Sanctions 2025

USA LAW AND PRACTICE Contributed by: Seward & Kissel LLP

of this writing, the US Congress continues to advocate for tougher Russian sanctions to keep pace with the pressure imposed by successive sanctions packag - es in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and the European Union. Additional sanctions actions could follow on from these priorities.

• a request for the reconsideration of OFAC’s deter - mination, including a detailed description of why the listed person should be removed; and • if writing on behalf of a petitioner, a signed authori- sation from the petitioner indicating that the repre- sentative is writing on behalf of the petitioner and identifying their relationship to the petitioner. OFAC encourages petitioners also to include arguments or evidence establishing that the listing has an insufficient basis or that the circumstances result - ing in the listing no longer apply. If OFAC denies a petition, the petitioner may chal - lenge that determination under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in federal court or file another administrative petition. Under the APA, courts are to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”. However, because courts are to defer to and presume the validity of OFAC’s determination, meeting this standard is typically difficult. 4.2 Remedies Should a petitioner successfully bring a delisting chal- lenge under the Administrative Procedure Act, the available remedy would be the delisting itself. The APA can be enforced only through equitable, injunctive relief, and does not permit plaintiffs to obtain dam - ages against a federal agency, such as OFAC; see 5 USC. § 702 (prohibiting the award of money damages for violations of the APA). 4.3 Timing Because each application is considered on a case- by-case basis, there is no fixed time within which OFAC provides delisting determinations. Generally, the review process can be lengthy. OFAC advises that its review timing depends upon a range of factors, including: • whether OFAC needs additional information; • the need to engage in interagency consultation; • how timely and forthcoming the petitioner is in responding to OFAC’s requests; and • the specific facts of the case.

4. Delisting Challenges 4.1 Process

OFAC explains that “the power and integrity of [its] sanctions derive not only from [OFAC’s] ability to des - ignate and add persons to sanctions lists, including the [SDN List], but also from [OFAC’s] willingness to remove persons from such lists consistent with the law”. Accordingly, OFAC regularly receives and con- siders challenges to sanctions designations. Delisting is possible in a host of circumstances, such as: • where there is a demonstrable positive change in behaviour; • if an SDN or listed person dies; • when the basis for the designation or other sanc- tion no longer exists; or • when the designation or other sanction was based on mistaken identity. The delisting petition procedures are set forth at 31 CFR § 501.807. Persons seeking to challenge a designation must submit a written request for removal (referred to as a “petition” or “request for consideration”). The petition should include: • the listed person’s name and mailing address (including email address) and, if appropriate, their authorised representative’s name and mailing address (including email address); • proof of the listed person’s identity (such as a copy of a government-issued identification card); • the date of the relevant OFAC listing action (such as the designation or identification); • the SDN listing (or other OFAC listing) as it appears on the SDN List (or other OFAC list);

235 CHAMBERS.COM