?

?

?

?

美國政府正在調查一家目前已經(jīng)停止運營的香港空殼公司（以下簡稱"空殼公司"）。美國財政部海外資產(chǎn)控制辦公室（以下簡稱"OFAC"）認定該空殼公司為朝鮮大規(guī)模殺傷性武器項目洗錢，將其列為制裁實體。一旦被OFAC列為制裁實體，空殼公司在美資產(chǎn)會被查封，意味著該空殼公司的資產(chǎn)不能"轉移、支付、出口、撤資或以其他方式交易。"該空殼公司目前因三項罪名被大陪審團調查，包括洗錢、違反《國際經(jīng)濟緊急權利法案》項下的行政命令和違反《銀行保密法》。針對該空殼公司的調查細節(jié)依然沒有公開。

?

There is an ongoing American investigation into a now-defunct Hong Kong front company (the "Front Company") that was acting on behalf of an unspecified North Korea entity. The Front Company was "designated" by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") for allegedly laundering money to help finance North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction program. As a designated entity, the Front Company’s property interests in the United States are blocked, meaning that the Front Company’s property may not be "transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in." The Front Company is subject to a grand jury investigation for three related crimes: (1) money laundering; (2) violating an order issued under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act; and (3) violating the Bank Secrecy Act. The exact details of the investigation into the Front Company are still under seal.

?

在判決中，三家金融機構（以下簡稱"金融機構一、金融機構二和金融機構三"）因為空殼公司通過這三家金融機構在美國的賬戶累計進行105,339,483.59美元的交易而被卷入此案。三家金融機構因此收到傳票，被要求提交與空殼公司有關的交易信息，以配合針對空殼公司的調查。金融機構一和金融機構二在美國設有分支機構，因此收到的是大陪審團傳票。金融機構三未在美設有分支機構而只有代理賬戶，因此收到了依據(jù)《愛國者法案》（31 U.S.C. §5318(k)(3)(A)(i)）簽發(fā)的行政傳票。在此案中，三家金融機構收到的大陪審團傳票和行政傳票的內容非常相似，都要求三家金融機構提交空殼公司的所有交易記錄和疑似相關賬戶信息。

?

The Banks – referred to as Bank One, Bank Two, and Bank Three in the court rulings – have been drawn into this case as they were responsible for conducting transactions on behalf of the Front Company totaling $105,339,483.59. To aid in the investigation into the Front Company, the Banks were served subpoenas for information relating to the Front Company and its transactions. Bank One and Bank Two, both of which maintain branches in the United States, received grand jury subpoenas. Bank Three, which only has a correspondent account in the United States, received a subpoena under 31 U.S.C. § 5318(k)(3)(A)(i), a codified section of the Patriot Act. The contents of the subpoenas were similar, requesting all records including relating to the Front Company and an account suspected as being used by the Front Company.[2]

?

傳票是于2017年12月向三家金融機構發(fā)出的，但是截至目前，三家金融機構因中國法律的相關限制性規(guī)定，仍未直接向美國提供相關證據(jù)材料。在一審期間，三家金融機構曾提出替代方案，即通過《中華人民共和國政府和美利堅合眾國政府關于刑事司法協(xié)助的協(xié)定》規(guī)定的渠道，向美國提供相關證據(jù)，但因為各種原因，截止目前，相關司法協(xié)助程序仍未完成。

?

The subpoenas were issued in December 2017 and the Banks have not submitted the requested documents as direct compliance with subpoenas would require them to violate Chinese law. Instead, the Banks have offered that they will comply if a request for the documents was made through the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.

?

?

