导航

美高梅手机娱乐观点

美国参议院通过涉朝金融制裁法案:《布林克法案》要点解读 编辑:刘相文 Graham Adria 王晶涛 王涛 2019-09-06

 

2019年6月28日,美国参议院通过了《2020年度国防授权法案》,其中包括一项修正案,即《2019年奥托·瓦姆比尔限制银行涉及朝鲜法案》(Otto Warmbier Banking Restrictions Involving North Korea Act of 2019)(下称“《BRINK法案》”或“《布林克法案》”),标志着新一轮针对朝鲜的潜在制裁。值得中国金融机构关注的是,酝酿中的《布林克法案》可能授予美国财政部新的工具,以惩罚与朝鲜有业务往来的外国金融机构。

 

On June 28, 2019, the United States Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. Included as an amendment was the Otto Warmbier Banking Restrictions Involving North Korea Act of 2019.[1] Known as the BRINK Act, the act represents a potential new round of sanctions on North Korea. Worryingly for Chinese financial institutions, the proposed BRINK Act would give the U.S. Department of the Treasury new tools to punish foreign financial institutions that do business with North Korea.

 

来自民主党和共和党的《布林克法案》支撑者均旗帜鲜明地表达了该法案的立法意图。民主党参议员克里斯·范霍伦(Chris Van Hollen)表示:“[法案]将通过制裁与朝鲜有业务往来的任何金融和商业机构,以打击朝鲜的非法金融网络。”共和党参议员帕特·图米(Pat Toomey)则直言:“美国将给中国金融机构一个非常简单的选择:你可以与美国开展业务,或者与朝鲜开展业务,但两者不能兼得。”尽管近期美朝之间关系缓和,图米参议员依然声称,川普总统支撑《布林克法案》,他目前“并未获悉政府对此法案有任何抵触”,并且他认为政府会“乐见加强对朝鲜的约束。”

 

The bipartisan sponsors of the amendment were blunt in the potential legislation’s purpose. Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen stated that “[i]t’s going to target North Korea’s illicit financial network by imposing mandatory sanctions on those businesses, banks, any enterprises that are doing business with North Korea.” Republic Senator Pat Toomey added that “they would present Chinese banks with a very simple choice. You can do business in the United States, or you can do business with North Korea. But you can’t do business with both.” And while there has recently been rapprochement between the United States and North Korea, Toomey insisted that the U.S. President Donald Trump supports the BRINK Act, that he was “not aware of any resistance from the administration,” and that he thought the administration would “welcome tightening the screws on North Korea.”[2]

 

大家认为,该法案通过美国众议院,得到美国总统签署,最终成为正式法律的可能性很高。首先,美国众议院目前为民主党人控制。尽管川普总统希翼通过“金特会”,即美朝首脑会谈解决朝鲜核危机,美国国会对于朝鲜总是有自身的立场。与总统来自同一党派的共和党人控制下的参议院都通过了该法案,很难想象与总统不同党派的民主党人控制下的众议院会阻止法案通过。其次,该法案是《2020年度国防授权法案》的一部分。一般而言,美国国会都会通过该年度的国防授权法案,因为关系美国国家安全。因此,一旦某法案搭上了国防授权法案的顺风车,其通过的概率很高。最后,从过往立法经验来看,美国总统一般不会拒绝签署参众两院已经通过的法案,尤其是国防授权法案。因此,即便《布林克法案》内容依然可能有所调整,但成为正式法律的可能性很高。

 

The bill has two more steps to become law: pass the U.S. House of Representatives and then be signed into law by the U.S. President. There is no certainty that the bill will officially become law, but the possibility is very high. Firstly, the House is controlled by the Democrats. Despite President Trump’s efforts to resolve the North Korea nuclear crisis by the Trump-Kim summits, the U.S. Congress always has its own idea regarding North Korea. The current U.S. Senate is controlled by the Republicans, the same party with the President, and yet still, the Senate passed the bill. It is unlikely that the U.S. House controlled by the Democrats will block it. Second, the bill is part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. Generally speaking, the U.S. Congress will pass each year’s National Defense Authorization Act because the U.S. national security is at stake. Therefore, if a bill is an amendment of that year’s National Defense Authorization Act, the likelihood of passing the Congress cannot be ignored. In the end, the question is whether President Trump will sign the bill into law. Again, it is unlikely for the President not to sign the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 when both the Senate and the House have passed it. Therefore, the bill is very likely to become law though its content may be subject to further adjustment.

