FIN-2018-A003

June 12, 2018

Advisory on Human Rights Abuses Enabled by
Corrupt Senior Foreign Political Figures andtheir Financial Facilitators
The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is committed
to protecting both the U.S. and international financial systems,
This Advisory should be
not only from those who engage in corruption and humanshared with:rights abuses, but from those who facilitate such activities as• Chief Executive Officers
well. High-level political corruption undermines democratic• Chief Operations Officers
institutions and public trust, damages economic growth, and• Chief Risk Officers
fosters a climate where financial crime and other forms oflawlessness can thrive. Corrupt senior foreign political figures,• Legal Departments
their subordinates and facilitators, through their corrupt actions,• Chief Compliance/BSA
often contribute directly or indirectly to human rights abuses,
Officers
which have a devastating impact on individual citizens and• AML Officialssocieties, undermining markets and economic development and• Sanctions Compliancecreating instability in a region. The use of financial facilitators
Officials
is one way that corrupt senior foreign political figures access the
U.S. and international financial system to move or hide illicit
proceeds, evade U.S. and global sanctions, or otherwise engage in illegal activity, including related
human rights abuses.
Treasury employs its unique tools, consistent with applicable authorities, to impose financial
consequences on those who pillage the wealth and resources of their people, generate ill-gotten
profits from corruption, cronyism, and other criminal activity, and engage in human rights
abuses. These tools include the ability to sanction corrupt actors and human rights abusers aroundthe world under an Executive Order implementing the Global Magnitsky Act of 2016,1 taking
enforcement action against financial facilitators of corrupt senior foreign political figures, as well
as issuing advisories to financial institutions to help them identify, mitigate, and report on theserisks. Treasury will also continue to partner with others that are active in this area, such as the U.S.
Department of Justice, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), civil society, and non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) to identify, constrain, and deprive corrupt actors and those who support
their access to financial systems.
1.

See Executive Order 13818, “Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse andCorruption,” December 20, 2017; see also United States Sanctions Human Rights Abusers and Corrupt Actors Acrossthe Globe December 21, 2017.

1

F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is issuing this advisory to U.S. financial
institutions to highlight the connection between corrupt senior foreign political figures and theirenabling of human rights abuses. The advisory describes a number of typologies used by themto access the U.S. financial system, obscure, and further their illicit activity. The advisory also
provides red flags that may assist financial institutions in identifying the methods used by corrupt
senior foreign political figures,2 including the use of facilitators, to move and hide the proceedsof their corruption, which contribute directly or indirectly to human rights abuses or other illicit
activity, through the U.S. financial system.
FinCEN will update these red flags and typologies as it continues investigating the methodologies
associated with corrupt senior foreign political figures and their financial facilitators. This advisory
also reminds U.S. financial institutions of their due diligence and suspicious activity report (SAR)
filing obligations related to such corrupt senior foreign political figures and their financial facilitators.

Targeted Financial Sanctions against Corruption and
Human Rights Abuse
Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has a range of authorities to designate corrupt
senior foreign political figures, human rights abusers and their financial facilitators. OFAC hasnumerous country sanction programs, including those for Venezuela, South Sudan, Iran, Russia,
Syria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), North Korea, and Somalia, that allow OFAC tobroadly prohibit U.S. persons, including U.S. financial institutions, from engaging in transactions
involving designated individuals and entities that have engaged in corruption, undermined
democratic processes, or engaged in human rights abuse. All assets of the designated individuals
and entities subject to U.S. jurisdiction are frozen and U.S. persons, including U.S. financial
institutions, are prohibited from dealing with the designated person.3

2.

