US seizes nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian oil allegedly bound for China

Rapidcreek@reddthat.com to World News@lemmy.world – 606 points –
US seizes nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian oil allegedly bound for China | CNN Politics
cnn.com
466

The legal grounds: The oil was shipped by a US company in violation of US law. American companies can't do business with an organisation that the US government has designated as a terrorist organisation. Thus American authorities siezed the ship and its cargo.

I am proud that America is finally doing something about this illegal oil trade. We have always turned a blind eye, and now we are actually forcing our hand to keep Iran from becoming a potential world-ending regime with no human rights for Iranians.

potential world-ending regime

Sorry, what?

They wanna build nukes, I'm saying they'd also use them

Even if they make nukes they would, at best, develop few dozen. You would need a lot more to produce global efects.

54 more...

So...will they seize the companies assets and arrest the CEO for violating the sanctions?

Because that's how you stop this shit.

Seizing over a hundred million of oil is a pretty big ouch to any business

For business sure. But what about consequences for the people who made the decisions?

They get fired for losing the company 100 million? They get a bonus for implementing a better way of doing the same thing the next 50 times? Dunno, I'm not an oil smuggling expert.

Not for the shipping company. It's not their oil. The Iranians can ask the shipping company for compensation, which they could easily refuse and there isn't much recourse that the Iranians would have. The Chinese could demand compensation but if the company again refuses or claims insolvency or whatever, it's easier for the Chinese to just stiff the Iranians with payment instead.

A dream that won't come true, these people only see this as part of the risk of doing business and will try again in the same way, hoping to not get caught, or will find a legal loophole.

40 more...

There is a lot of misreporting and misunderstanding about this. OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) exists within Treasury and is responsible for enforcing sanctions usually created by executive order ("EO"), or very rarely, Congress. EOs and OFAC interpretation are very specific: some sanctions, such as the ones on the export of Iranian crude/products, are explicitly extraterritorial. Meaning, the US reserves the right to come after you no matter what country you are a citizen of or where you company is domiciled. It's very rare for them to try this one anyone who doesn't have US nexus since there is not much practically speaking they can do, but they could in theory. OFAC has, no pun intended, FAQs for all of this easily found at their site.

Now, this case was extra stupid. Oaktree is the single biggest PE investor in shipping, going in heavy starting a bit before the financial crash and going in really big with Eagle Bulk c. 2012 or so. Oaktree is, as stated, a US company, but that wasn't the main reason: they did this transaction in USD. Which was stupid, but having met the bastards at Empire a few times, I can say they are not the brightest bunch (as as far as I understand they are doing most of this kind of work in EUR with some shady banks nowadays anyway). Anyway any transaction in USD goes through the SWIFT system (which is why kicking Russia out of it was such a massive deal). This means there was simply no way this was not going to get eventually scanned since banks have repurposed their AML programs into sanctions programs or subscribe to sanctions-specific services like PoleStar's PupleTrac (what my company uses) or Windward or Lloyd's, etc. Now the dirty secret is that the banks don't really understand movement data that well, but Empires has done this (and Venezuela) so often for so long, someone at Treasury probably said, "OK, since we got Oaktree all up in this, let's make an example of of these guys to scare others away from these trades."

[spoiler alert: it did not scare others away from these trades and most folks estimate there are about 1,000 large tankers that form a so called "Dark Fleet" trading in Iran, Venezuela, and now Russia since both crude and product have broken the price cap at all Russian export locations. You cam make about 40% more shipping such cargos than legal ones.]

Anyway, I digress, The the point is that OFAC doesn't care if you have US nexus; it just makes you easier to catch if you do. Source: I am the head of credit and compliance for a large oil company that works closely with the shipping industry.

Now I'm curious to know how a head of compliance for a oil company found their way to kbin.social.

Lemmy isn't just programmers and cryptobros fyi. Lots of people have interesting jobs and hardly anyone works 100% of the time. Gotta shitpost somewhere.

