Civil Enforcement Information - UBS AG

Date issued: Aug. 27 2015

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 Commentary (310 words)

Notes:

1) While the causing of the export of custodial services was covered by Clearstream Banking S.A. (2014), the UBS AG case is the first in which a wider variety of "passive" services were considered distinct violations of the sanctions violations.

The receipt of dividends on U.S. securities and payments of management fees, for example, are activities which are normally not directly ordered by a client, but rather are performed on the basis of a single delegated authority.

3) The aggressive counting of discrete violations may have been owed in part to the footnote describing how UBS apparently refused to disclose the name of the client at issue.

4) The way in which the violations were counted in this action raises the possibly that, if motivated to, OFAC could or would count the accrual of...