IEEPA / OFAC Sanctions Violations Defense Lawyer

A sanctions case under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is a document case about intent. The criminal provision, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, does not punish dealing with a particular place as such. It punishes a willful violation of, an attempt or conspiracy to violate, or the causing of a violation of a license, order, regulation or prohibition issued under the Act. Every one of those terms does work, and each one gives the defense somewhere to stand.

That structure matters because sanctions rules move quickly. A counterparty, a vessel, a financial channel or a category of goods can be restricted at one moment and not at another, and what governs is issued and revised by the licensing agency rather than written into the statute. Whether a person understood what applied on the date of the conduct is a real question, and it is answered from records rather than from argument.

Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. defends individuals and companies in federal sanctions investigations and prosecutions. This page is general information about how these matters work and not advice about a specific case. To discuss a sanctions investigation or charge, call (888) 437-7747.

What the Criminal Provision Actually Reaches

The prohibition is derivative. It attaches not to a freestanding description of forbidden conduct but to whatever license, order, regulation or prohibition was in force under the Act at the time. Establishing what the government says was violated, in the precise form it had on the relevant dates, is therefore the first step in the case and it is not always straightforward. Programs are amended, general authorizations are issued and withdrawn, and interpretive guidance shifts.

The provision also reaches attempts, conspiracies, and causing a violation. Causing is the theory that most often surprises people. It allows the government to charge a person whose own transaction was lawful where that person is said to have induced someone else, frequently a financial institution, to do something prohibited. Defending a causing theory means examining what the intermediary was told, what it independently knew, and whether the alleged inducement actually changed what it did.

None of it is reached without willfulness. Criminal liability under this provision requires it, while the same conduct can be pursued civilly on a lower state of mind. The line between those two tracks is often where a sanctions case is actually decided.

How Sanctions Investigations Begin

Most matters start away from the courthouse. A financial institution files a report or blocks a payment. A counterparty is added to a restricted list and a compliance review looks backwards at earlier dealings. A shipment is stopped. An administrative inquiry from the licensing agency arrives asking for a transaction history, and only later does the matter reach a prosecutor.

That sequence has a consequence. By the time a person learns they are a subject, a substantial record has usually been produced by someone else, and it was produced without any thought for how it would read in a criminal case. A company answering an administrative inquiry is not building a defense. It is protecting a license and a business relationship, and those goals are not the same.

Employees are interviewed inside companies during the same period, frequently by counsel the company retained. An individual in that position should understand that the privilege belongs to the company and that the company may later choose to disclose what was said. Independent counsel matters at that moment, not after a charge issues.

What the Government Has to Prove

Reduced to elements, the government must identify a license, order, regulation or prohibition issued under the Act; establish that the defendant violated it, attempted or conspired to violate it, or caused a violation; and prove that the defendant acted willfully. Attempt and conspiracy theories carry their own additional requirements on top of that core.

Willfulness is the contested element in most cases, and the government builds it circumstantially: from compliance training, from screening results a person is said to have seen, from routing decisions, from language in messages, and from the use of intermediaries. Counsel reads the same material for what it does not establish. Whether the person actually saw a particular alert, whether the restriction had been published in a form that person would encounter, whether the guidance at the time was ambiguous, and whether the company’s own compliance function had approved the transaction are all documentary questions with documentary answers.

Where the Defense Finds Traction

The most common openings are documentary. The scope and timing of the restriction the government relies on. General authorizations and exemptions that may have covered the conduct or part of it. A license application that was pending, granted in part, or answered inconsistently. Approvals given internally by a compliance function whose task was to answer exactly the question now said to have been ignored.

Attribution is the second. Sanctions decisions inside an organization pass through screening tools, compliance staff, relationship managers and operations. Charging documents tend to compress that into a single actor. Separating the individuals again, and establishing who decided what on what information, frequently dissolves a theory that depends on one person having held the whole picture.

Then there are the ordinary criminal-procedure questions, which apply here as anywhere: the scope of warrants for devices and server images, the handling of privileged and personal material inside a seized image, the circumstances of any interview, the reliability of translated communications, and the admissibility of summary exhibits that condense a very large transaction record into a chart.