Eh, for one we are hyper specialized oil company so not quite as evil as your run of the mill ones. We sell fuel to ships, so unless everyone suddenly agrees they don't need the 90% of the world's commodities and manufactured goods anymore, you gotta use ships. And in a moderate defense, ships by far the least polluting way to transport stuff by ton/mile.

Me personally I'm a big old lefty, even here within the EU's context (where the American Democrats would be a center-right party).I just fell into this role and happened to be good at it. My function is far too niche for any green energy projects. At the core of what we do and the bit I supervise, we are basically providing short term liquidity to shipping companies, since you sell fuel on unsecured credit. Believe me I've looked (and keep looking) at green and adjacent spaces.

Oh that makes sense, thank you for the explanation!

OFAC stole a wire transfer to my landlord. I assume it's because he has a Middle Eastern-sounding name.

They provided me a case number and I mailed in the forms I found online to dispute the seizure. They sent me a letter saying that they had no record of that case. I realized the futility of fighting the government over a couple of grand and switched to depositing money orders into his account and let it go. Created a lot of extra effort (not that it was difficult, just tedious) on my end.

OFAC is a criminal organization.

I’m sorry man but when it comes to international topics I can’t trust some faceless user on the internet for a run down of what happened.

Do you have any sources or directions you can point me in for more information about the inconsistencies in reporting?

(Just had a thought, we should have meta news agencies that analyze news agencies (including each other meta news agency))

Yeah my guy/gal non-binarny pal, I wouldn't take some Random Internet Person's word either (although I did mention where you could find it....)

End of my workday and I'm tired and maybe could have found some better examples, but here's the bit about going after foreign financial services: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-561/subpart-B

I'm having trouble finding a clear example of the extraterritoriality of US sanctions against individuals, but it's defined in nearly every EO.

9 more...

They could at least give Iran back their oil. This is like when cops steal your jewelry and claim civil forfeiture.

The contraband cargo is now the subject of a civil forfeiture action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The United States’ forfeiture complaint alleges that the oil aboard the vessel is subject to forfeiture based on U.S. terrorism and money laundering statutes.

The complaint alleges a scheme involving multiple entities affiliated with Iran’s IRGC and the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to covertly sell and transport Iranian oil to a customer abroad. Participants in the scheme attempted to disguise the origin of the oil using ship-to-ship transfers, false automatic identification system reporting, falsified documents and other means. The complaint further alleges that the charterer of the vessel used the U.S. financial system to facilitate the transportation of Iranian oil

19 more...

If you tried to transport a kilo of Mexican cocaine through another country and were caught, do you really think Mexico would get its cocaine back?

So America owns the oceans blue?

No, but they control what happens aboard ships that fly American flags.

Do you think the ocean is some sort of lawless no man's land, where captains do as they please with crew and passengers?

Well, it isn't. The ship has a flag, and while aboard you follow the laws of that flag.

Yep. But you’re not mentioning why this happened. The Sanctions. Which are…tada- arbitrary and illegal.

They are not illegal. All sovereign countries can refuse to trade with any other country or restrict the use of their own currency.

Which is all that these sanctions amount to.

I should have said unethical or extrajudicial. The United States is preventing a sovereign country from trading. Just because it is “legal” by American law doesn’t make it ethical. You can argue the legality. You may even agree with the ethics. But it is outside international law and condemned by the UN. I never argued the legality of the U.S. law. I am arguing that the sanctions are inhumane and unnecessary. So the ship should have never been seized.

Trade embargoes do not violate international law. Otherwise, we would condemn Iran for its embargo against Israel. But Iran is free to pursue whatever trade policy it wants.

And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN.

Iran sanctions are meant to slow their nuclear program and thus de-escalate the region. It's possible they are now counterproductive. But it's also possible that without them, a paranoid right wing Israeli government would have openly attacked Iran by now. So it may well be the lesser evil.

Trade embargoes do not violate international law.

International laws do not exist. Source. Thus, the unilateral sanctions of the U.S. is beyond the law, and could be considered an act of war. The geopolitics of the region is not my concern. The unethical sanctions are.

And don't confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN.

The United States will not allow a vote in the UN on sanctions. That’s why they have to do press releases. It is from the UN. The nuclear sanctions are supported by the UN, but not the economic sanctions. Which is why the tanker was seized.

