IEEPA / OFAC Sanctions Violations Elements of the Offense

A charge under 50 U.S.C. § 1705 has fewer moving parts than the volume of discovery suggests. The government must identify a prohibition issued under the Act, prove conduct that violated it or that falls within one of the extended theories the provision reaches, and prove willfulness. Reading the charging document against those elements is what turns a sprawling case into a small number of real disputes.

It also tells a defendant where the case will actually be decided. In most sanctions prosecutions that is willfulness, and the material that decides it is frequently already in the client’s own files. Call (888) 437-7747 to discuss a specific matter.

On this page

The Underlying Prohibition

The criminal provision does not describe forbidden conduct on its own. It makes it unlawful to violate a license, order, regulation or prohibition issued under the Act, so the government has to identify the specific instrument it relies on and establish its content on the dates charged. That is a real burden. Programs are amended, general authorizations come and go, and the version in force at the time is not always the version an investigator worked from.

The Conduct Element, Including Causing

The provision reaches a violation, an attempt, a conspiracy, and the causing of a violation. Causing extends liability to a person whose own transaction was permitted, where that person is said to have induced another party, frequently a financial institution, to do something prohibited. It is a theory with two soft points: what the intermediary was actually told, and whether anything the defendant did changed what the intermediary would have done anyway. Attempt and conspiracy theories carry their own additional requirements.

Willfulness

Willfulness is the element that decides most contested cases. It requires proof that the defendant understood the conduct to be unlawful, not merely that the defendant carried out the transaction. Because sanctions compliance is distributed across screening systems, compliance staff and business units, the government usually assembles this element from pieces held by different people. Counsel separates them again and asks what each individual actually knew and when. It is also why the same conduct can support civil enforcement on a lower state of mind while failing as a criminal charge.

How the Jury Is Instructed on the Elements

The district court settles the instructions with the parties, drawing the language from the statutory text and from how courts have construed it. Both sides file proposed instructions and argue the disputed ones at a charge conference. In a sanctions case the willfulness instruction is usually the one that matters, and the difference between a general formulation and one tied to knowledge of the specific prohibition can decide the verdict. Counsel drafts that language early, because it also determines what evidence each side needs to put in.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the government have to prove I knew about the specific program?

It has to prove willfulness, and the formulation the district court adopts is litigated for exactly that reason. In practice the dispute is about what the contemporaneous record shows: what guidance existed and in what form, what compliance staff told you, and how the same question was handled before the transactions at issue.

What does causing a violation cover?

It reaches a person whose own conduct was permitted but who is said to have induced another party, often a financial institution, to do something prohibited. The defense examines what the intermediary was actually told, what its own screening already showed, and whether the alleged inducement changed anything the intermediary would otherwise have done.

Does the transaction have to have gone through?

No. The provision reaches attempts and conspiracies as well as completed conduct, so a blocked payment or a stopped shipment can still support a charge. The analysis does not change: what prohibition was in force, whether it covered this transaction, and what the defendant understood at the time.

What separates the civil case from the criminal one?

Principally the state of mind. The same transaction can support civil enforcement on a lower standard while failing as a criminal charge because willfulness cannot be proved. That difference is why a company may resolve a civil or administrative matter on facts that do not establish criminal liability for any individual.

Is a company charged the same way as an individual?

The elements are the same, but the proof differs. A company acts through people, so the government must attribute knowledge to someone whose state of mind can be charged to the entity. That attribution question is frequently where a corporate case is weakest and where individual and corporate interests separate.

Can an internal approval defeat the willfulness element?

It is not a formal defense, but it is powerful evidence against it. An approval from the function responsible for answering the sanctions question undercuts an argument that an employee acted in knowing disregard. Counsel establishes who approved it, on what information, and whether the person charged relied on it before acting.

Working With Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C.

An elements-first reading is what makes a sanctions case manageable. It identifies the instrument the government must prove, the conduct theory it has chosen, and the single element on which the case will usually turn.

Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor and is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. The firm has been practicing since 1997. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys handle criminal defense matters across those jurisdictions, which matters in federal practice because a single investigation frequently reaches conduct, witnesses, and records in more than one state. Mr. Sris brings a background in accounting and information systems from George Mason University, applied to complex financial and technology-related cases.

The firm serves Northern Virginia from 1655 Fort Myer Dr, Suite 700, Room 719, Arlington, VA 22209 and central Virginia from 7400 Beaufont Springs Drive, Suite 300, Room 395, Richmond, VA 23225. By appointment. Call (888) 437-7747 to schedule. Request a consultation. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747.

IEEPA / OFAC Sanctions Violations Defense Lawyer
IEEPA / OFAC Sanctions Violations Penalties and Sentencing
IEEPA / OFAC Sanctions Violations Defenses
Charged Under 50 U.S.C. 1705 What Happens Next
AECA / ITAR Export Violations Defense Lawyer

This page provides general information about the elements of a sanctions offense under 50 U.S.C. § 1705 and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney responsible for this advertising: Mr. Sris.

These are the elements the government must prove. Our page on ieepa ofac sanctions violations charges covers the offence as a whole.