The term “senior foreign political figure” means a current or former senior official in the executive, legislative,administrative, military or judicial branches of a foreign government (whether elected or not); a senior officialof a major foreign political party; or a senior executive of a foreign government-owned commercial enterprise; acorporation, business, or other entity that has been formed by, or for the benefit of, any such individual; an immediatefamily member of any such individual; and a person who is widely and publicly known (or is actually known by
the relevant covered financial institution) to be a close associate of such individual. 31 CFR § 1010.605(p). For the
purposes of this definition, “senior official or executive” means an individual with substantial authority over policy,
operations, or the use of government-owned resources and ‘immediate family member’ means spouses, parents,
siblings, children and a spouse’s parents and siblings. 31 CFR § 1010.605(p). See also generally 31 CFR § 1010.620.
Note that the term “senior foreign political figure” connotes a subset within the concept of “politically exposed
persons” (PEPs). The term PEP is not included in FinCEN’s regulations and should not be confused with “seniorforeign political figure.” In the United States, AML obligations with respect to PEPs collectively include 1) the specificenhanced due diligence obligations for private banking accounts that are established, maintained, administered, ormanaged in the United States for senior foreign political figures, and 2) the general due diligence procedures required
for all politically exposed persons, incorporated into the institution’s anti-money laundering program as appropriate.
See SAR Activity Review Trends, Tips, and Issues: Issue 19 May 2011.

3.

See OFAC Website, Sanctions Programs and Country Information.

2

F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

The Global Magnitsky sanctions program provides Treasury with a powerful tool for targeting
corrupt officials, human rights abusers, and corrupt actors and their facilitators, regardless ofthe country in which they reside or where they operate.4 The Global Magnitsky Executive Orderempowers OFAC to cut off from the U.S. financial system any person determined by the Secretaryof the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to be, among
other things, engaging in human rights abuse, or engaging in corruption. The prohibitions of
Global Magnitsky can extend to those who provide goods or services to such actors, including
financial institutions.

Financial Action Task Force Initiatives and Recommendations
Related to Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs)
To address the financial risks associated with PEPs, the FATF issued Recommendation 12, which
requires countries to ensure that financial institutions implement measures to prevent the misuse of
the financial system by PEPs and to detect such potential abuse, if and when it occurs.5 The FATF
recommends that family members and close associates of PEPs should be considered PEPs becauseof the potential for abuse of the relationship for the purpose of moving the proceeds of crime,
facilitating placement and disguise of the proceeds, as well as for terrorist financing purposes.6
In the United States, Recommendation 12 is implemented through FinCEN rules and guidanceand complemented by supervisory expectations articulated in the Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council (FFIEC) BSA Examination Manual. Among other things, with regard toforeign PEPs, banks should exercise reasonable judgment in designing and implementing policies,
procedures, and processes regarding foreign PEPs as a part of their anti-money laundering (AML)
program. This could include obtaining risk-based due diligence information on PEPs, such ascountries of residence of the accountholder(s) and beneficial owner(s) and the level of corruption
and money laundering risk associated with those countries, source of wealth and funds, andinformation on immediate family members and close associates.7

4.

See Executive Order 13818, “Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse andCorruption,” December 21, 2017; see also United States Sanctions Human Rights Abusers and Corrupt Actors Acrossthe Globe December 21, 2017.

5.

See FATF Guidance: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22) June 2013.

6.

See FATF Guidance: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22) June 2013, page 13. FinCEN’s
regulations similarly include family members and known close associates within the definition of senior foreign
political figure. 31 CFR § 1010.605(p).

7.

See 31 CFR § 1010.620. See also FFIEC BSA Examination Manual, “Politically Exposed Persons - Overview,” 2015, page87.

3

F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

How Corrupt Foreign PEPs and their Facilitators Access the
U.S. Financial System
To further assist U.S. financial institutions’ effort to insulate themselves from corruption andprotect the U.S. financial system from foreign PEP facilitators’ illicit use, this advisory highlights
a number of typologies used by foreign PEP facilitators to access the U.S. financial system and to
obscure and launder the illicit proceeds of high-level political corruption. Appendix 1 provides
additional general case studies of financial facilitation methods.
For example, the typologies used by financial facilitators of corrupt PEPs may include themisappropriation of state assets, the use of shell companies, the exploitation of the real estate
sector, or any combination of these typologies.

Misappropriation of State Assets
Foreign corrupt PEPs, through their facilitators, may amass fortunes through the misappropriationof state assets and often exploit their own official positions to engage in narcotics trafficking,money laundering, embezzlement of state funds, and other corrupt activities.8 Such PEPs may
exploit corporations, including financial institutions that wish to do business with the government
to redirect government resources for their own profit. For example, some PEPs have used offshoreleasing companies to sell a commodity such as oil, and do so in a way that benefits particular PEPs(e.g., through the use of shell companies misleadingly named to give the appearance of being
related to the government) instead of the government as a whole.9

Use of Shell Companies
PEP facilitators commonly use shell companies to obfuscate ownership and mask the true sourceof the proceeds of corruption. Shell companies are typically non-publicly traded corporations orlimited liability companies (LLCs) that have no physical presence beyond a mailing address andgenerate little to no independent economic value. Shell companies often are formed by individuals
and businesses for legitimate purposes, such as to hold stock or assets of another business entity
or to facilitate domestic and international currency trades, asset transfers, and corporate mergers.
Financial institutions should refer to previously published materials from FinCEN to better
understand risks associated with these entities.10

8.

