OFAC FAQ (Current) # 939 - Belarus Sanctions

Date issued: Dec. 02 2021

TURBOFAC Commentary (290 words)

Notes:

1) This FAQ is similar to other FAQs (see e.g. FAQ # 841 and FAQ # 883) addressing designations of individual entities that were made in conjunction with the issuance of a wind-down license. A difference between this FAQ and the typical one is that OFAC says that the GL does not "authorize the entry into new purchase contracts, or the stockpiling of inventory". Refer to comments to FAQ # 918 for a discussion of the significance of that phrase.

2) See generally Examples of Transactions Deemed to be, and not to be, Within the Scope of the Standard "Wind-down" and "Maintenance" GLs.

3) Refer to Belarus General License 5, and comments thereto, for discussion of the irregular nature of GL 5, particularly insofar as it overlaps in scope with Belarus General License 4 and acts to effectively extend GL 4 through the authorization of transactions of a type that are authorized by GL 4.

4) As discussed in detail in the comments to GL 5, the relationship between Belaruskali and BPC and Agrorozkvit is such that Belaruskali is the major Belarisuan producer of potash, and BPC and Agrorozkvit are exporters of such potash, but those entities are not majority-owned by Belaruskali. In the FAQ, OFAC states that Belaruskali would have an “interest” in “certain resale transactions by BPC or Agrorozkvit LLC of product sourced from Belaruskali”. On that issue, refer generally to General Note on the Notion of an "Interest in Property" as Applied to Physical Goods and Technology Produced or Processed in Whole or in Part by Blocked Persons. It is not necessarily the case that U.S. persons would, even after the expiry of GL 5, be prohibited from all dealings in Belaruskali-produced items.