 

虽然《布林克法案》尚未通过众议院,也尚未被总统签署,整个立法过程可能长达数月,而且出台前仍将被修改,但是从《布林克法案》的主要内容来看,大家认为,中国金融机构已经应当提前采取防范措施。大家将在下文分析相关原因,并为可能因为与朝鲜有业务往来而遭受《布林克法案》制裁的中国金融机构提供一些建议,供企业决策者参考。

 

Although the amendment has yet to pass the United States House of Representatives or to be signed into law by President Trump, processes that could take months, and there is no guarantee that it will pass as it currently exists, the content of the proposed BRINK Act necessitates, in our view, pre-emptive action by Chinese financial institutions. We describe why below and follow up with some advice for Chinese financial institutions that may have exposure to North Korea business that would run afoul of proposed sanctions in the BRINK Act.

 

 

 

《布林克法案》简析

The BRINK Act

 

酝酿中的《布林克法案》将修改《2016年强化朝鲜制裁和政策法案》(下称“《制裁朝鲜法》”),同时规定一级制裁和二级制裁。二级制裁的范围远比一级制裁的更为宽泛。一级制裁仅仅禁止制裁实施国个人和实体与制裁对象开展业务,而二级制裁则向非美国第三方施压,以实施切断该第三方与制裁实施国的特定联系等惩罚为威胁,要求其停止与制裁对象开展业务。因此,《布林克法案》将瞄准任何与朝鲜受制裁实体开展业务的非美国实体。美国财政部下属机构—海外资产控制办公室(下称“OFAC”)负责监管、实行经济和贸易制裁。

 

The proposed BRINK Act amends the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 (the “North Korea Sanctions Act”)[3] and implements a mix of primary and secondary sanctions. In this case, the BRINK Act would target non-U.S. entities doing business with sanctioned North Korean entities. Primary sanctions prohibit citizens and companies from the sanctioning country, the United States in this case, from engaging in business with the sanctioned country, North Korea. Secondary sanctions are much broader, prohibiting third parties located outside of the sanctioning country, such as Chinese financial institutions, from conducting business with the sanctioned country. Secondary sanctions put pressure on third parties to halt business with the sanctioned country by creating penalties for sanction violations, such as cutting-off the third party’s access to the sanctioning country. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is the U.S. Department of the Treasury agency responsible for administrating and enforcing economic and trade sanctions.

 

根据《布林克法案》,包括中国金融机构在内的任何外国金融机构,一旦故意与一家受制裁的朝鲜实体进行业务往来,将会被实际驱逐出美国金融系统,包括禁止在美国境内开设、维持代理账户或过渡账户。

 

Foreign financial institutions, including Chinese ones, that knowingly conduct a transaction with a sanctioned North Korean entity could be effectively barred from the U.S. financial system by the introduction of prohibitions on the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts in the United States.

 

《布林克法案》采用的是《2010年全面伊朗制裁、问责及撤资法》(下称“《制裁伊朗法》”)的模式,即限制被制裁对象进入全球金融市场。鉴于前述两部法案内容多有一致,大家认为其实行方式也大同小异。正如《制裁伊朗法》,美国也可以通过《布林克法案》实施域外管辖。关于美国域外管辖和长臂管辖,您可以浏览大家的近期文章《美国长臂管辖规则及其适用之解读》。

 

The BRINK Act is modeled on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability,

and Divestment Act of 2010 (“CISADA”), a sanction law that aims to limit Iran’s access to the global financial markets.[4] Much of the language is the same, and we expect it will be enforced in the same manner. Like the CISADA, implementing the BRINK Act would be an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by the United States. You can read our article on U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction here.

