A buyer with an ownership and payment question
A prospective buyer has no separate name entry on the SDN List. Reliable direct-ownership records show two blocked persons holding thirty percent and twenty-five percent, with no overlap. The exporter’s screening platform therefore has not resolved the ownership issue merely by returning no buyer-name alert. The buyer then proposes using another payment bank and omitting the owners from instructions to avoid delays. Sales staff hold a BIS license for the product and assume it also covers all financial restrictions. No relevant OFAC authorization or exemption has been established in the supplied facts. The reviewer must distinguish identity screening, aggregate ownership, possible concealment, agency permissions, and the appropriate handling of an actual sanctions concern.
1. Apply the supplied ownership facts.
Read the worked answer
The direct nonoverlapping interests total fifty-five percent, meeting OFAC’s aggregate fifty-percent ownership rule. Absence of a separately named buyer entry does not remove the resulting concern. Do not use simple name-screening clearance as a substitute for ownership analysis.
2. What separate issues require handling?
Read the worked answer
Assess the applicable sanctions program, payment route, parties, and any actual authorization with qualified escalation. Concealing identities does not resolve restrictions. A BIS license does not automatically authorize OFAC-restricted conduct, and blocking versus rejection depends on the applicable property interest and rules.