On 23 July, OFAC announced that Procesadora Campofresco, Inc. (“Campofresco”), a Puerto Rican company, has agreed to pay $27,000 to settle potential civil liability for six apparent violations of the Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC, Campofresco made six purchases of frozen passion fruit juice/pulp from a company on the SDN List, Frutas Exoticas Colombiana S.A. OFAC determined that Campofresco did not voluntarily self-disclose the apparent violations and that they constituted a non-egregious case. As mitigating factors, OFAC considered that Campofresco has not had a violation in the last five years, that the company cooperated with OFAC’s investigation and that it has since implemented a sanctions compliance program. OFAC also considered the individual characteristics of the company, including the size of its operations and financial condition.
On 17 July, OFAC announced that Tofasco of America (“Tofasco”), a US company based in California, remitted $21,375 to settle potential civil liability for an alleged violation of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations. OFAC stated that Tofasco appears to have violated US sanctions when it engaged a bank to process a letter of credit representing payment for a shipment of recreational chairs to a blocked entity, the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (“IRISL”). Accompanying the letter of credit was a substitute bill of lading omitting reference to the blocked entity, which substitution was made after a previous bank had refused to advise the letter of credit with the original trade documents because of IRISL’s involvement. OFAC noted that Tofasco did not make a voluntary self-disclosure but that the alleged violation did not constitute an egregious case. Among the aggravating factors were that Tofasco demonstrated reckless disregard for US sanctions requirements when it presented trade documents to a second bank after the documents were rejected by a prior bank, that Tofasco took deliberate steps to evade US sanctions, that Tofasco knew of IRISL’s involvement, that Tofasco did harm to the sanctions programme objectives by providing a direct benefit to a sanctioned entity and that Tofasco did not have a sanctions compliance programme at the time of the apparent violation. Mitigating these factors were that Tofasco did not have prior sanctions history with OFAC and that Tofasco appears to be a small company lacking the sophistication of a larger company conducting international trade.