 

 

一. 针对金融机构的制裁

I.  Sanctions against Financial Institutions

 

《布林克法案》中最关键的条款是,财政部长“应对在本法案颁布90天或之后故意为受制裁的任何指定人员提供重要金融服务的外国金融机构”实施“一项或多项制裁”。规定对前述“任何指定人员”进行制裁的规范性文件包括:

 

The key provision of the BRINK Act provides that the Secretary of the Treasury “shall impose one or more… sanctions” on “a foreign financial institution that the Secretary determines on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of the [BRINK Act] knowingly provides significant financial services to any person designated for the imposition of sanctions under” the following:

 

  • 1)《制裁朝鲜法》第104条(a)款或(b)款。该条列出了一系列美国政府应当实施制裁的活动,例如:故意向朝鲜出口大规模杀伤性武器相关技术;以及一系列美国政府可以视情况实施制裁的活动,例如:故意向根据联合国安理会决议指定的受制裁实体提供金融服务。

     

  • 1) Section 104 (a) or (b) of the North Korea Sanctions Act. This section consists of a list of activities that warrant mandatory sanctions, e.g. knowingly exports technology for weapons of mass destruction to North Korea, and a list that allows for discretionary sanctions, e.g. knowingly provides financial services to any entity designated pursuant to an applicable United Nations Security Council resolution.

     

  • 2)适用的行政命令。这包括13810号行政命令(追加针对朝鲜的制裁),13722号行政命令(封锁朝鲜政府和朝鲜劳动党的财产,禁止朝鲜相关的特定交易),13687号行政命令(追加针对朝鲜的制裁),13570号行政命令(禁止朝鲜相关的特定交易),13551号行政命令(封锁朝鲜特定主体的财产),以及13466号行政命令(延续针对朝鲜和朝鲜国民的特定限制)。

     

  • 2) An applicable Executive order. This includes Executive Orders 13810 (Imposing Additional Sanctions With Respect to North Korea), 13722 (Blocking Property of the Government of North Korea and the Workers’ Party of Korea, and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to North Korea), 13687 (Imposing Additional Sanctions With Respect to North Korea), 13570 (Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to North Korea), 13551 (Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to North Korea), and 13466 (Continuing Certain Restrictions With Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals).

     

  • 3)适用的联合国安理会决议。这包括联合国2397号决议、2375号决议、2371号决议、2356号决议、2321号决议、2270号决议、2094号决议、2087号决议、1874号决议以及1718号决议。

     

  • 3) An applicable United Nations Security Council Resolution. This includes resolutions 2397, 2375, 2371, 2356, 2321, 2270, 2094, 2087, 1874, and 1718.

 

 

 

前述《布林克法案》关键条款意味着,如果包括中国金融机构在内的外国金融机构“故意”向前述法律、行政命令或者联合国安理会决议“指定”实体提供“重要”金融服务,财政部长必须对该金融机构进行制裁。这是《制裁朝鲜法》的升级版,因为《制裁朝鲜法》仅仅在前述重要金融服务“与制造、维护或者使用任何向朝鲜进口、出口或再出口给朝鲜、进入朝鲜或来自朝鲜的核武器、放射性武器、化学武器和生物武器,或者任何部分或全部设计用于发射这些武器的设备或者系统相关”时,才会施加制裁。

 

This means that that Secretary of the Treasury must impose sanctions on Chinese financial institutions if the financial institution “knowingly” provides “significant” financial services to any entity “designated” by the aforementioned legislation, Executive orders, or UN Security Council Resolutions. This is an escalation of the North Korea Sanctions Act, which only required the imposition of mandatory sanctions if the significant financial services were “relat[ed] to the manufacture, maintenance, or use of any [nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological weapon or any device or system designed in whole or in part to deliver such a weapon] to be imported, exported, or reexported to, into, or from North Korea.”

