Latest news with #OFAC
India.com
a day ago
- Business
- India.com
Punishment for buying oil from Iran, US imposes sanctions on companies of India, Pakistan
New Delhi: The US has imposed sanctions on six companies and several ships involved in oil and petrochemical trade with Iran. These include one firm each from India and Pakistan. This action is part of the US policy under which it is trying to increase economic pressure on Iran. This information was given by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US State Department and the Treasury Department. Which companies have been sanctioned? Alliance Energy Private Limited, based in Lahore, Pakistan and India's Sai Saburi Consulting Services, based in New Delhi, have been sanctioned for their alleged role in the Iranian oil trade. According to OFAC, these companies were part of a network involved in secretly sending Iranian oil and petrochemical products, which violates US sanctions. Why are they sanctioned? These sanctions are part of US President Donald Trump's 'maximum pressure' policy, which aims to reduce Iran's oil exports to zero and limit its nuclear programme, ballistic missile development and regional influence. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant said, 'We will continue to target Iran's sources of revenue and disrupt its access to financial resources that fuel its destabilizing activities.' Pakistan's Alliance Energy Private Limited has already been blacklisted for violating US sanctions. Apart from this, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Iran and Panama based companies and their operated ships have also been targeted. Sai Saburi Consulting Services is accused of acting as the commercial manager of two LPG tankers, Bateleur and Nile, which were involved in transporting Iranian oil. What is Iran's shadow fleet? The US claims that Iran uses a 'shadow fleet' or 'dark fleet' to maintain its oil exports, which secretly transfer oil and petrochemical products. These ships often hide the origin of the oil through ship-to-ship transfers outside the territorial limits of ports. This type of trade mainly targets countries like China, which is Iran's largest oil buyer. US sanctions on Iran have been in place since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but they intensified after the Trump administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018. The main purpose of these sanctions is to stop Iran's nuclear and missile programmes and reduce its support to regional terrorist groups. In recent months, these sanctions have become more stringent after attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities by Israel and the US.
Irish Independent
a day ago
- Business
- Irish Independent
Sanctions hamper €4bn liquidation of Irish-based GTLK firms
The companies were sanctioned by the US Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). In 2023, the High Court ordered that GTLK Europe and GTLK Europe Capital be wound up. The companies were liquidated on foot of an application from their creditors, who were owed close to $180m (€153m). The largest unsecured creditor of GTLK Capital, and therefore the group, is its bondholders. The aggregate outstanding principal amount of bonds issued by the companies is $3.25bn. The two insolvent Irish firms controlled assets including about 70 jets and 19 sea-going vessels valued at about €4bn. It is the biggest ever liquidation in Ireland. The companies' activities were hit by sanctions imposed on Russian entities and individuals following the invasion of Ukraine. The firms are part of Russian joint stock company GTLK, which is wholly owned by the Russian government through its ministry of transport and ministry of finance. As of the end of May, the joint liquidators – Damien Murran and Julian Moroney, of Teneo's Dublin office – had secured just over €60m in realisations and 'second realisations' of €276.2m. There was €190.6m in cash on the books at the end of last month. While the joint liquidators said that 'substantial progress' was made following their appointment to secure necessary licences and permissions from various national regulators to perform the primary tasks of the liquidation, the narrowness of the licence from the OFAC has slowed their work. 'The limitations of the licence have resulted in considerably more time being devoted to standard process tasks,' they said in a liquidation report filed this week. 'Simple matters, such as the collection of cash receipts, have become arduous tasks taking more time than reasonably expected. 'The limitations have also gone further, impacting strategic delivery. For example, in isolated instances interested parties have withdrawn from sales processes.' The liquidators said that in order to address these issues, they have filed about 17 further applications with the OFAC for additional licences. 'However, these are taking time to obtain responses,' they note. 'A delisting application to remove GTLK Europe, GTLK Capital and GTLKE Middle East FZCO from the US sanctioned entities list was filed on behalf of the joint liquidators with the US State Department in May 2024,' the latest report adds. 'The ongoing practical challenges in the liquidation as a result of sanctions experienced over the last number of months highlight the significant value that a successful OFAC delisting would garner for the estate in mitigating certain regulatory delays. 'However, similar to the OFAC licence applications, it is taking time to obtain responses on this delisting application.' The liquidators said they are making 'significant progress' in the liquidation of GTLK Europe and the realisation of interests in its subsidiaries, 'which will ultimately translate into recoveries for the benefit of the company creditors'.
