U.S. v. Graham Bonham Carter (Criminal Indictment, 2022 - SDNY)

Date issued: Oct. 12 2022

You've hit a wall. Sign in if you have an account, learn more about TURBOFAC and subscription options, or purchase access to the text of the document on this page, the native .pdf file, and the associated TURBOFAC original commentary.
TURBOFAC is a module of the compliance platform OverRuled. To learn more about OverRuled, visit www.overruled.com.

TURBOFAC Commentary (431 words)

Notes:

1) BACKGROUND

While paragraph 26 is a "kitchen sink" description of the sanctions violations at issue ("violated, attempted to violate, and caused a violation of..."), a viable legal basis for the allegations is relatively straightforward with Bonham Carter--as a front-man for Deripaska--having "caused" U.S. persons to indirectly provide funds and services for the benefit of Deripaska. Compare Settlement Agreement (OFAC) - UniCredit Bank AG (non-U.S. bank causing the exportation of services through a front company to a blocked person).

Two factual bases for violations are alleged. One is the making of payments to a U.S. bank for the upkeep of Deripaska's U.S.-based properties. (Note that Gracetown Inc. was sent a blocking notice on the day that Deripaska was blocked (see ENF 51231 (1) (Notable Notification of Third Party Blocking)), so it is somewhat strange that Deripaska and...