ. Note that FAQ # 881 was removed concurrent with the posting of FAQ # 883. FAQ #883 acknowledges a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the EO 13959 prohibitions as they apply to Luokung. That FAQ does, nevertheless, retain some interpretive value.
2) Compare FAQ # 880, addressing an injunction as applied to the enforcement of the prohibitions of EO 13959 with respect to a different "CMC" entity (Xiaomi Corporation). The opinion in the Luokung largely tracks the reasoning of the Xiaomi case.