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.
1) This Guidance appears to modify GEN-235613 (Nov 9, 2004), which is still on OFAC's interpretive ruling index.
The guidance appears to allow a certain set of U.S. persons to simply reject international transactions that the regulations would otherwise obligate them to block.
It is unclear what form the "authorization" referred to here took, i.e. whether OFAC separately issued a specific license to NACHA for use by all of its members, or the letter itself constituted a self-executing "authorization" of otherwise prohibited transactions. This would appear to be an example of a "correspondence authorization," permitting otherwise prohibited activities without the release of a formal specific license. Compare Case SH-98179b.
The fact that the letter has no case identifier suggests that it was an attachment to another letter and/or license that provides more...