See Treasury Targets Influential Former Venezuelan Official and His Corruption Network May 18, 2018.

9.

See United States Sanctions Human Rights Abusers and Corrupt Actors Across the Globe December 21, 2017.

10. See FinCEN Guidance FIN-2006-G014 “Potential Money Laundering Risks Related to Shell Companies” (November2006) and SAR Activity Review Issues: Issue 1 (Oct. 2000), Issue 2 (June 2001), and Issue 7 (Aug. 2004).

4

F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

Corruption in the Real Estate Sector
Real estate transactions and the real estate market have certain characteristics that make themvulnerable to abuse by illicit actors, including corrupt foreign PEPs or PEP facilitators. For
example, many real estate transactions involve high-value assets, opaque entities, and processes
that can limit transparency because of their complexity and diversity. In addition, the real estatemarket can be an attractive vehicle for laundering illicit gains because of the manner in which realestate appreciates in value, “cleans” large sums of money in a single transaction, and shields illgotten gains from market instability and exchange-rate fluctuations.11 For these reasons and others,
drug traffickers, corrupt officials, and other criminals have used real estate to conceal the existence
and origins of their illicit funds.

Red Flags Related to Corrupt Foreign PEPs and their Facilitators
The red flags noted below may help financial institutions identify suspected schemes that corrupt
foreign PEPs and their facilitators may use. In applying the red flags below, financial institutions
are advised that no single transactional red flag necessarily indicates suspicious activity. Financial
institutions should consider additional indicators and the surrounding facts and circumstances,such as a customer’s historical financial activity and whether the customer exhibits multiple
red flags, before determining that a transaction is suspicious. Financial institutions should also
perform additional inquiries and investigations where appropriate.
1.

Use of third parties when it is not normal business practice.

2.

Use of third parties when it appears to shield the identity of a PEP.

3.

Use of family members or close associates as legal owners.

4.

Use of corporate vehicles (legal entities and legal arrangements) to obscure i) ownership,ii) involved industries, or iii) countries.

5.

Declarations of information from PEPs that are inconsistent with other information, suchas publicly available asset declarations and published official salaries.

6.

The PEP or facilitator seeks to make use of the services of a financial institution or adesignated non-financial business or profession (DNFBP)12 that would normally notcater to foreign or high-value clients.

11. See Advisory to Financial Institutions and Real Estate Firms and Professionals August 22, 2017.
12. See FATF Guidance: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22) June 2013. DNFBPs include real estateagents, dealers in precious metals, attorneys, accountants, and company formation agents.

5

F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

Reminder of Regulatory Obligations for U.S. Financial
Institutions Regarding Senior Foreign Political Figures andSuspicious Activity Reporting
Consistent with existing regulatory obligations, financial institutions should take reasonable,risk-based steps to identify and limit exposure they may have to funds and other assets
associated with individuals and entities involved in laundering illicit proceeds, including theproceeds of foreign corruption. However, financial institutions are reminded that the bulk of
PEPs are dedicated public servants and concerns over the criminal and corrupt conduct of some6

F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

should not be used as the basis to engage in wholesale or indiscriminate de-risking of any classof customers or financial institutions. FinCEN also reminds financial institutions of previous
interagency guidance on providing services to foreign embassies, consulates, and missions.13

Due diligence obligations
FinCEN is providing the information in this advisory to assist U.S. financial institutions inmeeting their risk-based due diligence obligations to identify individuals providing financial
facilitation for, or on behalf of, corrupt PEPs and to not knowingly or wittingly assist suchindividuals. Financial institutions should establish risk-based controls and procedures that
include reasonable steps to ascertain the status of an individual as a foreign PEP and to conduct
scrutiny of assets held by such individuals.14 Financial institutions should assess the risk forlaundering of the proceeds of public corruption associated with particular customers, products
and services, countries, industries, and transactions.
As of May 11, 2018, FinCEN’s Customer Due Diligence (CDD) Rule requires banks; brokers or
dealers in securities; mutual funds; and futures commission merchants and introducing brokers
in commodities to identify and verify the identity of beneficial owners of legal entity customers,
subject to certain exclusions and exemptions.15 Among other things, this should facilitate theidentification of legal entities that may be owned or controlled by PEPs.

