In a decision illustrating the court’s strict approach to the rule prohibiting the use of disclosed documents and witness statements for a collateral purpose, the High Court has refused a party permission to provide disclosed documents and witness statements to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for the purpose of complying with a US Grand Jury subpoena: ACL Netherlands BV v Lynch  EWHC 249 (Ch).
The court’s permission was required because under CPR 31.22 (in relation to disclosed documents generally) and 32.12 (in relation to witness statements), a party may only use disclosed material for the purpose of the proceedings in which it is disclosed, subject to certain exceptions including where the court gives permission.
On the facts of the case, the court held that the applicant had not established cogent and persuasive reasons in favour of granting permission, as it was required to do. The court also considered that the grant of permission might have occasioned injustice, particularly given that the trial in the civil proceedings was imminent.
The decision highlights that the fact that a party may be facing legal compulsion to produce documents is not a “trump card” leading necessarily to the grant of permission (although in any event the court was not satisfied here that compulsion had been established). Courts considering such applications will not apply a mechanistic approach and will consider all the circumstances in weighing the competing public interests involved. That is the case even if refusing permission may result in a party finding itself effectively stuck between a rock and a hard place, unable to comply with a legal demand from an enforcement or regulatory agency – though that will be a relevant factor. Continue reading
Welcome to the Winter 2019 edition of our corporate crime update – our round up of developments in relation to corruption, money laundering, fraud, sanctions and related matters. Our update now covers a number of jurisdictions.
For the full update on each jurisdiction, please click on the name of the jurisdiction below. Below we provide a brief overview of what is covered in each update.
Authors: Kyle Wombolt, Jeremy Birch, Antony Crockett and Emily Purvis.
A recent enforcement action by the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) against US company e.l.f Cosmetics Inc (ELF) highlights the importance of supply chain due diligence in conducting cross border business. The action against ELF reflects a global trend of increased regulatory focus on supply chains in relation to a range of business conduct issues, including corruption, modern slavery, and other human rights violations. To mitigate sanction violation risk, companies should verify the country of origin of goods and services in their supply chains.
Authors: Susannah Cogman, Partner, London; Daniel Hudson, Partner, London; Jonathan Cross, Counsel, New York; Geng Li, Associate, New York; and Christopher Milazzo, Associate, New York.
On January 28, 2019, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) announced the designation of Venezuelan state-owned oil producer Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA) as a Specially Designated National (“SDN”), which follows the White House’s earlier announcement recognizing Venezuelan National Assembly President Juan Guaidó as the Interim President of Venezuela. The sanctions are significant because PdVSA has a monopoly in the Venezuelan oil sector and contributes significantly to Venezuela’s foreign trade income. Concurrent with the designation announcement, OFAC also issued a number of general licenses that authorize a range of activities involving PdVSA and its subsidiaries.
Welcome to the autumn 2018 edition of our corporate crime update – our round up of developments in relation to corruption, money laundering, fraud, sanctions and related matters. Our update now covers a number of jurisdictions.
For the full update on each jurisdiction, please click on the name of the jurisdiction below where we provide a brief overview of what is covered. Continue reading
Following President Trump’s decision on May 8, 2018 to withdraw the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”), the US government announced that it would re-impose pre-JCPOA nuclear-related Iran sanctions (both primary and secondary) that were lifted under the JCPOA. As we reported previously, two “wind-down” periods—of 90 and 180 days respectively—commenced from the day of the announcement, during which non-US, non-Iranian companies were encouraged by the US government to withdraw from operations in Iran that would be affected by re-imposed sanctions. OFAC’s guidance discouraged non-US persons from engaging in new activity during the wind down periods, and stated that any such new activity may be a factor in connection with future enforcement action for actions taken after the wind-down period.
How far can a sanctions clause protect a party from having to perform their contractual obligations – and in the case of Iran-related sanctions concerns, how does this interact with the Blocking Regulation? In Mamancochet Mining Limited v Aegis Managing Agency Limited and Others EWHC 2643, the High Court held that, in order to avoid payment of a claim, insurers were required to show that payment would expose them to sanctions under US or EU law. A mere exposure to the risk of a sanction was not sufficient.
In this post, our Insurance Disputes team consider the implications of the decision. Continue reading
On October 11, 2018, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued official guidance entitled “Advisory on the Iranian Regime’s Illicit and Malign Activities and Attempts to Exploit the Financial System” (the “Advisory”). The Advisory intends to help US financial institutions to “better detect potentially illicit transactions related to the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The Advisory also aims to help foreign financial institutions understand the obligations of their US affiliates and avoid the breach of US sanctions laws.
