What Will Happen to Financial Institutions Sanctioned by the U.S.?

On Monday, November 14, the U.S. announced details regarding the imposition of sanctions against Iran, adding dozens of Iranian banks and financial institutions, as well as numerous companies involved in shipping and aviation, to its sanctions list. We spoke with Eric Ferrari, a Washington-based attorney specializing in U.S. sanctions. Mr. Ferrari has defended numerous American and foreign companies, financial institutions, exporters, and individuals before the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the U.S. Treasury Department. What is your initial assessment of the announced sanctions? I expected more sanctions to be announced under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Some of those added to the list were based on this law, but most of the individuals and entities added were based on the definition of 'the Iranian government' or 'Iranian financial institutions.' A look at the Treasury list shows that after many names, 'Iran' is noted in parentheses. This means these individuals and entities can participate in financial transactions for which exceptions and licenses have been granted. This indicates that their access is not completely cut off. Therefore, I found the severity of this sanctions list surprising. Providing numbers at this stage is not simple, but how many of the announced names do you think do not fall under the maximum severity of sanctions? It's true, I haven't conducted a statistical review yet, but I think a large number fall into this category, and the most important ones to note are the banks. For instance, Pasargad Bank or Novin Bank have only been sanctioned in connection with Iran (the government or Iranian financial institutions). This means they can still operate in financial transactions related to food and medicine. However, Bank Melli has been sanctioned under the Anti-Terrorism Act and therefore cannot participate in such financial transactions that require a license. I don't have an exact number, but a large number of banks fall into the first category I described. So, the banks that SWIFT announced it has cut ties with are those under terrorism proliferation sanctions? I haven't seen the details of SWIFT's decision, but from the perspective of U.S. sanctions law, cooperation can occur until a specific license for activity is issued. The U.S. Secretary of State mentioned the amount of sanctions announced in one day in his remarks on Monday. From the perspective of a lawyer in this field who must review these sanctions and provide advice, what do you think? Do you see a difference between this method of sanctions and those imposed during Barack Obama's administration? Look, these sanctions were being implemented before the JCPOA, and the legal basis for these sanctions existed at that time as well, but several things have been added; in terms of sanctioning action, yes, it is correct that this is the largest amount ever imposed. However, the tone used in this regard has caused fear among private companies and also lawyers like myself who work in the field of 'appropriate assessment.' Because what we hear alongside the addition of names to the sanctions list and the return of previous sanctions is the manner of implementing these sanctions. Therefore, regardless of who or what entity has been added to this list, we pay close attention to the messages and signals the U.S. government sends about how and with what intensity these sanctions will be applied, and this has a much greater impact on our assessment and analysis.