A Screening Hit, a Vessel Red Flag, and Commercial Pressure
TerraNova Agri, a EUR-functional fertiliser importer, instructs a USD 2.4 million payment to a Turkish trading company, Anadolu Kimya, for a urea cargo. The payment is routed through a US correspondent bank. On the morning of release, the sanctions screening system returns a potential match: the beneficiary's registered name is 87% similar to a name on the OFAC SDN list, and the shipping document shows that the vessel called at a port in a sanctioned region eight months earlier. The commercial director says the cargo is already discharged and the supplier is threatening to stop future shipments; month-end close is in three days and the payment is the largest of the quarter. The bank has asked for the underlying invoice, bill of lading, and a certificate of origin. Treasury's screening analyst is on leave and the backup has never handled a potential match.
1. Decide whether the payment can be released today. Justify the decision against the applicable sanctions principles and the US correspondent relationship.
Read the worked answer
The payment cannot be released today. A potential match is a trigger for investigation, not a decision, and commercial urgency is not a legal basis for clearing it.
Four principles drive the answer. First, sanctions are strict liability: a company can breach without intent or knowledge, so the only defence is a documented, adequate screening and escalation process. Second, the 50% rule means an unlisted company can itself be blocked if sanctioned persons own 50% or more of it, directly or indirectly, so the name match must be tested against ownership and control, not just the name. Third, the US correspondent creates a US nexus for a USD payment: OFAC can block or reject the wire while it is in the US banking system, which freezes group funds, damages the bank relationship and can attract civil penalties even for a non-US company. Fourth, the vessel's earlier call at a sanctioned port is an independent red flag that must be resolved - check the IMO number against vessel lists, the identity of the port at the time of the call, and whether the voyage is captured by sectoral restrictions.
Practical instruction: remove the payment from the run and hold it under dual control. Do not return or unwind it as a reflex - cancelling a suspicious payment without advice can itself look like evasion. Escalate the same day to the MLRO or head of compliance; if the match is confirmed, block and file with the relevant authority (for OFAC, reports of blocked property are generally due within 10 business days). If it is a false positive, record the reasoning and a second-level review, then clear.
2. Set out the escalation and documentation steps, including what to communicate to the commercial director and to the bank.
Read the worked answer
Sequence matters, and so does the audit trail.
Step 1 - hold and log. Freeze the payment under dual control, log the time of the hit, the screener's name and the exact match score, and notify the MLRO and CFO in writing.
Step 2 - gather ownership evidence. Request from the supplier: certificate of incorporation and company registry extract, shareholder register or ultimate beneficial ownership declaration, tax registration, the invoice, bill of lading, certificate of origin, vessel IMO number and recent voyage history. Screen the beneficial owners and the vessel, not just the company name. Matching on name alone is weak evidence in either direction; matching on registration number, address and UBO is strong.
Step 3 - determine and act. Confirmed match: do not pay, block or reject in line with the bank's and the authorities' instructions, file the required report, and consider whether a suspicious activity report is owed. False positive: document the rationale, obtain a second reviewer's sign-off, and release through the normal run.
Step 4 - communicate. To the commercial director: this is a legal hold, not an accusation, with a committed decision date; explain that releasing early could expose the company and individuals to penalties and could freeze the entire correspondent relationship, which is worse than one late payment. To the bank: state that the payment is under sanctions review and provide documents only once internally cleared, so that unclear evidence is not pushed into the bank's own process.
Step 5 - record the outcome and the time taken at each stage for the audit file.
3. Identify the control failures this incident exposes and prioritise the remediation.
Read the worked answer
Five failures are visible.
First, single-point dependency: the trained analyst is on leave and the backup has never handled a potential match. Screening is a regulated control, not an administrative task; there must be at least two trained reviewers with a documented procedure and a defined maximum decision time.
Second, no written potential-match procedure. Without defined steps, evidence standards, escalation contacts and reporting deadlines, each case is improvised under pressure - which is exactly how a breach happens.
Third, the payment workflow allows commercial urgency to compete with compliance. A screening hit should create a hard stop in the payment system that only compliance can release, not a queue item that a treasurer can override.
Fourth, trade-based red flags are not integrated into the payment or trade finance checklist: vessel calls at sanctioned ports, unusual routing, third-party payers and last-minute beneficiary changes should all be screened routinely.
Fifth, there is no protected escalation route for staff who feel pressured to release a payment.
Priorities, in order: a written procedure with named deputies and deadlines; a hard system stop with dual release; automated rescreening when lists change; vessel and port screening at shipment booking; and board-level visibility, including a quarterly report of hits, clears and timings. Pressure from a senior stakeholder is best answered by a control the stakeholder cannot override, and by an escalation route that protects the person who refuses.