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) Technically, a U.S. person bank providing a cashier’s check to an SDN would be a violation of the law on a strict liability basis. In practice, OFAC appears to not enforce the sanctions rules unless, in its view, the alleged violator had a "reason to know" of the facts or circumstances leading to the violation. However, the "reason to know" threshold turns out to not serve as much of a safe harbor since OFAC generally finds that a person had "reason to know" of a violation any time it fails to exercise the sort of due diligence expected of OFAC given the facts and circumstances of the case.
This FAQ is notable for OFAC's implied recognition of this fact, implying that the extra-legal "reason to know" standard essentially determines what constitutes a violation in a technically strict liability setting. See General Note on the terms "knowingly," "should have known" and "reason to know" in the Primary Sanctions, Secondary Sanctions and Derivative Designation Contexts (System Ed. Note).
As for the specific transactions at issue, OFAC expects screening of purchasers and payees of cashier’s checks, so the "reason to know" standard would apply in the same way it applies in typical screening cases. From 2006 through at least 12/2020, neither cashier's checks nor mortgage lending appear to have been the subject of an enforcement action against a bank.