[FULL TEXT IN ORIGINAL PDF]
[...]
II. An Asset Cannot Be "Contested" For Purposes Of 31 C.F.R. § 535.333 Unless Iran Itself Claims A Property Interest In The Asset
Although the district court eventually ruled for the Museums, at an earlier stage the court rejected their motions to dissolve the attachment. Rubin, 456 F. Supp. 2d at 234-35. And as part of that ruling, the court concluded that the assets in question were "contested" for purposes of one of OFAC’s regulations, 31 C.F.R. § 535.333, since the plaintiffs and the Museums did not agree on Iran’s relationship to those assets. If this Court reaches the issue, it should reject the district court’s interpretation of the regulation.[7]
[7] In this brief, the United States expresses no view on whether any of the artifacts qualify as "blocked assets" under TRIA...
1) The government/OFAC opine that property can be within the scope 535.201 and not constitute a "blocked asset of" the Government of Iran for TRIA purposes. As discussed below, the difference between "property of" a government for TRIA purposes and property "in which" the government has an "interest" for blocking purposes has been made in various other cases.
2) The implication of OFAC's arguments are that the transfer directives of the IACR have no ‘expiration date.’ Iran may assert claims to property initially blocked pursuant to the IACR at any time, and U.S. persons are subject to the transfer obligations, even today, subject to the proviso that the GOI have uncontested and non-contingent ownership in the property. See Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran 830 F.3d 470 (7th...