USApedia

International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (view source)

Revision as of 01:10, 11 February 2025

16 bytes removed ,  11 February
m
Text replacement - "George W. Bush" to "George W. Bush"
VisualWikitext
 
m (Text replacement - "George W. Bush" to "George W. Bush")
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 60: Line 60:
==History==
==History==
===Curtailment of emergency executive powers===
===Curtailment of emergency executive powers===
Congress enacted the IEEPA in 1977 to clarify and restrict presidential power during times of declared national emergency under the [[Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917]] ("TWEA"). Under TWEA, starting with [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] in 1933, presidents had the power to declare emergencies without limiting their scope or duration, without citing the relevant statutes, and without congressional oversight.<ref>H. Rep. No. 95-459, at 7 (1977) "[the TWEA] has become essentially an unlimited grant of authority for the President to exercise, at his discretion, broad powers in both the domestic and international economic arena, without congressional review. These powers may be exercised so long as there is an unterminated declaration of national emergency on the books, whether or not the situation with respect to which the emergency was declared bears any relationship to the situation with respect to which the President is using the authorities"</ref> The [[SCOTUS|Supreme Court]] in ''[[Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'' limited what a president could do in such an emergency, but did not limit the emergency declaration power itself. A 1973 Senate investigation found (in [[Senate Report 93-549]]) that four declared emergencies remained in effect: the 1933 banking crisis with respect to the hoarding of gold,<ref>[[Executive Order 6102]]</ref> a 1950 emergency with respect to the [[Korean War]],<ref>Executive Proclamation 2914, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13684</ref> a 1970 emergency regarding the [[U.S. postal strike of 1970|postal workers strike]], and a 1971 emergency [[Nixon Shock|in response]] to the government's deteriorating economic and fiscal conditions.<ref>S. Rep. No. 93-549, at 2 (1973), http://www.ncrepublic.org/images/lib/SenateReport93_549.pdf</ref> Congress terminated these emergencies with the [[National Emergencies Act]], and then passed the IEEPA to restore the emergency power in a limited, overseeable form.
Congress enacted the IEEPA in 1977 to clarify and restrict presidential power during times of declared national emergency under the [[Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917]] ("TWEA"). Under TWEA, starting with [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] in 1933, presidents had the power to declare emergencies without limiting their scope or duration, without citing the relevant statutes, and without congressional oversight.<ref>H. Rep. No. 95-459, at 7 (1977) "[the TWEA] has become essentially an unlimited grant of authority for the President to exercise, at his discretion, broad powers in both the domestic and international economic arena, without congressional review. These powers may be exercised so long as there is an unterminated declaration of national emergency on the books, whether or not the situation with respect to which the emergency was declared bears any relationship to the situation with respect to which the President is using the authorities"</ref> The [[SCOTUS|Supreme Court]] in ''[[Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'' limited what a president could do in such an emergency, but did not limit the emergency declaration power itself. A 1973 Senate investigation found (in [[Senate Report 93-549]]) that four declared emergencies remained in effect: the 1933 banking crisis with respect to the hoarding of gold,<ref>[[Executive Order 6102]]</ref> a 1950 emergency with respect to the Korean War,<ref>Executive Proclamation 2914, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13684</ref> a 1970 emergency regarding the [[U.S. postal strike of 1970|postal workers strike]], and a 1971 emergency [[Nixon Shock|in response]] to the government's deteriorating economic and fiscal conditions.<ref>S. Rep. No. 93-549, at 2 (1973), http://www.ncrepublic.org/images/lib/SenateReport93_549.pdf</ref> Congress terminated these emergencies with the [[National Emergencies Act]], and then passed the IEEPA to restore the emergency power in a limited, overseeable form.


Unlike TWEA, IEEPA was drafted to permit presidential emergency declarations only in response to threats originating outside the United States.<ref name="50 U.S.C. §1701a"/>  Beginning with [[Jimmy Carter]] in response to the [[Iran Hostage Crisis]], presidents have invoked IEEPA to safeguard U.S. national security interests by freezing or "blocking" assets of belligerent foreign governments,<ref>[[Executive Order 12170]], 44 C.F.R. 65,729.</ref> or certain foreign nationals abroad.<ref>[[Executive Order 12978]], 60 C.F.R. 54,579 (1995) (blocking the assets of certain Colombian narcotics traffickers).</ref>
Unlike TWEA, IEEPA was drafted to permit presidential emergency declarations only in response to threats originating outside the United States.<ref name="50 U.S.C. §1701a"/>  Beginning with [[Jimmy Carter]] in response to the [[Iran Hostage Crisis]], presidents have invoked IEEPA to safeguard U.S. national security interests by freezing or "blocking" assets of belligerent foreign governments,<ref>[[Executive Order 12170]], 44 C.F.R. 65,729.</ref> or certain foreign nationals abroad.<ref>[[Executive Order 12978]], 60 C.F.R. 54,579 (1995) (blocking the assets of certain Colombian narcotics traffickers).</ref>
Line 67: Line 67:


