The unassned bankers – a client advisor for small and medium-sized enterprises and a currency manager – knew that Elyassi`s core business functioned as a front for the Iranian stock exchange and that Standard Chartered and other financial institutions had blocked or refused payments made by his company for sanctions reasons. The extension of the deferred lawsuit deal is another setback for Peter Sands, the bank`s chairman of the board, who is trying to pull the lender out of the regulatory spotlight. In 2012, SCB agreed to lose $227 million to the Department of Justice for conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The bank agreed to the forfeiture under a DPA agreed with the Department of Justice and the New York County Attorney`s Office for conspiring to conceal at least $250 billion in transactions with the Iranian government that transited through its United States. Subsidiary on behalf of sanctioned companies in Iran, Sudan, Libya and Burma from 2001 to 2007. As Compliance Week has previously reported, these two deals were reached in addition to a $340 million civil fine by the New York Department of Financial Services, which accused the bank of deliberately circumventing sanctions against the Iranian government. In August 2014, the DFS imposed a second civil sentence – $300 million this time – on the bank, which had failed to resolve anti-money laundering issues compared to the 2012 bank. The following is an overview of the bank`s situation and what is expected in the future: “Investigations by financial institutions, businesses and individuals who violate U.S. sanctions by abusing New York banks are critical to national security and the integrity of our banking system. Banks are in positions of trust. It is a fundamental principle that they must be honest with their regulators.
I will accept nothing less; The stakes for the people of New York and this country are too high,” Said District Attorney Vance. These cases give teeth to the application of sanctions, send a strong message about the need for transparency in the international banking sector and ultimately contribute to the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. I thank our federal partners for their cooperation and support in conducting this study. The Bank is also expected to continue its work with an independent consultant and present a “sanctions companies monitoring plan” outlining the steps related to it by board members. As part of the overall comparison, restrictions remain on the recruitment or reinstatement of persons related to infringements or other breaches of compliance. On 10 December 2012, the Offices and the SCB entered into an agreement on the deferred prosecution for a period of two years, accompanied by a statement of substance [note 2] (the “2012 CCA”). With the DPA, the bureaus filed a criminal investigation (the “2012 information”), accusing SCB of wilful and deliberate conspiracy in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, infringing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Title 50, United States Code, Section 1705, and the provisions adopted therein (“IEEPA”) for the period 2001-2007. . .