Sanctions-related Judicial Opinion - United States v. Atilla - 15 Cr. 867 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2018) (Dkt. 493)

Ed. Note: if you’re new to TURBOFAC, please take note that the text string filtration function generally shouldn’t be used for terms such as “ordinarily resident,” “causing” or “new debt”. For research on the meaning of words and phrases such as those, i.e. terms central to the key legal issues in sanctions law that appear on a cross-programmatic basis, you’re typically better off locating and checking the appropriate box in the “Key Legal Issues” search category, which will limit the results to those that have been manually assessed as being relevant for the interpretation of the terms at issue.

Try typing your search term (“ordinarily resident,” “new debt,” or something else) in the “Find a Search Filter” box at the top of the page, and the corresponding “Key Legal Issues” check box will pop up instantly, if one exists. Once you check the box (e.g. “new debt,” with ~55 results), you can always use the text string filtration function to further refine your search (e.g. by typing “invoice” and narrowing the ~55 results to ~10).

Note in addition that the same applies to text string searches such as “14071” (if you’re looking for items related to EO 14071). By typing “14071” in the “Find a Search Filter” field up top, you will be able to instantly narrow the results down to items manually assessed as relating to EO 14071. Ditto terms such as “515.204” or “Iran General License G” (try the “Discrete Legal Provision” search category). Please contact [email protected] or [email protected] with any questions on search results and efficiency.

Please click "Apply Text String Filters" again after clicking the "Close" button immediately below.

TURBOFAC Commentary (2071 words)

Notes:

*The below was drafted prior to the 2nd. Circuit Court of Appeal's decision (see U.S. v. Atilla (2nd Cir. 2020)), and has not been edited since the issuance of that decision. The 2nd. Circuit upheld the conviction of Atilla, but found that one cannot violate the by "evading" or "avoiding" a secondary sanctions provision. Instead, the "evasion" and "avoidance" language extends only to conduct that is actually "prohibited," i.e. itself unlawful, rather than merely "sanctionable."

1) BACKGROUND

While not particularly clear from the opinion itself, the Atilla case, currently on appeal, is distinguishable from U.S. v. Zarrab, 15 CR 867 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2016) (Dkt. 90), and important because it theoretically permits for criminal and civil penalties for "violations" of secondary sanctions, at least when those secondary sanctions are implemented in a set...

Welcome!

Welcome!

United States v. Atilla - 15 Cr. 867 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2018) (Dkt. 493)

TURBOFAC Commentary (2071 words)