Licensing Records, Disclosures, and Parallel Civil Exposure

A criminal sanctions case almost always sits alongside a civil or administrative one. The same conduct can support civil enforcement on a lower state of mind, and a company may be resolving that track while an individual remains exposed criminally. Statements made in the civil or administrative process are available in the criminal case, and the timing of the two rarely lines up conveniently.

Voluntary disclosure is often raised. It carries real consequences in both directions and it is not a step to take before counsel has seen the underlying facts, because a disclosure is a statement and it defines the conduct the government will examine. Where a disclosure was already made before counsel was involved, the first task is to establish exactly what was said and on what basis.

Collateral consequences frequently matter more to a client than the criminal exposure itself: banking relationships, export privileges, contracting status, professional licenses and immigration consequences. They belong on the table from the first meeting, because a resolution that ignores them can be worse than it appears.

Individuals Inside a Company

Most people charged under this provision were employees. They worked in trade compliance, operations, finance, sales or shipping, and they made a decision inside a process that involved several other people. The government’s theory usually needs one person to have known enough to be culpable, while the record usually shows knowledge distributed across a team. That gap is where individual defenses live.

Practically, an employee should establish three things early. Who represents them, which is not the lawyer the company retained. What documents exist about the transactions and who controls them, because access can disappear on the day employment ends. And whether the company intends to cooperate, since a cooperating company will produce a narrative about individual conduct that the individual has no opportunity to correct before it is delivered.

Employment consequences also arrive well before any court ruling. Suspension, termination and loss of access to systems and records are common, and they affect the defense as much as they affect a client’s finances. Counsel should ask about preservation and access at the first meeting rather than after the records are gone.

Frequently Asked Questions

I did not know the counterparty was restricted. Does that matter?

It goes directly to the element the government has to prove. Criminal liability under this provision requires willfulness, so what a person understood at the time is a contested element rather than an excuse. The question is answered with records: screening results, what guidance existed on the relevant dates and in what form, what compliance staff told the person, and how the same counterparty was treated on earlier occasions.

What does causing a violation mean?

It is a theory that reaches a person whose own transaction was permitted, on the basis that the person induced another party, often a financial institution, to do something prohibited. Defending it means looking closely at what the intermediary was actually told, what it already knew from its own screening, and whether anything the defendant did changed the intermediary’s decision. Those are factual questions and they are frequently thinner than the charging document suggests.

Can I be charged if the transaction never completed?

Yes. The provision reaches attempts and conspiracies as well as completed conduct, so a payment that was blocked or a shipment that was stopped can still support a charge. The defense analysis is unchanged: what restriction was in force, whether it covered this transaction, and what the defendant understood about it at the time.

The bank blocked the payment and filed a report. Is that the case against me?

It is usually the beginning of it. A blocking report identifies a transaction and a counterparty, but it says nothing about what any individual knew. Counsel obtains the institution’s screening records and its own correspondence, because those documents often show that the restriction was identified by an automated system rather than by any person, which is a poor foundation for a willfulness theory.

Should the company make a voluntary disclosure?

That decision belongs with counsel after the underlying facts are understood, and the interests of the company and of individual employees may point in different directions. A disclosure is a statement that defines the scope of what the government will look at, and it cannot be withdrawn. Where one has already been made, establishing precisely what was said and on what information is the first task.

My company approved the transaction. Does that protect me?

It does not end the matter, but it is significant evidence on willfulness. An approval from the function whose job was to answer the sanctions question makes it substantially harder to argue that an employee knowingly disregarded a restriction. Counsel establishes who gave the approval, on what information, and whether the person charged saw it before acting.

What does a conviction under this provision carry?

This page does not state a figure. Exposure depends on the current text of the statute and on how the counts are charged, and a number repeated from a secondary source can be out of date. Ask counsel to confirm it against the statute as it reads, and then ask about the advisory Guidelines calculation, because in federal practice that calculation and the statutory sentencing factors usually determine the sentence.

Working With Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C.

Sanctions matters move between administrative, civil and criminal tracks, and a step taken on one track becomes evidence on the others. The work is establishing what was in force on the relevant dates and who inside an organization actually decided what.

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.

Related pages

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

This page provides general information about defense of sanctions violations 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.

An ieepa ofac sanctions violations case is one part of national security & export control work, and our page on espionage act classified information defence covers the wider process.