So, OFAC issued a Finding of Violation to Schlumberger Oilfield Holdings Ltd – but no civil monetary penatly. What gives?
Was the behavior really benign? Not if you look at the aggravating factors:
- SOHL, as well asSchlumberger, Ltd’s D&M business segment willfully violated and attempted to violate U.S.economic sanctions related to Iran and Sudan, including through acts of concealment;
- theviolations involved a long-term pattern of conduct;
- Schlumberger’s senior management knewor had reason to know of the conduct giving rise to the alleged violations;
- Schlumberger’sconduct caused significant harm to U.S. sanctions program objectives by providing specializedgoods and services to the petroleum production industries in Iran and Sudan;
- Schlumberger isa large and sophisticated global company that knew or should have known of its obligations tocomply with the ITSR and SSR; and
- Schlumberger failed to effectively enforce itscompliance program despite operating in a high-risk industry.
The secret lies in the mitigating factors:
- Schlumberger took remedial actionincluding voluntarily ceasing to provide oilfield services in Iran and Sudan;
- Schlumberger hasno prior OFAC sanctions history, including receipt of a penalty notice or Finding of Violation inthe five years preceding the date of the earliest transaction giving rise to the violations;
- Schlumberger cooperated with OFAC’s investigation by entering into several statute oflimitations tolling agreements; and
- SOHL entered into a plea agreement with the U.S.Department of Justice, agreeing to pay a criminal fine in the amount of $155,138,904, as well asa forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $77,569,452.
In case you missed that, OFAC makes sure you understand:
Based upon this analysis of the General Factors and the totality of the facts and circumstances—and particularly in light of the parallel criminal case and the substantial criminal fine and forfeitureimposed on SOHL for these same sanctions violations arising out of the company’s conduct—OFAC determined that an FOV was the appropriate administrative response.
If you are interested in what Schlumberger actually did, it's laid out in the FInding of Violation and OFAC's Enfrocement Action notice.
Link:
Schlumberger Finding of Violation