ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION FOR NOVEMBER 7, 2019
Apollo Aviation Group, LLC (“Apollo,” now d/b/a Carlyle Aviation Partners Ltd.[1]) Settles Potential Civil Liability for Apparent Violations of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 538:[2] Apollo, a U.S. company organized and headquartered in Florida, has agreed to pay $210,600 to settle its potential civil liability for 12 apparent violations of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 538 (SSR). Specifically, Apollo appears to have violated §§ 538.201 and 538.205 when it leased three aircraft engines to an entity incorporated in the United Arab Emirates (“Company 1”), which then subleased the engines to a Ukrainian airline (“Company 2”), which then installed the engines on an aircraft wet leased[3] to Sudan Airways (“Sudan Air”). At the time of the transactions, Sudan Air was identified on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the “SDN List”) as meeting the definition...
1) THE IMPORTANCE OF OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY IN CASES THAT ALSO INVOLVE TRANSSHIPMENT; AN EFFECTIVE CARVEOUT TO THE SO-CALLED “GENERAL INVENTORY” RULE
The Apollo Aviation case does not necessarily alter the previously known scope of the basic blocking and embargoed destination export prohibitions that Apollo was charged with violating, but it is precedential in a few important respects, clarifying the relationship between property owned by U.S. persons and sanctions prohibitions. (Read in conjunction with Case No. SU-4011-1, and important companion case).
The most important thing to keep in mind about the case is that it is not a typical "transshipment" case, even though it may appear that way at first blush. Compare Case No. IA-2012-298076-1, which was issued only 10 months prior to the first Apollo lease, and in connection with the broad export prohibition in the