PRINT
Case No. UKRAINE-EO13661-2018-355043-1
[***]
[***]
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Dear Mr. [***]:
This responds to the request of July 20, 2018, from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, as well as correspondence from WilmerHale dated October 3, 2018 and February 19, 2019, submitted on behalf of [ ], Inc. (collectively, the “Application”), to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), seeking authorization for Facebook [***].
[***].
Absent authorization or exemption, the Regulations prohibit U.S. persons, such as Facebook, from engaging in transactions or dealings (including the direct or indirect provision of services) with [*]. Such transactions or dealings could include, for example, entering into contracts with [*] or any other designated or blocked person is the signatory or entering into negotiations with [*] whether direct or indirect, such as through written exchanges...
Click the appropriate link below for access to this file.
Click the appropriate link below for access to this file.
1) Relevant Legal Background
The unredacted portion of this letter provides what appears to be a valuable piece to the puzzle of how OFAC treats “negotiations” with non-blocked entities where there is a blocked person associated with the entity. See generally section 5 of the Pre-transactional Activities Note. One one hand, OFAC has said that “transactions or dealings, directly or indirectly, with an SDN, for example by entering into contracts that are signed by an SDN, entering into negotiations with an SDN” are prohibited. (FAQ 505). Likewise, “negotiations” “involving, directly or indirectly, a blocked person” are prohibited (FAQ 400). FAQ # 1145 confirms that “receiving an invoice bearing [a] blocked individual’s signature for a commercial transaction” is prohibited (at least where it the invoice is issued after the blocking).
...