在地區(qū)法院就大陪審團是否可以向在美中資金融機構發(fā)出傳票，要求其提供交易信息、配合刑事調查的事項作出的判決（以下簡稱"一審判決"）中，地區(qū)法院首席法官Beryl A. Howell要求三家金融機構必須遵守這三張傳票。Howell法官對國際司法禮讓進行了詳細的分析，以決定是否要求三家中資金融機構違反中國法律來遵守美國法律。在分析的過程中，Howell法官考慮了7點因素：1）調查所需信息的重要性；2）所需的信息是否足夠具體；3）信息的來源；4）獲得信息的其他手段；5）沖突中他國的利益；6）要求相關方遵守美國法律的困難程度；和7）善意。在對這7項因素進行平衡分析后，Howell法官得出結論，這些因素支持執(zhí)行傳票，要求三家中資金融機構配合調查。Howell法官還指定了三家金融機構提交證據(jù)的期限。

?

In the first ruling In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violations Of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 And 50 U.S.C. § 1705 (Nos. 18-175, 18-176 and 18-177 (BAH))(March 18, 2019, unsealed April 30, 2019)(the "Initial Ruling"), Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the D.C. District Court ordered the Banks to comply with subpoenas. Judge Howell conducted an international comity analysis to determine whether it was reasonable to order the Banks to violate Chinese law to comply with American law. In doing so, she balanced the seven following factors: importance to the investigation of the requested information; specificity of the request for information; origin of the information; alternative means of obtaining the information; interests of sovereigns in conflict; hardship on the party facing conflicting obligations; and good faith. She concluded that on balance, the factors supported ordering the Banks to comply with the subpoenas. She then set a deadline to do so.

?

三家金融機構期限屆滿后仍未提交相關證據(jù)，Howell法官認為三家金融機構構成了民事藐視法庭。在認定三家金融機構構成民事藐視法庭的判決（以下簡稱"藐視法庭判決"）中，Howell法官要求拒絕配合調查的三家金融機構繳納5萬美元/日的罰款，直到其配合調查為止。因為三家金融機構已就一審判決提起上訴，所以Howell法官將罰款暫停，直到上訴法院維持一審判決7個工作日后再開始計算。因此，在上訴判決作出后，如果三家中資金融機構依然不提交傳票所要求的證據(jù)，那么從2019年8月8日開始，將必須按照前述標準繳納罰款。

?

When the Banks failed to meet the deadline set in the Initial Ruling, Judge Howell found the Banks in civil contempt of court. Writing in the second In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violations Of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 And 50 U.S.C. § 1705 (Nos. 18-175, 18-176 and 18-177 (BAH))(April 10, 2019, unsealed May 15, 2019)(the "Contempt Ruling"), Judge Howell again ordered the Banks to comply with the subpoenas and gave the Banks contempt of court fines of $50,000 per day until they complied. As the Banks were appealing the Initial Ruling, Judge Howell stayed the fines until seven business days after the D.C. Circuit affirmed the Initial Ruling. This means that the Banks will begin paying fines of $50,000 a day on August 8, 2019 if they fail to submit the subpoenaed information before then

?

上訴法院的三名法官David S. Tatel，Patricia A. Millett和Cornelia T. L. Pillard組成合議庭審理本案。上訴判決具體內容尚未完全公開，但法院在已經(jīng)公布的內容中認為："根據(jù)本判決書中的法律分析，對特區(qū)聯(lián)邦地區(qū)法院的藐視法庭判決維持原判。"目前，原被告雙方仍在對判決需要保密的部分進行處理，因此上訴判決全文尚未公布，根據(jù)既往經(jīng)驗，我們預計上訴判決會在未來幾周內公布。

?

The appeal was heard by Judges David S. Tatel, Patricia A. Millett and Cornelia T.L. Pillard of the D.C. Circuit Court. In releasing the still sealed Circuit Ruling, the D.C. Circuit Court stated that "The District Court’s contempt orders against all three Banks appealed from in these causes are hereby affirmed, for the reasons in the accompanying opinion." Following redactions submitted by each side, the Circuit Ruling written by Judge Tatel will be unsealed. Based on the previous rulings, we expect it to be unsealed sometime in the next few weeks.

?