International laws do not exist.

Alena Douhan, the Special Rapporteur you cited.

States have an obligation under international human rights law

Make up your mind. If they don't exist, then what she said is meaningless.

And on the subject of Ms Douhan...

The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. ... Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

Looks like she was speaking for herself, not for the UN.

States have an obligation under international human rights law

The Human Rights law, is "international", as in more than one nation recognizes it... and only 160+ of ~200 nations routinely break it with little consequence.

This is pedantic and not worthy of my time. You have no interest in the truth, only in winning. So, great you won. We should sanction the world into panic and starvation until countries destabilize and launch wars that destroy humanity. Nice win!

It's the same bullshit with the US "pay us taxes no matter where you are" bullshit.

It's clear international overreach just like everything else.

All countries do that. Then all countries also want you to "pay us taxes where you live". Double taxation is a problem for many people, even between countries with tax agreements like in the EU.

The US is the only developed country in the world where your tax duty is based on citizenship rather than where you live or work

19 more...

You can tell from the comments in this post that Americans are immune to propaganda.

27 more...

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The US government seized nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian crude oil allegedly bound for China, according to newly unsealed court documents and a statement released by the Department of Justice on Friday.

“This is the first-ever criminal resolution involving a company that violated sanctions by facilitating the illicit sale and transport of Iranian oil,” according to the DOJ.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a US-designated foreign terrorist organization, allegedly shipped more than 980,000 barrels of oil, the press release stated.

The DOJ claimed that “multiple entities affiliated with Iran’s IRGC and the IRGC-Qods Force” were involved in the scheme to “disguise the origin of the oil” and illegally sell it to China, according to court documents.

The court filings also show allegations that “profits from oil sales support the IRGC’s full range of malign activities, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, support for terrorism and both domestic and international human rights abuses.”

In April, the company operating the ship carrying the oil, Empire Navigation, pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.


The original article contains 239 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 23%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

US navy commiting piracy on the open seas because they're the only substantial naval force that exists globally

Seriously though, they do this to Argentina too lmao.

So much for free trade

It's not piracy when the ship literally sailed to Texas and delivered the oil as part of a plea bargain deal.

The US Navy was not involved.

1 more...

This is egregious big government overreach impeding business and free trade

It's countering money laundering by the IRGC. Read up.

You're talking to a troll. Don't engage.

Thanks for the heads up. They're everywhere on this site apparently. Playing fucking mind games and spreading misinformation on every post.

God Bless America! 🇺🇸

Well, isn't that what they said? With universal free trade, there would be no concept of dirty money, no money laundering, no need to counter anything... /s

It's not even close to what the person I responded to said. What the hell are you talking about?

6 more...

The free market of ideas decided fuck around with human rights and find out you've made a powerful enemy.

6 more...

ITT: "It's ok when we do it."

Of course it's okay we sanction human rights abusers. Europe does it, too. Am I supposed to disagree with another country's sanctions or something?

Human rights abusers when they aren't our allies. US has been pretty chill with Saudi Arabia and they literally dismembered someone on foreign soil because they vocally opposed the tyrannical regime.

Saying there should be harsher treatment of SA doesn't make the sanctions against China any less justified.

3 more...

Saudi Arabia is allies only with our Republican governments. They have been and are going to keep effectively sanctioning us by raising the price of oil before our next election.

1 more...
4 more...
4 more...

This but unironically.

The court filings also show allegations that “profits from oil sales support the IRGC’s full range of malign activities, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, support for terrorism and both domestic and international human rights abuses.”

17 more...

"In addition, pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) and a seizure warrant issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Empire Navigation, the operating company of the vessel carrying the contraband cargo, agreed to cooperate and transport the Iranian oil to the United States – an operation which has now concluded."

  • DOJ Press Release

Is playing fast and loose with the facts also okay when you do it?

21 more...

So privateer is a legitimate profession again?

The government served them a court order, they turned the ship around and handed it over. No US naval involvement, etc.

Always has been. U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, clause 11.