Shafaq News
2 days ago
- Business
- Shafaq News
US sanctions 'Hezbollah financiers and Iranian oil smugglers'
Shafaq News – Washington The US Department of the Treasury on Thursday announced sweeping sanctions targeting what it called Hezbollah-linked financial operatives in Lebanon and Iranian oil smuggling networks spanning Iraq, the Gulf, and Asia. In a pair of statements, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned seven senior officials and one entity affiliated with Lebanon's Al-Qard Al-Hassan (AQAH), a Hezbollah -controlled financial institution designated by the US since 2007. 'These officials sought to disguise Hizballah's (Hezbollah) interest in seemingly legitimate transactions, exposing Lebanese banks to serious financial crime risks,' said Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender. He added that the US remains committed to dismantling Hizballah's financial infrastructure as the group attempts to rebuild its operations. Among those sanctioned are AQAH executives Nehme Ahmad Jamil, Issa Hussein Kassir, Samer Hasan Fawaz, and others accused of facilitating multi-million dollar transactions that covertly served Hizballah's interests. OFAC also designated the Beirut-based company Tashilat SARL, co-owned by AQAH officials, for its role in supporting Hezbollah's financial ecosystem through post-conflict mortgage services and other business fronts. In addition, OFAC also unveiled sanctions against a sprawling oil smuggling network led by Iraqi-British businessman Salim Ahmed Said, accused of blending and selling Iranian oil as Iraqi crude using forged documentation and corrupt deals with Iraqi officials. According to the Treasury, Said's operations have generated billions of dollars in revenue for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF), a US-designated terrorist organization. Said's companies—operating out of Iraq and the United Arab Emirates—allegedly manipulated shipping records, conducted ship-to-ship transfers in the Persian Gulf, and stored oil in disguised terminals in Khor al-Zubayr. One firm, VS Tankers FZE, reportedly used a fleet of vessels to blend sanctioned Iranian oil with legitimate Iraqi crude, allowing it to reach global markets. The Treasury also sanctioned several ships and shipping companies believed to be part of Iran's 'shadow fleet,' used to covertly transport oil in defiance of international sanctions.
Ya Biladi
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Ya Biladi
What a U.S. terrorist designation could mean for the Polisario Front
DR The bipartisan bill introduced by Representatives Joe Wilson (Republican) and Jimmy Panetta (Democrat) seeks to designate the Polisario Front as a « foreign terrorist organization » (FTO). However, even if the bill passes, the designation would not be automatic: under U.S. law, the final decision rests with the Secretary of State, who acts on advice from the Treasury Department and the Department of Justice (8 U.S.C. § 1189). To persuade Congress—and ultimately Secretary of State Marco Rubio—Joe Wilson emphasizes the Polisario's ties to Hezbollah and Iran. He could also highlight threats of terrorist attacks against foreign interests in Western Sahara by leaders of the separatist movement. If the «Polisario Front Terrorist Designation Act» succeeds and the State Department officially labels the Polisario as an FTO, here are four key consequences to expect: Implications of the FTO designation in the United States Asset freeze: The Treasury could block any funds controlled by the Polisario within U.S. jurisdiction. This freeze would be targeted; a global blockade would require an additional designation as a «Specially Designated Global Terrorist» (SDGT) by OFAC. In practice, many non-U.S. banks would likely halt processing dollar payments to avoid risks. Prosecution for «material support»: Anyone in the U.S. providing material assistance could face up to 20 years in prison (18 U.S.C. § 2339B). However, humanitarian licenses could still be granted, as has been done for groups like the Houthis, ensuring vital aid reaches civilians. Visas and border controls: Members and supporters would be legally inadmissible under INA § 212. Diplomatic exemptions might apply for UN personnel, but access to the U.S. would become the exception rather than the rule. Polisario's credibility and finances under pressure Loss of «liberation movement» aura: The FTO label would legally equate the Polisario with groups like Hezbollah or the PKK, seriously undermining its third-worldist narrative. Fundraising challenges: American payment platforms would sever ties, and European banks would adopt a strict cautionary stance. Non-dollar channels such as cryptocurrencies or Asian banks might persist unless secondary sanctions are imposed. NGOs under scrutiny: Humanitarian organizations would need OFAC licenses to operate in the Tindouf camps. Any advocacy or training involving the Polisario would become legally risky. Algeria in a delicate spot No automatic «State Sponsor of Terrorism» label: That designation requires clear, repeated support for attacks targeting U.S. interests. «Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act» law leverage: If Algeria pursues significant new Russian arms deals, CAATSA sanctions could be triggered, but this would be a highly political and conditional decision. Narrative costs: Supporting a group officially labeled as terrorist would damage Algeria's position, especially since some Sahel countries accuse it of backing terrorist groups in the region. Possible mitigation: Algeria might push for the disarmament of Polisario militias to ease international pressure. Multilateral repercussions: shifting from «decolonization» to «security» At the UN Security Council: The U.S. could push to add counter-terrorism to MINURSO's mandate during its next renewal. This would require a new resolution and must avoid a Russian or Chinese veto. Within the African Union: Some member states concerned about their image might distance themselves from the SADR, potentially leading to a formal suspension if 36 countries support amending the AU's founding charter. Bilateral relations: Hesitant countries would have a stronger rationale to openly back Morocco's autonomy plan. In short, if Washington finally brands the Polisario Front as an FTO, it would shine a spotlight on the alliances behind the Polisario—making them more visible, and more politically costly for countries like Algeria and South Africa to support.