Enhanced due diligence obligations for private banking accounts
In addition to these general risk-based due diligence obligations, under section 312 of the USA
PATRIOT Act (31 U.S.C. § 5318(i)) and its implementing regulations, U.S. financial institutions
have regulatory obligations to implement a due diligence program for private banking accounts
held for non-U.S. persons that is designed to detect and report any known or suspected money
laundering or other suspicious activity.16 This program must be designed to identify any such

13. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network, National Credit Union Administration, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, andOffice of Thrift Supervision, “Interagency Advisory: Guidance on Accepting Accounts from Foreign Embassies,
Consulates, and Missions,” March 24, 2011 and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, National Credit Union Administration, Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, and Office of Thrift Supervision, “Interagency Advisory: Guidance on Accepting
Accounts from Foreign Governments, Foreign Embassies, and Foreign Political Figures,” June 15, 2004.
14. See 31 CFR § 1010.620(c) and Guidance on Enhanced Scrutiny for Transactions that May Involve the Proceeds of Foreign
Official Corruption (Jan. 16, 2001). See also FFIEC BSA Examination Manual, “Politically Exposed Persons - Overview,”
2015, pages 290-293.
15. See Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions May 11, 2016.
16. See 31 CFR § 1010.620(a-b). The definition of “covered financial institution” is found in 31 CFR § 1010.605(e). The
definition of “private banking account” is found in 31 CFR § 1010.605(m). The definition for the term “non-U.S.
person” is found in 31 CFR § 1010.605(h).

7F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

account owned by, or on behalf of, a senior foreign political figure, and financial institutions are
required to apply enhanced scrutiny to such accounts reasonably designed to detect and reporttransactions that may involve the proceeds of foreign corruption.17

General obligations for correspondent account due diligence and
AML programs
U.S. financial institutions also are reminded to comply with their general due diligenceobligations under 31 CFR § 1010.610(a), in addition to their general AML program obligations
under 31 U.S.C. § 5318(h) and its implementing regulations.18 As required under 31 CFR §1010.610(a), covered financial institutions should ensure that their due diligence programs,
which address correspondent accounts maintained for foreign financial institutions, include
appropriate, specific, risk-based, and, where necessary, enhanced policies, procedures,and controls that are reasonably designed to detect and report known or suspected money
laundering activity conducted through or involving any correspondent account established,
maintained, administered, or managed in the United States.

Suspicious activity reporting
A financial institution may be required to file a SAR if it knows, suspects, or has reason tosuspect a transaction conducted or attempted by, at, or through the financial institution involves
funds derived from illegal activity, or attempts to disguise funds derived from illegal activity; isdesigned to evade regulations promulgated under the BSA; lacks a business or apparent lawful
purpose; or involves the use of the financial institution to facilitate criminal activity, which may
include foreign corruption.19

Additional SAR reporting guidance on senior foreign political figures
In April 2008, FinCEN issued Guidance to assist financial institutions with reporting suspicious
activity regarding proceeds of foreign corruption.20 A related FinCEN SAR Activity Review,which focused on foreign political corruption, also discusses indicators of transactions that may
be related to proceeds of foreign corruption.21 Financial institutions may find this Guidance
and the SAR Activity Review useful in assisting with suspicious activity monitoring and due
diligence requirements related to senior foreign political figures.

17. See 31 CFR § 1010.620(c).
18. See 31 CFR § 1010.210.
19. See generally 31 CFR § § 1020.320, 1021.320, 1022.320, 1023.320, 1024.320, 1025.320, 1026.320, 1029.320, and 1030.320.
20. See FinCEN Guidance FIN-2008-G005: “Guidance to Financial Institutions on Filing Suspicious Activity Reports
Regarding the Proceeds of Foreign Corruption,” April 2008.
21. See SAR Activity Review, Issue 19, Focus: Foreign Political Corruption May 2011, particularly pages 29-69.