上訴判決細節(jié)尚未公布，我們還不能提供詳盡的法律分析，但三家金融機構二審敗訴是我們之前已經(jīng)預測到的結果。聯(lián)邦巡回法院在上訴案件中僅僅審核聯(lián)邦地區(qū)法院的法律適用是否正確，除非地區(qū)法院在事實認定方面出現(xiàn)嚴重錯誤，一般而言巡回法院會認可地區(qū)法院查明的事實。

?

Although we are not yet privy to the legal analysis underlying their decision, this was the expected outcome. This is because circuit courts are only concerned with determining whether the trial court applied the law correctly. Unless there is an overwhelming error in a factual determination by the district court, a circuit court accepts them as is.

?

?

根據(jù)巡回法院判決結果，我們接下來分析三家金融機構目前可能采取的應對措施以及每種措施的法律后果。當然這些措施并不完全沖突，我們也希望三家金融機構可以靈活選用。這些措施包括但不限于：1）上訴至美國聯(lián)邦最高法院；2）遵守傳票；3）拒絕執(zhí)行傳票；以及4）與中國司法部合作，通過國際刑事司法互助程序配合調查。

?

In light of the Circuit Ruling, we examine below some of the options the Banks have going forward and highlight some of the consequences each choice could result in. The options are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and we expect the Banks will proceed with a number of options. These options are: 1) appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States; 2) comply with the American subpoenas; 3) refuse to comply with the American subpoenas; and/or 4) work with China’s Ministry of Justice for assistance in providing evidence under international legal assistance mechanisms.

?

1）上訴至美國聯(lián)邦最高法院

1) Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States

?

這三家金融機構目前依然可以上訴，即上訴至美國聯(lián)邦最高法院，而且繼續(xù)上訴對三家金融機構的不利影響甚微。特別是金融機構三，如其希望推遲美國政府施加《愛國者法案》項下的處罰，即關閉其美元結算賬戶，那么上訴至聯(lián)邦最高法院非常關鍵。

?

The Banks have one more appellate option – an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. There is very little downside to another appeal, and it is crucial for Bank Three to stay if they wish to delay provisions under 31 U.S.C. § 5318(k)(3)(A)(i), which allows for the termination of a foreign bank’s correspondent accounts if the bank fails to comply with a subpoena or contest it before a U.S. court.

?

美國聯(lián)邦最高法院并沒有關于"上訴權"的規(guī)定，也沒有義務審理每一起上訴案件。三家金融機構必須向聯(lián)邦最高法院提交復審案件請求書（"writ of certiorari"）以申請上訴。只有最高法院認為該案值得復審時，才會審理該案。一般而言，最高法院只會審理對國家具有重要意義的案件、若干聯(lián)邦巡回法院判決沖突的案件以及涉及重大新型法律問題的案件。只有當聯(lián)邦最高法院的9位法官中至少4位法官同意，法院才會審理。一般而言，每年聯(lián)邦最高法院會從超過7000份申請書中選取100到150起案件進行審理。法院同意審理后，9位法官中至少有5位法官同意才可以暫停執(zhí)行巡回法院的判決。我們認為，美國聯(lián)邦最高法院不太可能受理此案，因為巡回法院的法律分析非常直白明確，且目前沒有若干聯(lián)邦巡回法院就該問題作出不一致的判決。即使聯(lián)邦最高法院決定審理此案，也很難暫停執(zhí)行藐視法庭判決。正如Howell法官在藐視法庭判決中指出的一樣，如果窮盡整個上訴程序，會讓案件超過大陪審團的2年存續(xù)時限，導致藐視法庭判決無效。

?

There is no "right of appeal" to the U.S. Supreme Court and therefore no guarantee that their case will be heard. To appeal, the Banks must file a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court by filing a "writ of certiorari." The Supreme Court will only grant the writ of certiorari if they deem the case worthy of hearing. Generally, this is because the case is of national significance, there are conflicting decisions between the federal circuit courts, and/or the case has precedential value. Four out of the nine justices must vote to accept to hear the case. If the case is accepted, support of five of the justices are needed to issue a stay pending hearing. We think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept the case as the underlying legal issues are rather straight forward and there is no split among the circuit courts regarding those legal issues. Even if the Supreme Court accepted the case, it is unlikely that the contempt order would be stayed. As Justice Howell pointed out in her Contempt Ruling, waiting for the entire appellate process to finish would exceed the grand jury’s two-year limit rendering her contempt order meaningless.

?

2）遵守和執(zhí)行美國傳票

2)? Comply with the American Subpoenas

?

三家金融機構目前的第二個選項是遵守并執(zhí)行這三張傳票。金融機構二曾告知地區(qū)法院，其在收到傳票后已經(jīng)采取行動搜集和保存相關文件。金融機構二表示，文件大概會在數(shù)天內搜集完畢。金融機構一則曾經(jīng)預測，搜集相關文件大約需要30天。

?

The second option for the Banks is to just comply with the American subpoenas. Bank Two had told the District Court that it had "took steps to collect and preserve documents" shortly after receiving the subpoena. Bank Two said the subpoenaed documents could be "collected in days." Bank One "estimated" that the requested documents "could be collected within 30 days."

?

雖然執(zhí)行傳票、配合調查可以停止繳納罰金，但是此種做法可能違反一系列中國法律法規(guī)，包括但不限于《商業(yè)銀行法》第73條、《反洗錢法》第32條、《網(wǎng)絡安全法》第64條和第66條、《征信業(yè)管理條例》第40條和《人民幣單位存款管理辦法》第28條，并導致高達人民幣50萬元的罰款和其他法律責任。值得注意的是，禁止中資金融機構向美國直接提供證據(jù)的最主要法律之一《中華人民共和國國際刑事司法協(xié)助法》并沒有規(guī)定如何對違規(guī)提交證據(jù)的中資金融機構進行處罰。

?

While compliance is the incentivized option as it would prevent the accrual of contempt fines or immediately halt them, it would likely result in the violation of a series of Chinese laws and regulations. This includes, among others, Article 73 of China’s Commercial Banking Law, Article 40 of the Regulation on Credit Investigation, Article 28 of the Corporate Deposit Regulations, Article 32 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law, and Articles 64 & 66 of China’s Cybersecurity Law. Violation of these laws could result in a number of consequences, including fines of up to RMB 500,000. It is noteworthy that one of the main laws preventing Chinese banks from submitting evidence directly to U.S. authorities – the newly passed International Criminal Judicial Assistance Law – does not provide any punishment for its violations.

?

而且，三家金融機構直接向美國提交證據(jù)還可能引發(fā)來自美國的更嚴重的調查和執(zhí)法風險。目前三家金融機構僅僅是刑事調查過程中的證人，而如果提交的證據(jù)顯示，這三家金融機構處理案涉交易時明顯疏忽或故意違反美國制裁規(guī)定，可能導致三家金融機構從證人轉為調查對象，從而面臨更為嚴重的調查、執(zhí)法、訴訟以及公關危機。

?

The Banks also face a number of risks if they comply with the subpoenas. If the requested documents show that the Banks were negligent in their compliance screenings or violated U.S. sanctions on purpose, they may be exposed to additional investigations, enforcement actions, litigation, and/or public exposure if they cooperate. As we mentioned before, the Banks are at this point only witnesses in the grand jury investigation.

?

3)? 拒絕執(zhí)行美國傳票

3)?Refuse to Comply with the American Subpoenas

?

因為藐視法庭罰款的計算截止到大陪審團解散之時，所以三家金融機構可以拒絕遵守傳票并拖延至大陪審團解散。大陪審團任期最長為18個月，可能延期6個月，一般最長為24個月。雖然信息尚未完全公開，我們無從得知本案大陪審團任期起始日，但是大陪審團傳票于2017年12月簽發(fā)，因此，大陪審團最晚將于2019年12月解散。

?

The three banks could refuse to comply with the subpoenas and wait until the grand jury expires since the contempt fines are set to expire when the grand jury expires. Grand jury terms are limited to 18 months with the potential for a six-month extension for a total of 24 months. Although we don’t know the specific date of when the grand jury was initiated as information is still under seal, the subpoenas were sent in December 2017. Therefore, the grand jury will at latest finish by December 2019.

?

等待大陪審團解散的問題在于：作出藐視法庭判決的Howell法官可能會意識到，三家金融機構均試圖拖延至大陪審團解散，并因此提高藐視法庭罰款的數(shù)額。在藐視法庭判決中，她指出: 她很清楚這種情況產(chǎn)生的可能性，因此如果三家金融機構不能遵守傳票，那么她將提高藐視法庭罰款數(shù)額。在美國，本案罰款數(shù)額會相當高昂。在另一起涉及中資金融機構的民事訴訟中,中資金融機構提出了本案金融機構所使用的抗辯，并拒絕執(zhí)行民事傳票。為促使中資金融機構遵守傳票，該案法官要求中資金融機構繳納"每日10萬美元、每30天翻倍"的罰款。如果Howell法官也實施類似的懲罰，那么三家金融機構將必須在大陪審團解散前每日支付數(shù)百萬美元的罰款。

?

The issue with waiting the grand jury out is that the Judge Howell, who maintains jurisdiction over the contempt orders, may raise the contempt of court fine if she feels that the banks are attempting to outlast the grand jury. In her Contempt Ruling, she notes that she is conscious of this possibility and therefore made it clear that she is willing to increase the contempt of court fines if the banks fail to comply. These fines can get quite exorbitant in the United States. In a civil lawsuit involving the Bank of China, the Bank of China refused to comply with a civil subpoena for the same reasons raised by the Banks in this case. To induce compliance, the judge in the Bank of China case ordered the Bank of China to pay contempt of court fines of USD $100,000 per day, doubling every 30 days. If such a sanction was implemented by Judge Howell, the Banks could end up paying millions of dollars a day in fines before the grand jury expires.

?

市場最關注的問題是，金融機構三是否會因為不遵守依據(jù)《愛國者法案》簽發(fā)的傳票而被美國禁止使用美元代理賬戶。這個問題來源于《愛國者法案》（31 U.S.C. § 5318(k)(3)(C)(i)）的規(guī)定：如果外國金融機構未能遵守依據(jù)《愛國者法案》（31 U.S.C. § 5318(k)(3)(A)）簽發(fā)的傳票或者未能在法律程序中對傳票提出異議，美國財政部長或者司法部長有權關閉該外國金融機構在美代理賬戶。雖然依據(jù)該條款，確實存在金融機構三的美元代理賬戶被關閉的可能性，但是如果金融機構三上訴至聯(lián)邦最高法院，繼續(xù)對傳票提出異議，將可能保護其代理賬戶暫免關閉。

?

A much-discussed topic has been whether Bank Three can be barred from having a correspondent account in the U.S. for failing to comply with the subpoena it received pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5318(k)(3)(A)(i). This question arises from the fact that 31 U.S.C. § 5318(k)(3)(C)(i) provides that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the "Treasury Secretary") or the U.S. Attorney General can order the termination of a foreign bank’s U.S. correspondent account if the foreign bank has failed "to comply with a summons or subpoena issued under [31 U.S.C. § 5318(k)(3)(A)]" or has failed "to initiate proceedings in a United States court contesting such summons or subpoena." While this provision does create the possibility of Bank Three being barred from having a correspondent account in the U.S., the fact that the bank continues to contest the subpoena in the U.S. courts will protect its correspondent accounts from being suspended for the time being.

?

同時，值得關注的是，依據(jù)《愛國者法案》（31 U.S.C. § 5318(k)(3)(C)(i)），關閉金融機構三美元賬戶的權力被賦予了美國財政部長和司法部長，兩者均為美國總統(tǒng)領導下的內閣成員。因此，他們必須對美國總統(tǒng)負責，且必須作出符合本屆政府政策的決定，不排除美國將來把關閉金融機構三美元代理賬戶作為與中國政府進行貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)談判的籌碼。

?

Unfortunately, the power to terminate Bank Three’s correspondent accounts under 31 U.S.C. § 5318(k)(3)(C)(i) is given to the Treasury Secretary and the U.S. Attorney General, both of which are political appointees belonging to the Cabinet of the United States. They are therefore beholden to the U.S. President’s agenda and should make their decisions should be in line with the current administration’s policies. The concern is that the U.S. will use the possibility of prohibiting Bank Three’s access to U.S. correspondent accounts as a bargaining chip in future trade-related discussions with China.

?

?

4) 配合中國司法部通過刑事司法協(xié)助向美國提交證據(jù)

4) Work with China’s Ministry of Justice

?

三家金融機構的第四個選擇是，在中國司法部的協(xié)調下，通過國際刑事司法協(xié)助途徑，盡快完成跨境證據(jù)提交。這是幫助三家金融機構避免違反中美法律，同時又能維護中美兩國法律權威的一種選擇。Howell法官在其藐視法庭判決中指出："金融機構三稱，其已經(jīng)進行了文件檢索，從而確保其搜集并保存了傳票要求的文件；且其已經(jīng)試圖尋求中國有權機關的準許，以向美國提供證據(jù)"。雖然是否推進刑事司法協(xié)助最終由我國政府決定，且在當前貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)大背景下推進的可能性較低，但是不妨礙三家金融機構盡快搜集證據(jù)材料、作好提交準備。但和選擇二"遵守和執(zhí)行美國傳票"一樣，如果向美國提交的證據(jù)顯示三家金融機構涉嫌違反美國制裁規(guī)定，那么可能為三家金融機構招致更為嚴重的調查、執(zhí)法和訴訟。

?

The fourth option is for the Banks to work with China’s Ministry of Justice to facilitate the sharing of evidence through international legal mechanisms and ensure that it happens as quickly as possible. This is the one option that would allow the Banks to avoid violating U.S. or Chinese laws while preserving the dignity of both countries’ legal systems. In the Contempt Ruling, Judge Howell noted that Bank Three had explained that it had "conduct[ed] document searches to ensure it has collected and preserved documents responsive to the subpoena and [sought] permission from Chinese authorities to permit it to produce the documents." Bank One and Bank Two could, if they had not already done so, do the same thing. While it is ultimately a political decision to be made by Chinese authorities, which is complicated by the on-going trade war, the Banks can take steps to ensure they are ready to comply with the subpoenas as soon as possible.

?

?

為免陷入漫長而復雜的美國調查、執(zhí)法和訴訟程序，中資企業(yè)處理美國制裁風險的最佳方法是防患于未然，有跨境業(yè)務的中資企業(yè)應當就此案進行反思。我們強烈建議開展跨境業(yè)務、面臨制裁風險的中資企業(yè)聘請國內跨境合規(guī)律師，采取以下一種或多種措施，以預防、控制以及最小化違反美國制裁規(guī)定的法律風險。

?

As is often the case in these sorts of complex and protracted legal situations, the best solution is to be proactive and avoid such situations in the first place. Although that is not an option for the Banks at this point, other Chinese companies operating internationally should treat this case as a wakeup call. We highly recommend that Chinese companies operating internationally take the following measures to prevent, control, and minimize the legal risk of U.S. sanctions violations with the assistance of Chinese cross-border compliance lawyers:

?

1.如果企業(yè)尚未建立制裁合規(guī)體系但又有跨境業(yè)務，我們強烈建議您立即建立并實施有效的制裁合規(guī)體系。您可以瀏覽我們最近關于OFAC制裁合規(guī)指南的文章《中國企業(yè)如何防范和應對美國政府制裁風險？——美國財政部解讀》，從而大致了解如何建立合格的制裁合規(guī)體系。

?

1.If your company does not have a sanction compliance program and operates internationally, we highly recommend that you begin to develop and implement a comprehensive sanction compliance program. You can read our recent article on OFAC’s updated sanction compliance guidance here for an overview of the features of a successful and effective sanction compliance program.

?

2.如果企業(yè)已經(jīng)建立制裁合規(guī)體系，我們建議您聘請律師對其進行定期審查和評估，以確保其持續(xù)有效。

?

2.If your company has a sanction compliance program in place, we recommend that you hire external counsel to conduct periodic audits to evaluate its effectiveness and ensure that it remains robust and up to date.

?

3.我們建議您采用風險導向的方法對交易進行事先審查，并識別存在較高制裁風險的國家、地區(qū)、行業(yè)和/或實體。當您與有較高制裁風險的實體開展業(yè)務時，我們建議您對交易各方進行全面的制裁風險盡職調查。

?

3.We recommend that you take a risk-based approach to screening transactions and identify ahead of time countries, regions, industries, and/or entities that are of heightened sanction risk. When conducting transactions with clients that have exposure to such heightened sanction risk, we recommend that you conduct comprehensive due diligence of the parties – including third parties - involved in the transaction regardless of whether their name appears on a U.S. sanction list.

?

4.如果您發(fā)現(xiàn)可疑交易并且無法確定是否違反美國制裁規(guī)定，我們強烈建議您立即咨詢制裁合規(guī)領域的律師，及時進行制裁風險評估，并基于風險評估結果決定下一步行動計劃。雖然美國通常會對主動報告違規(guī)行為者減輕處罰，但中資企業(yè)仍然需要聘請中國律師，以確保自身利益得到最佳保護。

?

4.If you find a suspicious looking transaction and are unsure whether you have violated U.S. sanctions, we highly recommend that you immediately consult sanction compliance lawyers to conduct a sanction risk assessment and make further decisions based on the result of assessment. While the U.S. provides substantial leniency for self-reporting of violations, it is important to engage Chinese lawyers to ensure that your interests are protected.

?

5.如果您當前正在接受美國政府調查、執(zhí)法或者被卷入違反制裁規(guī)定相關訴訟，我們建議您聘請有能力的跨境合規(guī)律師進行危機處理。法律程序初期采取的行動將對后期的監(jiān)管應對產(chǎn)生很大影響。

?

5.If you are currently under investigation, subject to an enforcement action by a U.S. authority, or involved in U.S. litigation relating to sanction violations, we recommend that you hire competent cross-border compliance attorneys to conduct crisis management in the United States. Actions taken at the beginning of legal proceedings can have a large impact on the availability of options later in the process.

?

我們將密切關注并實時更新案件進展。上訴判決全文將于數(shù)周內公布，屆時我們將對判決的具體內容進行詳細的專業(yè)解讀。

?

We will stay abreast of this case and provide updates as they become public. We will provide a detailed legal analysis of the Circuit Ruling once it is redacted and unsealed.

[1]?In the United States federal court system, the general trial courts are referred to as "district courts" while the intermediate appellate courts are referred to as "circuit courts."?

[2]?The three subpoenas requested all records, including "(a) signature cards; (b) documentation of account opening; (c) account ledger cards; (d) periodic account statements; (e) due diligence (including invoices); and (f) records (copied front and back) of all items deposited, withdrawn, or transferred" relating to banking transactions for the Front Company and a specific account thought to be used by the Front Company. The grand jury subpoenas for Bank One and Bank Two requested information from January 1, 2012 to December 26, 2017, while the subpoena for Bank Three requested information from January 1, 2012, through the present.