 

 

二、 “故意”和“重要”的定义

II. Defining “knowingly” and “significant”

 

前述条款的关键要件之一是金融机构“故意”进行法律禁止的行为。《布林克法案》定义了“故意”,即“在行为、某种情形或结果的语境下,‘故意’指某人知悉或者应当知悉该行为、情形或结果。”

 

A key aspect of the aforementioned provisions is that a financial institution “knowingly” engages in the prohibited activity. The BRINK Act provides that “[t]he term ‘knowingly’, with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result.”

 

虽然《布林克法案》未定义“重要”一词,但作为《制裁朝鲜法》实行细则的《制裁朝鲜规定》,对于一项交易是否“重要”列出了以下标准:

 

  1. 交易的规模、数量、频率和本质;

  2. 交易的类型、复杂性和商业目的;

  3. 管理层对交易的关注程度,以及交易是否构成行为模式的一部分;

  4. 参与交易的外国金融机构与朝鲜或被封锁主体之间的联系;

  5. 交易对于13810号行政命令(追加针对朝鲜的制裁)之目标的影响,包括授予或试图授予朝鲜或被封锁主体经济或者其他方面的利益;

  6. 交易是否涉及任何欺诈行为;以及

  7. 财政部根据个案分析认为相关的其他因素。

 

 

The term “significant” is not defined in the BRINK Act. However, in the North Korea Sanctions Regulations, which includes implementing regulations for the North Korea Sanctions Act, the criteria for determining whether a transaction is “significant” is as follows:

 

  1. the size, number, frequency, and nature of the transaction(s);

  2. type, complexity, and commercial purpose of the transaction(s);

  3. the level of awareness of management of the transaction(s) and whether the transaction(s) are a part of a pattern of conduct;

  4. the nexus between the foreign financial institution involved in the transaction(s) and North Korea or a blocked person;

  5. the impact of the transaction(s) on the goals of Executive Order 13810 (Imposing Additional Sanctions with Respect to North Korea), including the economic or other benefit conferred or attempted to be conferred on North Korea or a blocked person;

  6. whether the transaction(s) involved any deceptive practices; and

  7. other factors that the Department of the Treasury deems relevant on a case-by-case basis.

 

 

 

三、违反《布林克法案》的

制裁和惩罚

 

III. Sanctions and Penalties for Violations of the BRINK Act

 

违反《布林克法案》的法律责任有两种。首先,故意与前述受制裁主体进行重要金融交易的金融机构可能受到制裁。其次,违反前述《布林克法案》项下对金融机构制裁的主体也会受到处罚。

 

Punishments for violating the BRINK Act come in two forms. First, there are sanctions against financial institutions that knowingly conduct significant financial transactions with the aforementioned “designated” entities. Second, there are penalties for persons that violate sanctions imposed against financial institutions under the BRINK Act.

 

具体而言,对于违反制裁规定的金融机构,美国财政部长可以“封锁并禁止所有在美国境内、进入美国境内、为或将为美国主体控制或持有之财产及财产权益相关的交易。”在某些情形下,财政部长也可以“禁止或通过附加严格的条件来约束该外国金融机构在美国境内开设、维持代理账户或过渡账户。”

 

The Secretary of the Treasury may “block and prohibit . . . all transactions in all property and interests in property of the foreign financial institution if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person.” Alternatively, the Treasury Secretary may “prohibit, or impose strict conditions on, the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by the foreign financial institution.”