===Since 9/11===
===Since 9/11===
Following the [[September 11 terror attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]], President [[George W. Bush]] issued [[Executive Order 13224]] under the IEEPA to block the assets of terrorist organizations.<ref>[[Executive Order 13224]], Sec. 1(a), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-09-25/pdf/01-24205.pdf</ref> The President delegated blocking authority to federal agencies led by the U.S. Treasury. In October 2001, Congress passed the [[Patriot Act|USA PATRIOT Act]] which, in part, enhanced IEEPA asset blocking provisions under §1702(a)(1)(B) to permit the blocking of assets during the "pendency of an investigation." This statutory change gave the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control the power to block assets without the need to provide evidence of the blocking subject's wrongdoing nor to permit the blocking subject a chance to effectively respond to the allegations in court.<ref>''KindHearts v. Geithner'', 647 F. Supp. 2d 857, 866, ND Ohio 2009, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10931539635102900344&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14&as_vis=1</ref> Executing these blocking actions led to a series of legal cases challenging federal authority to indefinitely prevent charitable organizations from accessing their assets held in the United States.<ref>See e.g., id.</ref>
Following the [[September 11 terror attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]], President George W. Bush issued [[Executive Order 13224]] under the IEEPA to block the assets of terrorist organizations.<ref>[[Executive Order 13224]], Sec. 1(a), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-09-25/pdf/01-24205.pdf</ref> The President delegated blocking authority to federal agencies led by the U.S. Treasury. In October 2001, Congress passed the [[Patriot Act|USA PATRIOT Act]] which, in part, enhanced IEEPA asset blocking provisions under §1702(a)(1)(B) to permit the blocking of assets during the "pendency of an investigation." This statutory change gave the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control the power to block assets without the need to provide evidence of the blocking subject's wrongdoing nor to permit the blocking subject a chance to effectively respond to the allegations in court.<ref>''KindHearts v. Geithner'', 647 F. Supp. 2d 857, 866, ND Ohio 2009, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10931539635102900344&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14&as_vis=1</ref> Executing these blocking actions led to a series of legal cases challenging federal authority to indefinitely prevent charitable organizations from accessing their assets held in the United States.<ref>See e.g., id.</ref>


President [[Donald Trump]] used the IEEPA extensively, sanctioning more than 3,700 entities and invoking 11 national emergency declarations (out of the 13 that he declared overall) relying primarily or exclusively on IEEPA authority during his 2017–21 term; Trump also used or threatened use of its powers in unconventional and unprecedented manners (including executive actions utilizing powers under the act that prompted legal challenges).<ref name="brennancenter"/>
President [[Donald Trump]] used the IEEPA extensively, sanctioning more than 3,700 entities and invoking 11 national emergency declarations (out of the 13 that he declared overall) relying primarily or exclusively on IEEPA authority during his 2017–21 term; Trump also used or threatened use of its powers in unconventional and unprecedented manners (including executive actions utilizing powers under the act that prompted legal challenges).<ref name="brennancenter"/>
Line 75: Line 75:
In September 2020, the Trump administration sanctioned and imposed visa restrictions on two [[International Criminal Court]] (ICC) officials, prosecutor [[Fatou Bensouda]] and Jurisdiction Complementarity and Cooperation Division Director [[Phakiso Mochochoko]], over the court's investigation into allegations of war crimes committed by the U.S. and Israel in Afghanistan and the [[Palestinian territories]], respectively. Critics considered the order an effort to intimidate ICC civil servants from proceeding with its investigation and accused the administration of targeting the two prosecutors, both of African origin, based on their race. The [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York]] granted a preliminary injunction blocking the sanctions in January 2021, through a challenge to the order brought by four dual-national American law professors and the [[Open Society Justice Initiative]]. (The Biden administration lifted the ICC sanctions in April 2021.)<ref>{{cite news|title=Trump authorizes sanctions against International Criminal Court officials|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics/icc-executive-order/index.html|author=Jennifer Hansler|website=[[CNN]]|date=April 2, 2021|access-date=December 31, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title= 20 Civ. 8121 (KPF) - Opinion and Order|url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.545370/gov.uscourts.nysd.545370.56.0_1.pdf|publisher=[[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York]]|date=January 4, 2021|access-date=January 1, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=US lifts Trump-era sanctions against ICC prosecutor|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56620915|website=[[BBC News]]|date=June 14, 2020|access-date=December 31, 2022}}</ref>
In September 2020, the Trump administration sanctioned and imposed visa restrictions on two [[International Criminal Court]] (ICC) officials, prosecutor [[Fatou Bensouda]] and Jurisdiction Complementarity and Cooperation Division Director [[Phakiso Mochochoko]], over the court's investigation into allegations of war crimes committed by the U.S. and Israel in Afghanistan and the [[Palestinian territories]], respectively. Critics considered the order an effort to intimidate ICC civil servants from proceeding with its investigation and accused the administration of targeting the two prosecutors, both of African origin, based on their race. The [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York]] granted a preliminary injunction blocking the sanctions in January 2021, through a challenge to the order brought by four dual-national American law professors and the [[Open Society Justice Initiative]]. (The Biden administration lifted the ICC sanctions in April 2021.)<ref>{{cite news|title=Trump authorizes sanctions against International Criminal Court officials|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics/icc-executive-order/index.html|author=Jennifer Hansler|website=[[CNN]]|date=April 2, 2021|access-date=December 31, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title= 20 Civ. 8121 (KPF) - Opinion and Order|url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.545370/gov.uscourts.nysd.545370.56.0_1.pdf|publisher=[[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York]]|date=January 4, 2021|access-date=January 1, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=US lifts Trump-era sanctions against ICC prosecutor|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56620915|website=[[BBC News]]|date=June 14, 2020|access-date=December 31, 2022}}</ref>


