US BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY (BIS) HAS ADDED 15 ENTITIES TO THE ENTITY LIST (AND REMOVED 1 NAME)

US BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY (BIS) HAS ADDED 15 ENTITIES TO THE ENTITY LIST (AND REMOVED 1 NAME)

The European Sanctions Blog on 4th September reported that they have been listed for “acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States”. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) restrict their access to US-origin goods (additional licence requirements on, and limits on the availability of most licence exceptions for, exports, re-exports, and transfers (in-country) to the listed entities).  The entities are from China, Hong Kong, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan, with 1 from Russia.  At the same time, Top Electronics Company SA from Greece has been removed from the list.  The reasons for listing include involvement in supplies to North Korea or Iran, transhipping and procuring US goods without the necessary licences, and supplying false end-use information.

https://europeansanctions.com/2018/09/04/us-export-restrictions-on-15-entities/

US: THE WIRE ACT AND INTERSTATE SPORTS WAGERING AFTER THE MURPHY DECISION

On 4th September, Greenberg Traurig published a briefing outlining the position following the US Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. NCAA to strike down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act.  It points out that the effect of the decision was no to legalise sports wagering in the US, but removed the federal barrier prohibiting states and territories (other than a few grandfathered states, including Nevada) from legalising or offering sports wagering.  However, the briefing points out that although individual states may authorise intrastate sports wagering, states may not authorise interstate sports wagering via wire communication (i.e. phone, internet).  Interstate sports wagering via wire communication is prohibited by to the Federal Wire Act.

https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2018/9/the-wire-act-and-interstate-sports-wagering-post-murphy

HMRC: CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND INVESTIGATIONS

On 4th September, HMRC published updated guidance on policy, powers and safeguards related to how HMRC organises its criminal investigation work, including details of its investigation policy, powers and safeguards.  The Criminal Investigation Policy includes a statement on the use of open source material, saying that HMRC may observe, monitor, record and retain internet data which is available to anyone, including news reports, Internet sites, companies House and Land Registry records, and blogs and social networking sites where no privacy settings have been applied

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-investigation

FOREIGN DEPOSITS IN ISRAELI BANKS HAVE SHRUNK BY $30 BILLION

Haaretz in Israel on 4th September reports that the decline is largely due to fears of Israeli banks tangling with US authorities over money laundering charges.  2 banks have already paid over $300 million each in fines and penalties to US authorities.  It remarks on closures of overseas offices of banks, and the link to real estate investment in Israel.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-foreign-deposits-in-israeli-banks-have-shrunk-by-nearly-30-billion-1.6445448

MORE ON US COURT DECISION THAT CURBS FCPA APPLICATION TO SOME FOREIGN PARTICIPANTS IN BRIBERY

A posting from the Program on Corporate compliance and Enforcement at New York University School of Law is concerned with the recent decision of a US federal court in the question of whether a non-resident foreign national can be held liable for violating the FCPA under a conspiracy theory, where the foreign national is not an officer, director, employee, shareholder or agent of a US issuer or domestic concern and has not committed an act in furtherance of an FCPA violation while in the US; saying no, he/she would, but that the same foreign national could be liable as a co-conspirator if he acted as an agent of a primary violator.  The posting suggests the ruling may be of limited impact, as well as only having limited binding precedent (i.e. only in the particular “circuit” itself – US federal judicial districts are organised into 12 regional circuits).  It says that further development in this and subsequent cases — especially with respect to the meaning of “agency” under the FCPA — will necessarily be required before the full impact of the ruling becomes clear; but that it nevertheless seemingly good news for foreign companies that enter into joint ventures with US companies and some other classes of potential defendants, as it may be harder for the US Government to charge them with FCPA violations.  The posting provides fuller background on the facts and issues in the case.

https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/