8F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

SAR filing instructions
When filing a SAR, financial institutions should provide all pertinent available information in
the SAR form and narrative. FinCEN further requests that financial institutions select SAR
field 35(l) (Suspected Public/Private Corruption (Foreign)) and reference this advisory byincluding the key term:“Financial Facilitator FIN-2018-A003”
in the SAR narrative and in SAR field 35(z) (Other Suspicious Activity-Other) to indicate
a connection between the suspicious activity being reported and the persons and activities
highlighted in this advisory.
SAR reporting, in conjunction with effective implementation of due diligence requirements andOFAC obligations by financial institutions, has been crucial to identifying money launderingand other financial crimes associated with foreign and domestic political corruption. SAR
reporting is consistently beneficial and critical to FinCEN and U.S. law enforcement analyticaland investigative efforts, enforcement of U.S. sanctions, and the overall security and stability of
the U.S. financial system.22

For Further Information
Additional questions or comments regarding the contents of this advisory should be addressedto the FinCEN Resource Center at FRC@fincen.gov,. Financial institutions wanting to reportsuspicious transactions that may potentially relate to terrorist activity should call the Financial
Institutions Toll-Free Hotline at (866) 556-3974 (7 days a week, 24 hours a day). The purpose of
the hotline is to expedite the delivery of this information to law enforcement. Financial institutions
should immediately report any imminent threat to local-area law enforcement officials.

FinCEN’s mission is to safeguard the financial system from illicit use andcombat money laundering and promote national security through thecollection, analysis, and dissemination of financial intelligence andstrategic use of financial authorities.

22. See example case studies in SAR Activity Review, Issue 19, May 2011, beginning on page 25 and Law Enforcement
Case Examples.

9

F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

APPENDIX 1: Case Examples of Financial
Facilitation Methods
This appendix includes general case examples which illustrate some of the methods used byfinancial facilitators.

DRC: Use of Tax Haven Shell Companies by Financial Facilitator of DRC
President to Move and Launder Stolen Mining Revenues
On December 20, 2017, the President of the United States included Dan Gertler (Gertler) in the
Annex to Executive Order (E.O.) 13818, “Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious
Human Rights Abuses and Corruption.” In an action simultaneous to E.O. 13818, OFAC
designated 19 companies and one individual affiliated with Gertler.23 Gertler is an international
businessman and billionaire who has amassed hundreds of millions of dollars through opaqueand corrupt shell company-facilitated mining and oil deals in the Democratic Republic ofCongo (DRC), in part, by leveraging his close friendship with DRC President Joseph Kabila.
Alongside Gertler’s designation, Treasury identified 19 entities owned or controlled by Gertler
or his Gibraltar-registered Fleurette Properties Limited (Fleurette), which owns stakes in various
Congolese mines through holding companies in offshore tax havens such as the British Virgin
Islands (BVI) and the Cayman Islands. Of the companies Treasury designated, six are registeredin the BVI and all known addresses correspond to P.O. Box mailing addresses, with multiple
companies using the same addresses. Although Gertler does business more publicly throughFleurette, it is the names of these offshore companies that appear on contracts and agreements.
The companies appear to have been created for a singular purpose and were rarely disclosed
until said agreements had been completed.24 Between 2010 and 2012 alone, the DRC reportedly
lost over $1.36 billion in revenues from the underpricing of mining assets that were sold tooffshore companies linked to Gertler. In those instances, Gertler used his close friendship with
Kabila to act as an intermediary for mining asset sales in the DRC, requiring some multinational
companies to go through Gertler to do business with the Congolese state.25

The Gambia, Hizballah, and Iran: Laundering of Stolen Government Funds
On May 17, 2018, OFAC designated Mohammad Ibrahim Bazzi (Bazzi) and Abdallah Safi-AlDin as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) pursuant to E.O. 13224, which targets
terrorists and those providing support to terrorists or acts of terrorism. Bazzi, is a key Hizballahfinancier who provided Hizballah financial assistance for many years, including millions of

23. See Executive Order 13818, “Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse andCorruption,” December 20, 2017; see also United States Sanctions Human Rights Abusers and Corrupt Actors Acrossthe Globe December 21, 2017.
24. See United States Sanctions Human Rights Abusers and Corrupt Actors Across the Globe December 21, 2017.
25. Ibid.

