31 CFR § 598.510 - Certain transactions for maintenance, employment, and related banking services for blocked individuals physically located in the United States.

Date issued: May. 17 2021

TURBOFAC Commentary (419 words)

Notes:

[12-20-22 update - similar provision added at 599.511]

---

1) This provision—added to the FNKSR on 5-17-2021 in connection with a broader modernization of the regulations—is unique to the FNKSR and NTSR.

The FNKSR, perhaps along with the GTSR, is one of the sanctions programs that frequently apply to foreign nationals that are prisoners in the U.S. (and are therefore “U.S. persons” while they are awaiting trial or imprisoned in the U.S.) Compare Case No. FNK-2016-327937-1.

Up through the addition of this GL, OFAC had typically issued "maintenance" specific licenses for the situations at issue here. See e.g., LICENSE No. FNK-2015-323572-1.

2) Crucially, this GL is a "fresh funds" GL only. In cases where SDNT prisoner has funds located only in the U.S., past practice suggests that OFAC may license limited unblocking for maintenance purposes.

3) A prisoner in the U.S. is a U.S. person (hence the need for the GL), and all funds within the “possession or control” of a U.S. person are blocked. Does that mean that all funds over which the prisoner has “control” (effective or constructive) are outside the scope of the GL because they are blocked? It seems not; see again LICENSE No. FNK-2015-323572-1 (and comments thereto). In this regard, it is notable that OFAC explicitly contemplates that non-blocked funds qualifying for the GL may come from the blocked spouse of a blocked person located in the U.S. The implication here is that funds coming from a spouse of a blocked person are not necessarily within the “control” of the blocked person for purposes of the blocking prohibition; otherwise they would technically be blocked funds because they would be within the “possession or control” of a blocked person.

4) Civil Enforcement Information - MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. predates this GL by less than a month, and may have been the impetus for the addition implementation of the GL.

5) "[P]ersons who are sharing or who would ordinarily share a common dwelling as a family" is a construction that is unique to this GL. It seems aimed at including same sex partners, but the applicability to adult children and extended family members is unclear. "[O]rdinarily share a common dwelling as a family" is largely a cultural/generational question. One would imagine that the cutoff is not at 18-year-olds, but beyond that it is not clear.

6) See notable guidance letter at Case No. ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059-2024-1218345-1.