 

财政部一般会通过颁布命令或者规定的方式来施加前述在美国境内开设或维持代理账户的严格条件,并公布在联邦公报上。财政部如果决定禁止某外国金融机构开设或者维持美国代理账户或者过渡账户,会将其公布在“代理账户或者过渡账户受制裁外国金融机构名单”上。

 

If the Treasury Department decides to impose strict condition(s), the Treasury Department will issue an order or a regulation that sets out the strict condition(s) to be imposed on the U.S. correspondent accounts or U.S. payable-through accounts of the relevant foreign financial institution and publish the order or regulation in the Federal Register. If the Treasury Department decides to prohibit the opening or maintaining of U.S. correspondent accounts or U.S. payable-through accounts for a foreign financial institution, the Treasury Department will add the name of the foreign financial institution and publish it on its List of Foreign Financial Institutions Subject to Correspondent Account or Payable-Through Account Sanctions (the “CAPTA List”).[5]

 

此外,任何违反前述《布林克法案》项下对金融机构制裁的主体,都会面临《国际紧急经济权力法》第206节所列处罚,包括数额不超过25万美金或“违规交易标的额两倍”孰高者的罚款,故意违反制裁更可能招致高达100万美金的罚金和/或长达20年的有期徒刑。

 

Persons who violate sanctions imposed against financial institutions under the BRINK Act would be subject to penalties under Section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This includes civil penalty no greater than $250,000 or “an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.” Willful violations may result in a criminal penalty of up to $1,000,000, or a prison sentence of up to 20 years, or both.

 

对中国金融机构的建议

Observations for Chinese Financial Institutions

 

虽然监管机构过往对制裁违反美国法律的外国大型金融机构存在犹豫,《布林克法案》的强制性还是会使其采取可能对中国金融机构造成严重损失的执法措施。因为制裁和惩罚在《布林克法案》颁布90天后就开始实行,如果金融机构等到法律出台以后再建立、完善自身合规体系,或者进行必要的审计来筛查被制裁客户,那么时间会非常紧张。

 

Although there has been some reluctance in the past to sanction large financial institutions, Chinese or otherwise, for violating U.S. sanctions, the mandatory nature of the BRINK Act would force the U.S. administration to take action that could cause significant harm to Chinese financial institutions. Since the sanctions and penalties would kick in within 90 days of the BRINK Act being passed into law, waiting for the legislative process may leave financial institutions too little time to implement a robust sanction compliance program and conduct the necessary audits to ensure that no existing customers are designated entities.

 

特别是,《布林克法案》中“应当知悉”这一主观要件衡量标准,使得中国金融机构更应马上建立或完善制裁合规体系。尽管《布林克法案》尚未正式出台,时间的紧迫性和后果的严重性使得中国金融机构有必要迅速采取行动。

 

Especially, the “should have known” standard in the BRINK act, may push the Chinese financial institutions to establish compliance program. Although it is unclear whether the amendment containing the BRINK Act will make it through the U.S. legislative process, the short timelines and massive impact it could have on Chinese financial institutions necessitates swift action.

 

鉴于此,大家建议中国金融机构聘请具备制裁合规体系建设经验的律师团队,以建立符合OFAC标准的制裁合规体系。您可以浏览大家近期关于OFAC制裁合规指南的文章《中国企业如何防范和应对美国政府制裁风险?——美国财政部<OFAC合规承诺框架>解读》,从而大致了解如何建立有效的制裁合规体系。

 

As such, we highly recommend that Chinese financial institutions engage external sanction compliance experts with experience implementing sanction compliance programs that meet OFAC standards. You can read our article on the recently published OFAC Framework that serve as a guideline for robust U.S. sanction compliance program here.

 

[注]

[1]https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-116s1790es/pdf/BILLS-116s1790es.pdf

[2]“New North Korea sanctions would tell Chinese banks: It’s us or them,” Washington Examiner, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/new-north-korea-sanctions-would-tell-chinese-banks-its-us-or-them.

[3]https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/114publ122.pdf

[4]31 C.F.R. 561

[5]The CAPTA list can be found here https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/capta_list.aspx

XML 地图 | Sitemap 地图