10

F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

dollars generated from his business activities. Bazzi was a close associate of Yahya Jammeh,
the former President of The Gambia, whose administration was accused of many human rights
abuses, including harsh and potentially life threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrests; lackof accountability in cases involving violence against women, including rape and female genital
mutilation/cutting; trafficking in persons; and child labor.26 Jammeh personally, or throughfacilitators (such as Bazzi) acting under his instructions, directed the unlawful withdrawal of atleast $50 million of state funds from The Gambia. OFAC also designated that day five companies
located in West Africa, Europe, and the Middle East for being owned or controlled by Mohammad
Bazzi and another Specially Designated Global Terrorist.27 According to Treasury, Bazzi operates
or transacts in or through Belgium, Lebanon, Iraq, and several countries in West Africa.28 Bazzi
also has business ties to the designated Ayman Joumaa Drug Trafficking and Money Laundering
Organization. Between 2009 and 2010, Bazzi also worked with Abdallah Safi-Al-Din, Hizballah’s
representative to Iran, and the Central Bank of Iran to expand banking access between Iran andLebanon.29 Bazzi maintains ties to Hizballah financiers Adham Tabaja and Ali Youssef Charara,
who facilitate commercial investments on behalf of Hizballah.30

Corruption in South Sudan
On December 21, 2017, the President imposed sanctions on Benjamin Bol Mel (Bol Mel).31 Bol
Mel is the President of ABMC Thai-South Sudan Construction Company Limited (ABMC),
and has served as the Chairman of the South Sudan Chamber of Commerce, Industry, andAgriculture.32 Bol Mel has also served as South Sudanese President Salva Kiir’s principal
financial advisor, has been Kiir’s private secretary, and was perceived within the government as
being close to Kiir and the local business community.33 Several officials were linked to ABMC inspite of a constitutional prohibition on top government officials transacting commercial businessor earning income from outside the government.
Bol Mel oversees ABMC, which has been awarded contracts worth tens of millions of dollars
by the Government of South Sudan. ABMC allegedly received preferential treatment fromhigh-level officials, and the Government of South Sudan did not hold a competitive process

26. “Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” 2017 (aka the Human Rights Reports), United States
Department of State, see background in link, https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/277247.pdf
27. See Treasury Targets Key Hizballah Financing Network and Iranian Conduit May 17, 2018.
28. Ibid.
29. See Treasury Targets Key Hizballah Financing Network and Iranian Conduit May 17, 2018.
30. See Treasury Sanctions Hizballah Financier and His Company January 7, 2016.
31. See United States Sanctions Human Rights Abusers and Corrupt Actors Across the Globe December 21, 2017.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid

11

F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

for selecting ABMC to do roadwork on several roads in Juba and throughout South Sudan.34
Although this roadwork had been completed only a few years before, the government budgetedtens of millions of dollars more for maintenance of the same roads.
In September 2017, Treasury took action pursuant to E.O. 13664 in response to the continued
deterioration of the humanitarian situation in South Sudan and the role of officials of the South
Sudanese Government in undermining the peace, security, and stability of the country.35 OFAC
designated two South Sudanese government officials and one former official for their roles
in destabilizing South Sudan and three companies that are owned or controlled by one of theofficials. Additionally, FinCEN issued an advisory to financial institutions concerning thepotential movement of assets belonging to South Sudanese politically exposed persons.36