Ya Biladi
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Ya Biladi
What a U.S. terrorist designation could mean for the Polisario Front
The bipartisan bill introduced by Representatives Joe Wilson (Republican) and Jimmy Panetta (Democrat) seeks to designate the Polisario Front as a « foreign terrorist organization » (FTO). However, even if the bill passes, the designation would not be automatic: under U.S. law, the final decision rests with the Secretary of State, who acts on advice from the Treasury Department and the Department of Justice (8 U.S.C. § 1189). To persuade Congress—and ultimately Secretary of State Marco Rubio—Joe Wilson emphasizes the Polisario's ties to Hezbollah and Iran. He could also highlight threats of terrorist attacks against foreign interests in Western Sahara by leaders of the separatist movement. If the «Polisario Front Terrorist Designation Act» succeeds and the State Department officially labels the Polisario as an FTO, here are four key consequences to expect: Implications of the FTO designation in the United States Asset freeze: The Treasury could block any funds controlled by the Polisario within U.S. jurisdiction. This freeze would be targeted; a global blockade would require an additional designation as a «Specially Designated Global Terrorist» (SDGT) by OFAC. In practice, many non-U.S. banks would likely halt processing dollar payments to avoid risks. Prosecution for «material support»: Anyone in the U.S. providing material assistance could face up to 20 years in prison (18 U.S.C. § 2339B). However, humanitarian licenses could still be granted, as has been done for groups like the Houthis, ensuring vital aid reaches civilians. Visas and border controls: Members and supporters would be legally inadmissible under INA § 212. Diplomatic exemptions might apply for UN personnel, but access to the U.S. would become the exception rather than the rule. Polisario's credibility and finances under pressure Loss of «liberation movement» aura: The FTO label would legally equate the Polisario with groups like Hezbollah or the PKK, seriously undermining its third-worldist narrative. Fundraising challenges: American payment platforms would sever ties, and European banks would adopt a strict cautionary stance. Non-dollar channels such as cryptocurrencies or Asian banks might persist unless secondary sanctions are imposed. NGOs under scrutiny: Humanitarian organizations would need OFAC licenses to operate in the Tindouf camps. Any advocacy or training involving the Polisario would become legally risky. Algeria in a delicate spot No automatic «State Sponsor of Terrorism» label: That designation requires clear, repeated support for attacks targeting U.S. interests. «Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act» law leverage: If Algeria pursues significant new Russian arms deals, CAATSA sanctions could be triggered, but this would be a highly political and conditional decision. Narrative costs: Supporting a group officially labeled as terrorist would damage Algeria's position, especially since some Sahel countries accuse it of backing terrorist groups in the region. Possible mitigation: Algeria might push for the disarmament of Polisario militias to ease international pressure. Multilateral repercussions: shifting from «decolonization» to «security» At the UN Security Council: The U.S. could push to add counter-terrorism to MINURSO's mandate during its next renewal. This would require a new resolution and must avoid a Russian or Chinese veto. Within the African Union: Some member states concerned about their image might distance themselves from the SADR, potentially leading to a formal suspension if 36 countries support amending the AU's founding charter. Bilateral relations: Hesitant countries would have a stronger rationale to openly back Morocco's autonomy plan. In short, if Washington finally brands the Polisario Front as an FTO, it would shine a spotlight on the alliances behind the Polisario—making them more visible, and more politically costly for countries like Algeria and South Africa to support.
