912. What does Belarus General License 3 (GL 3), “Authorizing Certain Transactions with the State Security Committee of the Republic of Belarus,” authorize?
Belarus GL 3 authorizes transactions and activities with the State Security Committee of the Republic of Belarus (the Belarusian KGB) that are necessary and ordinarily incident to requesting, receiving, utilizing, paying for, or dealing in certain licenses and authorizations for the importation, distribution, or use of certain information technology products in Belarus. It also authorizes transactions and activities necessary and ordinarily incident to compliance with rules and regulations administered by, and certain actions or investigations involving, the Belarusian KGB.
The GL was issued to ensure that U.S. persons engaging in certain business activities in Belarus that are not otherwise prohibited are not unduly impacted. Belarus GL 3 only authorizes certain transactions and activities with the Belarusian KGB acting in its administrative capacity and does not authorize U.S. persons to engage in transactions and activities with the Belarusian KGB except for the limited purposes described above.
Date Released
June 21, 2021
*FAQ amended on 6-10-22 to account for the extension of the GL(s).
1) Typically, OFAC does not generally license a transaction type unless it considers the authorized transaction to be within the scope of a prohibition.
Here OFAC authorizes "Requesting, receiving, utilizing, paying for, or dealing in licenses, permits, certifications, or notifications issued or registered by the [Belarusian KGB]." Characterizing "permits" as property in which the issuer has an interest is consistent with OFAC's past practice. "Requesting" the permits would also be prohibited but for the license as an "attempt" to deal in the property.
OFAC also generally licenses transactions incident to "[c]omplying with rules and regulations administered by the [Belarusian KGB]." Even though OFAC ordinarily does not license that which would be permissible but for the license, here the usual caveat that the activities are licensed to the extent "otherwise prohibited" tends against a reading that OFAC considers the mere passive "compliance" with rules set out by an SDN to constitute the provision of a "service" to that SDN. Instead, the idea seems to be that, to the degree that such compliance would entail actions rising to the level of a "dealing" in the blocked persons property (including services), OFAC authorizes it, bearing in mind that the bar for what constitutes dealing in "property," including "services," is very low.
2) Compare substantively identical FAQ 501.