Laundering of Embezzled Funds by a Former Venezuelan Official and
Financial Facilitator
On May 18, 2018, OFAC designated Diosdado Cabello Rondón (Cabello) pursuant to E.O. 13692,
for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.37 Cabello is a former
Venezuelan official and is the First Vice-President of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela(PSUV), the political party of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro Moros. Cabello is a former
army lieutenant who forged a close link at the Venezuelan military academy with former, nowdeceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Cabello has conducted a significant amount ofillicit business with others, including Francisco Jose Rangel Gomez (Rangel Gomez), who reported
to Cabello. Cabello, Rangel Gomez, and their associates laundered money from the embezzlementof Venezuelan state funds and their dealings with drug traffickers through leasing a series ofapartment buildings and commercial shopping centers, and also worked together to illegally
access and exploit mines through a subsidiary of a state-owned Venezuelan conglomerate.38
Although the subsidiary was a legitimate business, Cabello and his associates had front men
inside the company who facilitated the illegal extraction and export of natural resources.
Venezuelan officials have also used state-owned enterprises to launder money intentionally, toinclude state-owned enterprises as a cover for drug trafficking and money laundering.
OFAC also designated three other individuals for being current or former officials, or for
acting for or on behalf of designated individuals as key figures in Cabello’s corruption
network including Rafael Alfredo Sarria Diaz, Cabello’s front man (“testaferro”), designatedfor acting for or on behalf of Cabello. Rafael Alfredo Sarria Diaz (Sarria) has laundered
34. Ibid
35. Treasury Targets South Sudanese Government Officials and Related Companies for Continued Destabilization
September 6, 2017.
36. See Advisory on Political Corruption Risks in South Sudan August 22, 2017.
37. See Treasury Targets Influential Former Venezuelan Official and His Corruption Network May 18, 2018.
38. Ibid

12

F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

money for Venezuelan officials by buying real estate since 2010.39 The two have maintained
an illicit business relationship since at least 2010, when Sarria and Cabello had partnerships
and corporations in Panama, and Sarria owned several real estate properties in Florida thatwere registered under his own name. In reality, Sarria acted as the named representative forCabello in the ownership of these properties.40 As of 2015, Sarria continued to manage multiple
properties and financial arrangements for Cabello, and in 2016, he was involved in drugtrafficking activities on Cabello’s behalf.41 As of 2018, Sarria advises and assists Cabello, and heprofits from the investment of Cabello’s corruptly obtained wealth. OFAC has blocked threecompanies that are owned or controlled by Sarria in Florida: SAI Advisors Inc., Noor Plantation
Investments LLC, and 11420 Corp.

Lord’s Resistance Army Facilitators Involved in the Illicit Trade of Ivory,
Weapons, and Money in Central Africa
On December 13, 2017, OFAC designated Okot Lukwang and Musa Hatari pursuant to E.O.
13667, which targets certain persons contributing to the conflict in the Central African Republic(CAR), including those that support armed groups involved in activities that threaten the peace,security, or stability of the CAR through the illicit trade of natural resources.42 Both designatedpersons facilitated the transfer of ivory, weapons, and money in support of the Lord’s
Resistance Army (LRA).
Lukwang was designated for activities including acting as the LRA’s intelligence officer andoverseeing supply logistics for Joseph Kony’s LRA group, which maintains command andcontrol over three other LRA groups and is composed of his most trusted personnel.43 Lukwang
has coerced civilians to provide him with information on military forces in the area andprovided Joseph Kony and other LRA commanders with intelligence reports. Lukwang has also
run day-to-day operations of Joseph Kony’s LRA group.
In addition, Lukwang acted as the LRA’s ivory broker, in charge of selling or trading the LRA’s
ivory for U.S. dollars, Sudanese pounds, food, weapons, and ammunition, including rocketpropelled grenades and machine gun ammunition.44 Joseph Kony entrusted Lukwang withthe location of hidden tusk caches and used Lukwang and Ali Kony to deal with Darfur-area
traders who purchased LRA-trafficked ivory.

39. Ibid
40. Ibid
41. Ibid
42. See Treasury Sanctions Lord’s Resistance Army Facilitators Involved in the Illicit Trade of Ivory, Weapons, and Moneyin Central Africa May 18, 2018.
43. Ibid
44. Ibid

13

F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

Hatari is the primary supplier of ammunition, mines, weapons, food, supplies, and other goods
to the LRA.45 Hatari, the owner of five shops in the Songo Market in the disputed region of
Kafia Kingi, has traded with the LRA since at least 2013.46 Hatari buys regularly from the LRA,
has sold or traded ivory from the LRA at the Songo Market, and has promised to trade anything
the LRA wants for ivory.
In May 2015, Lukwang, Ali Kony, and a third LRA commander met with Hatari and othermerchants to purchase supplies and plan additional trades.47 Lukwang translated between the
LRA and the merchants to trade ivory for supplies.