Also in September 2020, Trump used the IEEPA to [[Donald Trump–TikTok controversy|order the removal]] of social media platforms [[TikTok]] and [[WeChat]] from U.S. app stores as well as prohibit domestic business transactions involving their respective China-based parent companies [[ByteDance]] and [[Tencent]]; the restrictions would have become applicable to TikTok unless it was sold to an American company within 45 days of the executive order's issuance.<ref>{{cite web |last=Carvajal |first=Nikki |title=Trump issues executive order banning TikTok from operating in 45 days if it's not sold by Chinese parent company |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/politics/trump-executive-order-tiktok/index.html |access-date=7 August 2020 |website=CNN |date=7 August 2020 |archive-date=10 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200810020022/https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/politics/trump-executive-order-tiktok/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=":11">{{Cite news|last=Arbel|first=Tali|date=6 August 2020|title=Trump bans dealings with Chinese owners of TikTok, WeChat|work=Associated Press|url=https://apnews.com/719d8c83f689929c9c9d8c9aa5593fc8|url-status=live|access-date=6 August 2020|archive-date=7 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807071140/https://apnews.com/719d8c83f689929c9c9d8c9aa5593fc8}}</ref> Observers (including Trump administration critics and many TikTok users) raised First Amendment concerns with the executive order and suggested that, while national security concerns were cited to justify them, the sanctions were prompted by the administration's hostile relations toward China in general and retaliation against TikTok in particular for certain anti-Trump content hosted by the app and, as also suggested by ByteDance in court documents pertaining to its lawsuit to overturn the order, a ticket reservation prank waged by some users of the video platform that depressed attendance for a campaign rally he held in [[Tulsa, Oklahoma]] that June.<ref>{{cite web|title=TIKTOK INC. and BYTEDANCE LTD. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, WILBUR L. ROSS, JR.,and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE|url=https://www.scribd.com/embeds/473491411/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-CyfxmtdGZkTuD9VH6U9T|publisher=[[United States District Court for the Central District of California|U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Western Division]]|via=Scribd|date=24 August 2020|access-date=14 September 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Is This The Real Reason Why Trump Wants To Ban TikTok? |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/08/01/is-this-the-real-reason-why-trump-wants-to-ban-tiktok/#59e70e624aed |first=Abram |last=Brown |work=Forbes |date=1 August 2020 |access-date=3 August 2020 |archive-date=3 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200803094339/https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/08/01/is-this-the-real-reason-why-trump-wants-to-ban-tiktok/#59e70e624aed |url-status=live }}</ref> The executive order was blocked by federal courts in [[TikTok v. Trump|two separate cases]] on grounds that the sanctions likely violated IEEPA's informational materials exemption (under the Berman Amendment) and First Amendment protections applying to users of the apps.<ref>{{Cite web|title=U.S. Judge Halts Trump's TikTok Ban, Hours Before It Was Set To Start|url=https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/917452668/u-s-judge-halts-trumps-tiktok-ban-hours-before-it-was-set-to-start|access-date=2020-09-28|website=NPR.org|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=TikTok v. Trump |vol= |reporter=No. |opinion=1:20-cv-02658-CJN (Opinion)|pinpoint= |court=D.D.C. |date=Sep. 27, 2020|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.222257/gov.uscourts.dcd.222257.30.0_3.pdf |accessdate=2020-09-28 |quote=}}</ref><ref name=commerceblock>{{cite web | url = https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN26B0IU | title = U.S. judge blocks Commerce Department order to remove WeChat from app stores | first = David | last= Shepardson | date = September 20, 2020 | access-date= September 20, 2020 | publisher = [[Reuters]] }}</ref>
