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, or learn more about TURBOFAC and subscription options.
TURBOFAC is a module of the compliance platform OverRuled. To learn more about OverRuled, visit www.overruled.com.

TURBOFAC Commentary (424 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...