Misappropriation of State Assets into Legal Entities Controlled by Facilitators
In 2014, the United States filed a civil forfeiture complaint seeking assets allegedly stolen
from the government of Nigeria by dictator, General Sani Abacha (Abacha), and various coconspirators. The assets are allegedly linked to a scheme to embezzle money from the Nigerian
Government during the 1990s and early 2000s through a number of schemes. In one alleged
scheme, Abacha and his co-conspirators falsified numerous letters declaring national security
emergencies requiring the disbursement of funds by the Central Bank. Through this procedure,
the Central Bank disbursed funds worth over $2 billion to Abacha and his associates, who thenengaged in a series of complex transactions to transfer those funds to overseas accounts held bylegal entities.48

Corruption and Residential Real Estate
A high-profile case illustrating money laundering risks in the real estate sector involves Teodoro
Nguema Obiang Mangue, (Obiang) the Vice President of Equatorial Guinea, in which the U.S.
Department of Justice filed a forfeiture complaint seeking forfeiture of over $68 million in assets—
including a $30 million Malibu estate—associated with funds allegedly misappropriated from theEquatoguinean government. In laundering these funds in or through the United States from inor about 2006 through 2010, Obiang used several U.S. nominees to open shell accounts and banks
accounts on his behalf while concealing from U.S. banks his ownership, control and association
with these funds. The nominees identified included lawyers, and other employees of his. The
assets purchased using the proceeds of this scheme included a 10-acre estate in Beverly Hills, a$38 million jet aircraft, a Ferrari and several items of Michael Jackson memorabilia.49

45. Ibid
46. Ibid
47. Ibid
48. See United States v. All Assets Held in Account Number 80020796, in the Name of Doraville Props. Corp., Case No.
1:13-cv-01832 (D.D.C. Nov.18, 2013).
49. See One Michael Jackson Signed Thriller Jacket, et al., No. CV-13-9169-GW-SS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2014).

14

F I N C E N

A D V I S O R Y

FinCEN’s analysis of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and other data, particularly data gathered throughthe use of FinCEN’s recent Geographic Targeting Orders requiring the collection of beneficial
ownership information of companies purchasing real estate in a number of markets in the
United States, indicates that high-value residential real estate markets are vulnerable to misuse
by foreign and domestic criminal organizations and corrupt actors, especially those misusing
otherwise legitimate limited liability companies or other legal entities to shield their identities.50
In addition, when these transactions are conducted without any financing (e.g., “all-cash”),
they mostly avoid traditional anti-money laundering measures adopted by lending financial
institutions, presenting increased risk.

Iran: Treasury Targets Human Rights Abuses, Censorship, and Enhanced
Monitoring by the Iranian Government
On May 30, 2018, OFAC designated Ansar-e Hizballah pursuant to E.O. 13553 for being an
official of the Government of Iran or a person acting on behalf of the Government of Iran(including members of paramilitary organizations) who is responsible for or complicit in, or
responsible for ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission of serious humanrights abuses against persons in Iran or Iranian citizens or residents, or the family membersof the foregoing.51 Ansar-e Hizballah is an organization supported by the Iranian regime thatis responsible for ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, serious human rights abuses
against the Iranian people. Ansar-e Hizballah has been involved in the violent suppression of
Iranian citizens and has collaborated with the Basij Resistance Force to attack Iranian students
with knives, tear gas, and electric batons. In addition, the U.S. Government has linked Ansar-e
Hizballah to acid attacks against women in the city of Isfahan. Multiple women who were notdressed in accordance with the regime’s standards had acid thrown at them, severely injuring
them and creating a climate of fear. Abdolhamid Mohtasham, a founding member and key
leader of the group, plays a significant role in overseeing the group’s actions. He has threatened
to use Ansar-e Hizballah to patrol Iranian streets and attack women whom he deems to be
unvirtuous. Additionally, OFAC designated Hanista Programing Group, an entity that has
operated information or communications technology that facilitates monitoring or tracking that
could assist or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of the Government of Iran.
Hanista Programing Group is responsible for creating and distributing alternative versions of
the popular messaging and social media application Telegram that facilitate the Iranian regime’s
monitoring and tracking of Iranian and international users. This monitoring and tracking
functionality could assist or enable serious human rights abuses by the Government of Iran.

50. See Advisory to Financial Institutions and Real Estate Firms and Professionals August 22, 2017.
51. See Treasury Targets Key Hizballah Financing Network and Iranian Conduit May 17, 2018.

15