Also in September 2020, Trump used the IEEPA to [[Donald Trump–TikTok controversy|order the removal]] of social media platforms [[TikTok]] and [[WeChat]] from U.S. app stores as well as prohibit domestic business transactions involving their respective China-based parent companies [[ByteDance]] and [[Tencent]]; the restrictions would have become applicable to TikTok unless it was sold to an American company within 45 days of the executive order's issuance.<ref>{{cite web |last=Carvajal |first=Nikki |title=Trump issues executive order banning TikTok from operating in 45 days if it's not sold by Chinese parent company |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/politics/trump-executive-order-tiktok/index.html |access-date=7 August 2020 |website=CNN |date=7 August 2020 |archive-date=10 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200810020022/https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/politics/trump-executive-order-tiktok/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=":11">{{Cite news|last=Arbel|first=Tali|date=6 August 2020|title=Trump bans dealings with Chinese owners of TikTok, WeChat|work=Associated Press|url=https://apnews.com/719d8c83f689929c9c9d8c9aa5593fc8|url-status=live|access-date=6 August 2020|archive-date=7 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807071140/https://apnews.com/719d8c83f689929c9c9d8c9aa5593fc8}}</ref> Observers (including Trump administration critics and many TikTok users) raised First Amendment concerns with the executive order and suggested that, while national security concerns were cited to justify them, the sanctions were prompted by the administration's hostile relations toward China in general and retaliation against TikTok in particular for certain anti-Trump content hosted by the app and, as also suggested by ByteDance in court documents pertaining to its lawsuit to overturn the order, a ticket reservation prank waged by some users of the video platform that depressed attendance for a campaign rally he held in [[Tulsa, Oklahoma]] that June.<ref>{{cite web|title=TIKTOK INC. and BYTEDANCE LTD. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, WILBUR L. ROSS, JR.,and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE|url=https://www.scribd.com/embeds/473491411/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-CyfxmtdGZkTuD9VH6U9T|publisher=[[United States District Court for the Central District of California|U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Western Division]]|via=Scribd|date=24 August 2020|access-date=14 September 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Is This The Real Reason Why Trump Wants To Ban TikTok? |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/08/01/is-this-the-real-reason-why-trump-wants-to-ban-tiktok/#59e70e624aed |first=Abram |last=Brown |work=Forbes |date=1 August 2020 |access-date=3 August 2020 |archive-date=3 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200803094339/https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/08/01/is-this-the-real-reason-why-trump-wants-to-ban-tiktok/#59e70e624aed |url-status=live }}</ref> The executive order was blocked by federal courts in [[TikTok v. Trump|two separate cases]] on grounds that the sanctions likely violated IEEPA's informational materials exemption (under the Berman Amendment) and First Amendment protections applying to users of the apps.<ref>{{Cite web|title=U.S. Judge Halts Trump's TikTok Ban, Hours Before It Was Set To Start|url=https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/917452668/u-s-judge-halts-trumps-tiktok-ban-hours-before-it-was-set-to-start|access-date=2020-09-28|website=NPR.org|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=TikTok v. Trump |vol= |reporter=No. |opinion=1:20-cv-02658-CJN (Opinion)|pinpoint= |court=D.D.C. |date=Sep. 27, 2020|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.222257/gov.uscourts.dcd.222257.30.0_3.pdf |accessdate=2020-09-28 |quote=}}</ref><ref name=commerceblock>{{cite web | url = https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN26B0IU | title = U.S. judge blocks Commerce Department order to remove WeChat from app stores | first = David | last= Shepardson | date = September 20, 2020 | access-date= September 20, 2020 | publisher = Reuters }}</ref>


