General Note on the Terms "Knowingly," "Should Have Known" And "Reason to Know" In the Primary Sanctions, Secondary Sanctions and Derivative Designation Contexts (System Ed. Note) [A]

Last substantive commentary amendment:
Nov. 17 2024

You've hit a wall. Sign in if you have an account, or learn more about TURBOFAC and subscription options.
TURBOFAC is a module of the compliance platform OverRuled. To learn more about OverRuled, visit www.overruled.com.

TURBOFAC Commentary (7024 words)

General Note on the Terms "Knowingly," "Should Have Known" And "Reason to Know" In the Primary Sanctions, Secondary Sanctions and Derivative Designation Contexts (System Ed. Note)

 

*SYNOPSIS

 

1) BACKGROUND

 

2) CONTEXTS IN WHICH THE “KNOWLEDGE QUALIFIERS” APPEAR; NO APPARENT DIFFERENCE IN SCOPE BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SANCTIONS

   i) Primary Sanctions Prohibitions - "Knowledge or Reason to Know"

   ii) Secondary Sanctions – “Knowingly”

   iii) Derivative Designation Criteria -- "Knowingly" (de facto, implied)

 

3) APPLICATION OF "REASON TO KNOW" OR "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN"

   i) In General

   ii) GLs and FAQs Appearing to Contain Diligence-related “Safe Harbors” (“May Rely” / “May Reasonably Rely”)

 

4) THE PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE "REASON TO KNOW" CONCEPT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF PRIMARY SANCTIONS

 

4.1) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE “REASON TO KNOW” STANDARD AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (PRIMARY SANCTIONS PENALTIES)

 

5) THE PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE "REASON TO KNOW" COMPONENT OF "KNOWINGLY"...