- Chief Compliance Officer and VP of Legal Affairs, Arrow Electronics
By 
Kyle Brasseur2023-07-27T13:27:00
Companies seeking credit for voluntarily self-disclosing potential violations of sanctions or export control laws must be mindful of the multiple regimes at play and their differing expectations.
A compliance note released by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), and Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on Wednesday explains how each agency assesses voluntary self-disclosure when determining whether reporting companies qualify for potential reductions in penalties. The guidance follows policy updates by the DOJ and BIS in recent months designed to incentivize self-reporting before the government initiates an investigation.
At the DOJ, companies can reduce—or avoid altogether—the potential for criminal liability through prompt voluntary self-disclosure of apparent violations of sanctions and export control laws.
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT. To continue reading, choose one of the options below.
News and analysis for the well-informed compliance or audit exec.
Annual Membership best value
Subscribe now for $365
Our lowest price ($1 per day) for one year.
Penalties against companies including British American Tobacco, Wells Fargo, and Microsoft demonstrate the multiple ways in which businesses can run afoul of U.S. sanctions—an area receiving increased scrutiny by regulators.
The Department of Justice scrutinizing sanctions on par with how it views bribery under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act alters the calculus of whether a company should voluntarily self-disclose potential violations, experts discussed at CW’s TPRM Summit.
Swedbank Latvia agreed to pay more than $3.4 million to resolve apparent U.S. sanctions violations in the Crimea region of Ukraine, the Office of Foreign Assets Control announced.
The U.S. Supreme Court extended the statute of limitations for businesses attempting to challenge some federal regulations, allowing regulated entities a longer timeline to appeal a decision.
The Supreme Court of the United States overturned a long-held precedent in which courts deferred to federal agencies in interpreting complex or ambiguous regulations–a decision that could make thousands of federal regulations more vulnerable to legal challenges.
Financial institutions would be required to conduct more thorough risk assessments on their anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism programs under a new rule proposed by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