==Litigation==
==Litigation==
Line 85: Line 85:
{{wikinews|Man arrested for broadcasting Hezbollah television in New York}}
{{wikinews|Man arrested for broadcasting Hezbollah television in New York}}
*In 1983, financier [[Marc Rich]] was accused of violating the act by trading in Iranian oil during the [[Iran hostage crisis]]. He was one of [[List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton|many people]] [[pardon]]ed by President [[Bill Clinton]] in his last days in office.<ref>[https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm USDOJ: Office of the Pardon Attorney: Clemency Recipients]. Justice.gov. Retrieved on 2014-06-16.</ref>
*In 1983, financier [[Marc Rich]] was accused of violating the act by trading in Iranian oil during the [[Iran hostage crisis]]. He was one of [[List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton|many people]] [[pardon]]ed by President [[Bill Clinton]] in his last days in office.<ref>[https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm USDOJ: Office of the Pardon Attorney: Clemency Recipients]. Justice.gov. Retrieved on 2014-06-16.</ref>
*On August 23, 2006, Javed Iqbal was arrested through the [[United States Department of the Treasury|U.S. Department of the Treasury]] with a charge of [[Conspiracy (crime)|conspiracy]] to violate the IEEPA for airing material produced by [[al-Manar]] (The Beacon) in [[New York City]] during the [[2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict]].<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Williams|first1=Timothy|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/nyregion/25tv.html|title=New York Man Charged With Enabling Hezbollah Television Broadcasts|date=2006-08-25|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-04-10|last2=Rashbaum|first2=William K.|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>
*On August 23, 2006, Javed Iqbal was arrested through the [[United States Department of the Treasury|U.S. Department of the Treasury]] with a charge of [[Conspiracy (crime)|conspiracy]] to violate the IEEPA for airing material produced by [[al-Manar]] (The Beacon) in New York City during the [[2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict]].<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Williams|first1=Timothy|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/nyregion/25tv.html|title=New York Man Charged With Enabling Hezbollah Television Broadcasts|date=2006-08-25|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-04-10|last2=Rashbaum|first2=William K.|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>
*On December 16, 2009, it was announced that the [[U.S. Dept. of Justice]] reached a settlement with [[Credit Suisse]] over accusations that the bank assisted residents of IEEPA sanctioned countries to wire money in violation of the Act from 1995 to 2006. The settlement resulted in Credit Suisse forfeiting $536 million.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/credit-suisse-agrees-forfeit-536-million-connection-violations-international-emergency|title=Credit Suisse Agrees to Forfeit $536 Million in Connection with Violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and New York State Law|date=2009-12-16|website=www.justice.gov|language=en|access-date=2020-04-10}}</ref>
*On December 16, 2009, it was announced that the [[U.S. Dept. of Justice]] reached a settlement with [[Credit Suisse]] over accusations that the bank assisted residents of IEEPA sanctioned countries to wire money in violation of the Act from 1995 to 2006. The settlement resulted in Credit Suisse forfeiting $536 million.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/credit-suisse-agrees-forfeit-536-million-connection-violations-international-emergency|title=Credit Suisse Agrees to Forfeit $536 Million in Connection with Violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and New York State Law|date=2009-12-16|website=www.justice.gov|language=en|access-date=2020-04-10}}</ref>
*On July 16, 2020, a [[UAE]]-based firm, Essentra FZE Company Limited, admitted of conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and defying the [[United States sanctions]] on [[North Korea]]. The firm also agreed to pay a fine of $665,112 to the [[United States Department of Justice]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/uae-company-admits-north-korean-sanctions-violations-and-defrauding-us-goverment-agrees|title=UAE Company Admits to North Korean Sanctions Violations and Defrauding the U.S. Government, Agrees to Pay $665,000|access-date=16 July 2020|website=US Department of Justice|date=16 July 2020 }}</ref>
*On July 16, 2020, a [[UAE]]-based firm, Essentra FZE Company Limited, admitted of conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and defying the [[United States sanctions]] on [[North Korea]]. The firm also agreed to pay a fine of $665,112 to the [[United States Department of Justice]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/uae-company-admits-north-korean-sanctions-violations-and-defrauding-us-goverment-agrees|title=UAE Company Admits to North Korean Sanctions Violations and Defrauding the U.S. Government, Agrees to Pay $665,000|access-date=16 July 2020|website=US Department of Justice|date=16 July 2020 }}</ref>
Retrieved from ‘https://openusaproject.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/23682...28196’