Economic Sanctions and Export Controls

Sanctions may restrict certain parties, countries, sectors or transactions. Export control may give rise to permits or prohibitions depending on goods, software, technology, destination, end user and end use. Because the same transaction may be subject to both areas, the reviews are carried out together.

They may be, depending on the transaction’s link to the relevant legal order. A foreign shareholder, bank, person, product or service link, secondary sanctions provisions and contractual obligations may matter. That a company is established in Türkiye does not mean that all foreign regimes apply automatically or that none of them matters.

No such conclusion can be drawn on that basis alone. Ownership and control may affect a party that is not on the list. There may also be prohibitions based on product, service, use or country. The screening result is only one element of the transaction review.

No. The accuracy of the match is examined through the company name, address, registry, date of birth or other distinguishing details. Which list and which restriction are involved is also determined; the alert and the reasons for the review are recorded.

Direct or indirect aggregate ownership of 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons is examined. In layered structures, the blocked status of intermediate companies matters; simply multiplying shares may lead to a wrong result. The relevant OFAC clarification and the program rules are applied together.

The same formula should not be applied. The effect of control, the share threshold and the joint assessment of different persons’ rights may vary by regime. A separate result is reached on the basis of current texts and the company’s actual management structure.

No. GTİP is the customs tariff classification. The export control item or ECCN may be determined by technical function, performance and other characteristics. The product name or invoice description alone may not be sufficient.

No. EAR99 does not mean that the product is outside the scope of the EAR. There may be licenses and prohibitions depending on the end user, end use or destination. The specific transaction is assessed separately.

Rules based on use and user may still matter. Additional review is needed particularly where the end use is unclear or the competent authority has issued a notification. Each regime’s non-list control conditions are determined from its own text.

Depending on the product and the legal link, electronic transfer, access to source code, technical assistance or disclosure to certain persons may also fall within the scope of control. That no physical goods are shipped does not make the review unnecessary.

It may be, because of certain U.S.-origin controlled content or the foreign direct product rules. Not every U.S. component has the same effect. The production, content, technology and destination link must be reviewed technically and legally.

No. The temporary suspension concerns only the relevant Affiliates Rule changes. OFAC sanctions, existing BIS list restrictions and other end-use or country controls are assessed separately. For the current timetable, the official text in the developments section of the page should govern.

No. An export permit and a financial sanctions permit may differ. The bank’s applicable obligations, the transaction documents and its own risk assessment also matter. The scope of the permit and the payment terms are reviewed together.

Yes. There may be conditions relating to the party, product, activity, date, amount, record-keeping or reporting. Another prohibition may continue. The existence of an exemption does not mean that the same result applies to every similar transaction.

It should be clarified whether the payment has been refused, held or legally blocked. The written reasons, the transaction reference, the party information and the requested documents are reviewed. The route of application can be determined only after this distinction.

A contract provision does not remove actual controls or legal obligations. Provisions on notification, document provision, end use, audit, suspension and liability should fit the transaction and should also be monitored in practice.

Not in every case. The governing law, the contract provisions, the nature of performance, the possibility of a permit or transition, notice and loss-mitigation obligations are assessed. A force majeure or termination outcome is not accepted automatically.

Depending on the risk and the legislation, re-screening is needed at later stages. A change in ownership, lists, products, end user, shipment or the payment flow may call for a new assessment. The frequency of controls is set according to the company’s business model.

Yes, depending on the scope of the transaction. The identity of the vessel and operator, port, carrier, insurer and cargo links may affect the applicable restrictions. Looking only at the names of the seller and buyer may not be sufficient.

A change in the means of payment does not remove a party or transaction prohibition. The service provider used, the transfer and the party links are reviewed separately. Regulations specific to crypto asset services may also apply.

Original documents and electronic records relating to the transaction are preserved unaltered. Access authority, retention period, professional secrecy, personal data and trade secret obligations are assessed together. Unlimited retention or public sharing is not appropriate for every record.

Depending on the regime, the organization’s status and the nature of the event, mandatory notification or voluntary disclosure options may arise. The authority, scope and time limit are determined in the file. Self-disclosure is not immunity from penalty or a guarantee of a favorable outcome.

Local representation and authority to apply depend on the rules of the relevant country. Where necessary, the work is coordinated with an attorney authorized in that country or a cooperating law firm. The scope, responsibility, fees and information-sharing conditions are determined separately.

It is enough to briefly state the countries concerned, the type of transaction, the product or service, the problem and any approaching deadline. The sharing of sensitive documents is planned separately. A consultation request does not, on its own, mean that the matter has been accepted or that representation has begun; the scope, the agreement and the required authorization are completed separately.