Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Statute of Limitations for U.S. Sanctions Violations Extended from Five to Ten years

By Chase D. Kaniecki & Samuel H. Chang on May 2, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On April 24, 2024, President Biden signed into law H.R. 815, a foreign aid bill containing a provision that doubles the statute of limitations (SoL) for civil and criminal violations of U.S. sanctions and other national security programs from five years to ten years.

In particular, Section 3111 of H.R. 815 amends the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA)—the two authorizing statutes underpinning virtually all modern U.S. sanctions—to add a ten-year SoL for civil and criminal proceedings, overriding the default five-year periods set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3282 (criminal proceedings) and 28 U.S.C. § 2462 (civil proceedings).  As a result, in addition to sanctions administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the new SoL also applies to other IEEPA-based programs such as the Information and Communications Technology and Services (ICTS) program administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (discussed in our blog post here), as well as the pending outbound investment program announced by the Biden Administration (discussed in our blog post here).

The new law now distinguishes the SoL for sanctions violations from the default five-year period for most federal crimes (including antibribery violations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act), but aligns the SoL with the ten-year SoL for certain other federal financial crimes (e.g., bank, mail, and wire fraud, if committed against a financial institution).  Going forward, the new extended period should be expected to potentially impact due diligence reviews in corporate transactions, contractual representations and warranties, as well as the scope of internal investigations, administrative subpoenas, bank examinations, and other governmental requests for information. 

However, a number of questions remain, potentially to be addressed in future guidance.  These include whether OFAC or other governmental authorities will seek to retroactively apply the new SoL (i.e., to activities before 2019) and, if so, how the new SoL will impact ongoing enforcement cases in light of existing five-year recordkeeping requirements.  It also remains to be seen whether certain exceptions applied over the years to the SoL provided for under § 2462 (e.g., for individuals not present in the United States), would extend to the new SoL.

Photo of Chase D. Kaniecki Chase D. Kaniecki

Chase Kaniecki’s practice focuses on international trade and national security matters, including CFIUS and global foreign direct investment, economic sanctions, export controls, customs, and trade remedies.

Read more about Chase D. KanieckiEmail
  • Posted in:
    Corporate & Commercial, Criminal
  • Blog:
    Cleary Enforcement Watch
  • Organization:
    Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • __

New to the Network

  • Crunched Credit
  • Nothing but Substance
  • Franchising & Distribution Law Blog
  • Business Risk Management Blog
  • Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Blog
Copyright © 2024, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo