Navigating U.S. Economic Sanctions

U.S. Flag and dollars image representing navigating U.S. economic sanctions across multiple sanctions programs, highlighting the complexity of OFAC measures and the need for structured compliance.

Economic sanctions, especially those related to Russia and Iran, routinely make news headlines. However, the underlying legal changes that occur can significantly impact the operations of organizations engaging in cross-border commerce, risking exposure to relevant legal repercussions. It is therefore imperative for the legal counsel of organizations facing such sanctions risks to appreciate the legal landscape of U.S. economic sanctions, which is constantly changing based on U.S. foreign policy and national security interests, to ensure compliance with applicable legal authorities. This primer on U.S. sanctions is intended as a preview to the January 11 U.S. Economic Sanctions 101 Webinar: a comprehensive introduction for practicing attorneys on U.S. economic sanctions laws and regulations administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). It provides a practical guide to navigating U.S. economic sanctions, explaining how the main sanctions authorities work and how legal counsel can identify and manage sanctions risk for their clients.

What Are U.S. Economic Sanctions?

In general, U.S. economic sanctions programs prohibit U.S. persons—to varying degrees depending on the underlying legal authorities—from engaging in transactions involving sanctioned targets, whether directly or indirectly, unless authorized by OFAC or statutorily exempt. They can also require U.S. persons to block the property interests of sanctioned targets that are or come within their possession or control (a.k.a., “full blocking sanctions”). Sanctioned targets can include countries (e.g., Iran and Cuba), specified geographic regions (e.g., Crimea), and specific individuals and entities (e.g., persons identified on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN”) List). 

The term U.S. persons means any U.S. citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the U.S. (including their foreign branches), or any person in the U.S. However, OFAC’s Iran and Cuba programs also extend their prohibitions to foreign-owned/controlled subsidiaries of U.S. persons. In addition, most programs extend their prohibitions to foreign persons who cause a U.S. person to engage in a prohibited transaction, directly or indirectly (e.g., a foreign person remits payment in U.S. dollars to a sanctioned target between two foreign banks for goods/services, where an intermediary U.S. bank typically processes the transfer). Finally, even where there is no U.S. nexus to a transaction for the foregoing prohibitions to apply, foreign persons can risk exposure to so-called “secondary sanctions” in dealing with a sanctioned target (e.g., becoming subject to full blocking sanctions themselves).

Who Administers U.S. Economic Sanctions?

OFAC administers U.S. economic sanctions laws—comprised of various statutes and Executive orders—by implementing regulations in 31 C.F.R. Chapter V, and enforcing them (i.e., civil enforcement). These laws and regulations are grouped into specific sanctions programs (currently 38 such programs) and can generally be divided into (1) country-related programs (e.g., Russia, Cuba, and Iran); and (2) thematic programs (e.g., counter-narcotics/-terrorism). Although the agency’s actions are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), courts are extremely deferential to OFAC’s actions because they are an exercise of the Executive branch’s authority in the realm of foreign affairs.

What Are The Relevant Legal Authorities?

The statutory basis for most OFAC sanctions programs is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), 50 U.S.C. § 1701, et seq. IEEPA empowers the President to unilaterally exercise broad sanctions authority by declaring a national emergency in dealing with foreign threats to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the U.S. In doing so, the President will issue an Executive order (“E.O.”) that: (1) specifically identifies the sanctioned target; and/or (2) empowers the heads of agencies (typically the Secretary of the Treasury) to identify targets according to defined designation criteria. Such authorities are typically delegated down to OFAC, including for the identification of targets and implementation of regulations. 

To illustrate the composition of an OFAC sanctions program: the agency’s Burma-related program is based on E.O. 14014, which President Biden issued in accordance with his IEEPA authority. OFAC’s implementing regulations are codified in 31 C.F.R. Part 525, which include relevant prohibitions, applicable definitions/interpretations, and licensing-related matters. Sanctionable targets under the program include individuals and entities determined to have engaged in conduct of fulfilled a status specified under E.O. 14014. While Burma is an example of a list-based program (i.e., targets are limited to individuals and entities identified on OFAC administered sanctions lists), there are also: (1) comprehensive sanctions programs such as the embargo on Cuba; (2) hybrid programs such as Iran that impose an embargo on the entire country while designating specific persons on various OFAC lists; and (3) the unique sanctions programs targeting Russia and Venezuela. 

Violations And The Importance Of Compliance

Violations of OFAC-administered sanctions laws and regulations can lead to civil and/or criminal enforcement actions by the U.S. government, including significant monetary penalties, imprisonment, or both. While organizations that have engaged in potential violations generally receive a mitigated enforcement response for voluntarily self-disclosing to the U.S. government, the employment of a risk-based approach to sanctions compliance is encouraged by developing, implementing, and routinely updating a sanctions compliance program (which may also act as a mitigating factor in an enforcement response). The importance of compliance is underscored by the strict liability nature of sanctions laws, where a person can be held liable even if they inadvertently violated relevant prohibitions.


This article was first published with the California Lawyer’s Association eNews for January 2024.

The author of this article is Kian Meshkat, an attorney specializing in U.S. economic sanctions and export controls matters. If you have any questions please contact him at meshkat@meshkatlaw.com.

Sign up for blog updates

Please note that no such content constitutes legal advice, and the legal authorities discussed in this Blog are subject to change. By subscribing, you agree with our privacy policy and our terms of service.

More Posts

Iceberg illustrating hidden ownership risks under the OFAC 50 Percent Rule.

Control Without Ownership: OFAC, Sanctions, and the 50 Percent Rule

Until recently, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) and industry practice were generally aligned on the agency’s well‑known 50 Percent Rule: entities with less than 50 percent aggregate ownership by blocked persons were not automatically blocked, and control alone by any blocked persons—while a theoretical concern—rarely dictated the sanctions compliance analysis. However, since June 2025, OFAC has increasingly signaled that control by blocked persons over an entity can itself create enforcement exposure for parties dealing with that entity and its assets. Taken together, recent guidance and enforcement actions suggest that OFAC is developing a de facto

Read More
Meshkat Law Chambers USA California Spotlight 2026 recognition badge for International Trade

Chambers Spotlight California 2026: Meshkat Law Recognized for International Trade

Meshkat Law, P.C. has been ranked in Chambers USA California Spotlight Guide 2026 and recognized as a leading small to medium-sized law firm offering a credible alternative to Big Law. Meshkat Law was selected based on an independent and in-depth market analysis, coupled with an assessment of their experience, expertise and calibre of talent. Chambers Spotlight California 2026 highlights 376 ranked firms across 9 regions and 45 distinct practice areas, marking a year-on-year increase of 218 firms and 17 practice areas.  Now featuring 175 ranking tables, this year’s edition builds on Chambers’ inaugural guide by expanding their recognition of the top

Read More
Close‑up of a generic administrative subpoena on a desk illustrating an article about OFAC administrative subpoenas.

OFAC Administrative Subpoena: What to Do If You Receive One

Receiving an OFAC administrative subpoena from the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is an unsettling event, especially if you are an individual or company that rarely deals with sanctions issues. It is natural to worry about potential penalties, reputational harm from any publicity, or even criminal exposure, and to feel pressure to respond immediately. An OFAC administrative subpoena, however, is first and foremost a tool for gathering information: it signals that the agency is investigating transactions that may implicate U.S. sanctions, but it is not itself a finding of liability or a decision by the

Read More
Photo illustrating the difference between OFAC blocked vs rejected transactions under U.S. sanctions laws

Blocked vs Rejected Transactions Under OFAC: Key Differences (and Why They Matter)

Many companies (and individuals) believe blocked vs rejected transactions mean the same thing for purposes of U.S. economic sanctions programs administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). They do not. Confusing the two concepts can mean the difference between compliance and a violation of U.S. law in a strict liability setting. Depending on the scenario involving a sanctioned target, OFAC’s regulations may require either a blocking action or a rejection of the underlying transaction(s), with distinct legal and reporting obligations—particularly for U.S. persons. While reporting duties generally apply only to U.S. persons, non-U.S. persons

Read More