According to the Advisory, the Iranian regime accesses, and abuses, the international financial system using a variety of methods. These methods include:
- Using senior officials of the Central Bank of Iran to help procure hard currency and conduct transactions for the benefit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (“IRGC-QF”) and the Lebanese Hizballah.
- Using exchange houses to hide the origin of funds and to procure foreign currency for the IRGC-QF, through the use of front companies and complex currency exchange networks. Exchange houses and trading companies have also been used to process funds transfers to evade sanctions laws.
- Using front and shell companies in order to help procure various goods and technologies that enable malign actors to further their illicit activities. Such goods and technologies include printing equipment, dual-use equipment (in support of Iran’s ballistic missile programs), and aviation-related materials.
- Using deceptive shipping practices to hide the connection between certain business activities and Iran and thus evade US sanctions.
- Using gold and other precious metals to help facilitate the sale of Iranian oil and other goods, and to further evade the imposition of US sanctions.
- Using virtual currencies to evade US sanctions.
The Advisory stresses repeatedly that US financial institutions should be particularly cautious at this time, in light of the fact that all sanctions on Iran previously lifted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) are to be reimposed (or already have been reimposed) following 90- and 180-day wind-down periods. Because of this, FinCEN expects that the evasive, deceptive, and illicit activities described above will increase in frequency. In order to better assist with the detection of deceptive activities, FinCEN provides a set of “red flags” that financial institutions should review and keep in mind when analyzing specific transactions.
Finally, the Advisory reminds US financial institutions of their various obligations under US sanctions laws, the USA Patriot Act, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA), and other related regulations.
We continue to monitor developments in this area. Please contact the authors of this newsletter or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact for more information.
The former CEO of Saint Vincent-based Loyal Bank pleaded guilty and was convicted on 11 September of conspiring to defraud the US by failing to comply with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). This is the first conviction obtained by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) since FATCA came into effect in 2014 and was the result of a sting operation. The FBI worked with the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the City of London Police, the UK Financial Conduct Authority and the Hungarian National Bureau of Investigation. The offender’s sentencing date is yet to be scheduled and he is facing a maximum of five years in prison.
This conviction, on the heels of a US governmental report critical of the IRS’s limited use of FATCA, could mark a more active enforcement environment going forward. Under FATCA, certain foreign financial institutions (FFI) must report US citizens’ account information to the IRS and the US has intergovernmental agreements with Hong Kong and other Asian jurisdictions to facilitate this. The DOJ has indicated that financial institutions in Hong Kong and Singapore are on the US authorities’ priority list in terms of FATCA enforcement. As such, both US citizens and financial institutions in the region should remain cognisant of FATCA’s requirements and ensure compliance. For our full briefing on the conviction, please click here.
There has been a significant rate of global growth of litigation in the financial services sector following the 2008 global financial crisis. While the existence of financial services litigation is truly a global phenomenon, it has become apparent that the law and procedures in relation to such disputes have evolved in different ways across the jurisdictions.
The recently published third edition of Getting the Deal Through – Financial Service Litigation, edited by Damien Byrne Hill and Ceri Morgan, compiles chapters dedicated to financial services litigation from jurisdictions across the globe, including those contributed by a number of our offices.
The text charts the growth of litigation in the financial sector worldwide, with expert authors answering key questions in major jurisdictions. Topics include: common causes of action; powers of regulatory authorities; alternative dispute resolution; specialist courts and procedures; disclosure requirements; data governance issues; remedies and enforcement; and changes in the regulatory landscape since the financial crisis.
Please find attached a copy of the publication, also available on the Getting the Deal Through website.
Australia – Andrew Eastwood, Tania Gray and Simone Fletcher
France – Clément Dupoirier and Antoine Juaristi
Germany – Matthias Wittinghofer and Tilmann Hertel
Hong Kong – Gareth Thomas, William Hallatt, Hannah Cassidy, Dominic Geiser, Jojo Fan and Valerie Tao
Indonesia – Alastair Henderson and Emmanuel Chua
South Africa – Peter Leon and Jonathan Ripley-Evans
United Arab Emirates – Stuart Paterson, Natasha Mir and Sanam Khan
United Kingdom – Damien Byrne Hill, Karen Anderson, Ceri Morgan, Ajay Malhotra, Sarah Thomas and Ian Thomas
United States – Scott Balber, Jonathan Cross and Michael R Kelly
Accreditation: Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. Getting the Deal Through – Financial Services Litigation 2018 was first published in August 2018. For further information please visit www.gettingthedealthrough.com.