Archives for July 2018

EU to Take Hungary to Court over Prime Minister Orban’s Treatment of Immigrants

July 26, 2018 by Madeline Henshaw-Greene Leave a Comment

The European Union is seeking legal action against the government of Hungary for its treatment of asylum seekers, after threatening to do so for nearly three years. On Thursday, July 19, the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, announced in a formal letter that it planned to ask its highest courts to fine Hungary for not complying with several EU treaties that require member states to provide protection for foreigners seeking refuge. The decision could have fundamental implications for Europe as its nations struggle to reconcile their increasingly different ideas about democracy and human rights in an age of rising nationalism and strongman politics.

The European Union’s decision to take legal action is in direct opposition to Hungarian Prime Minister Orban’s hardline stance against immigration and asylum seekers. President Orban has relied on his nationalist and fear-based politics since 2015, a strategy that carried him to his third consecutive term earlier this year. Details of some of his anti-immigration policies include housing asylum seekers for months on end in remodeled shipping containers and installing a militarized wall along Hungary’s southern border. While Orban’s critics caution that he is neglecting the rule of law and encouraging neighboring countries, such as Austria and Slovenia, to do the same, Hungarian citizens have overwhelmingly endorsed his brand of politics.

According to EU policy, Hungary has two months to respond to the Commission before it begins assessing whether or not Orban and his government have violated any rules. In the meantime, the investigation may empower Prime Minister Orban by keeping public attention on him. This may help him with his plan to pass a constitutional amendment that would prevent the EU from forcing refugee settlement in Hungary. Since virtually none of Hungary’s opposition parties are willing to criticize the administration, the odds for the amendment successfully passing are in Orban’s favor. This is not the first time the EU has demonstrated concern over Prime Minister Orban’s legislation. In the past, he has also been criticized for discrimination against Roma children in schools as well as a lack of protection for pregnant women in the workplace.

U.S. Issues Sanctions Risks for Businesses with N. Korean Supply Chain Links

July 24, 2018 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

On July 23, 2018, the U.S. Department of State, with the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), issued an advisory to high sanctions evasions tactics used by North Korea that could expose businesses – including manufacturers, buyers, and service providers – to sanctions compliance risks under U.S. and/or U.N. sanctions authorities. The advisory also helps businesses in complying with the requirements under Title III, the Korean Interdiction and Modernization of Sanctions Act of the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). The advisory warns businesses to be aware of deceptive practices employed by North Korea in order to implement effective due diligence policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure compliance with applicable legal requirements across their entire supply chains.

Multiple U.S. and U.N. sanctions impose restrictions on trade with North Korea and the use of North Korean labor. Annex 1 to the advisory sets forth a more detailed description of the North Korean sanctions prohibitions related to supply chains. The two primary risks are: (1) inadvertent sourcing of goods, services, or technology from North Korea; and (2) the presence of North Korean citizens or nationals in companies’ supply chains, whose labor generates revenue for the North Korean government. The advisory also provides due diligence references for businesses.

The heightened risk for and potential indicators of goods, services, and technology with a North Korean nexus includes:

Sub-contracting/consignment firms [e.g., third country suppliers (Chinese) shift manufacturing or sub-contracting work to a North Korean factory without informing the customer or relevant parties);

Mislabeled Good/Services/Technology: N. Korean exporters disguise the origin of goods produced in N. Korea by affixing country-of-origin labels that identify a third country.

Joint Ventures: North Korean firms have established hundreds of joint ventures with partners from China and other countries in various industries, such as apparel, construction, small electronics, hospitality, minerals, precious metals, seafood and textiles (see Annex 2 of the advisory for a list of known North Kean joint ventures).

Raw Materials or goods provided with Artificially Low Prices: North Korean exporters sell goods and raw materials well below market prices to intermediaries and other traders.

Information Technology (IT) Services: North Korea sells a range of IT services and products abroad, including website and app development, security software, and biometric identification software that have military and law enforcement applications.

The advisory also discusses heightened risk for North Korean overseas labor producing revenue for the government of North Korea. The North Korean government exports large numbers of laborers to meet a single contract in various industries, including but not limited to apparel, construction, footwear manufacturing, hospitality, IT services, logging, medical, pharmaceuticals, restaurant, seafood processing, textiles, and shipbuilding. China and Russia continue to host more North Korean laborers than all other countries and jurisdictions combined. The advisory lists 42 jurisdictions hosting North Korean laborers.

The advisory sets forth potential indicators of North Korean overseas labor.

The advisory gives due diligence best practices, namely those businesses closely examine their entire supply chain(s) for North Korean laborers and goods, services or technology, and adopt appropriate due diligence best practices. This especially applies to those businesses with operations in high-risk countries, or who operate in high-risk industries. Well-documented due diligence policies and practices may be considered mitigating factors when the U.S. government determines the appropriate enforcement response.

The advisory reminds businesses of the penalties on individuals and entities for violations of sanctions and enforcement actions and activities that could result in designation by OFAC. The advisory also provides where interested individuals can find additional information on OFAC sanctions.

During the second week of July the U.S. complained to the Security Council North Korea sanctions committee that as of May 30, North Korea had made 89 illicit ship-to-ship transfers of refined petroleum products. The U.S. asked the committee to notify all U.N. member states of the violations of a refined petroleum cap of 500,000 barrels a year – imposed by the council in December – and order an immediate halt to all transfers. On July 19, 2018, China and Russia delayed a U.S. effort for a U.N. Security Council committee to order a ban on refined petroleum exports to North Korea. China and Russia requested more detail on a U.S. accusation that Pyongyang breached sanctions.

In the coming weeks the U.S. will try to both unilaterally and multilaterally strengthen North Korean sanctions unless and until North Korea starts implementing the June 12 “denuclearization agreement” or joint statements to the satisfaction of the U.S. government.

The next issue of the IELR will have additional information on the North Korean sanctions.

U.N. Moves Forward on Global Migration Pact, U.S. Remains Absent

July 17, 2018 by Madeline Henshaw-Greene Leave a Comment

On Friday, July 13, the United Nations took steps towards completing an agreement focused on improving human rights for global migrants. The agreement, known as the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, was first adopted as an initiative at the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September 2016, and at the time was heavily favored by all 193 members. The first major goal was to protect the rights of refugees and migrants in ways such as assuring safe resettlement and helping them get access to employment and education. Since then, it has grown into a global compact that promises to improve the way governments handle migration, focusing in particular on the human rights of migrants. The agreement has been in development since April 2017 and was completed last Friday. It is expected to be formally adopted this December at a meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco.

The pact has garnered attention not only because it addresses an important global issue, but also because the United States is no longer involved in its negotiations. Although the U.S. had been part of the talks since the beginning and President Obama had been a strong supporter of the initial declaration, the Trump administration abruptly ended the United States’ involvement last December, indicating that the agreement would hinder its power to control its borders. Migrants rights advocates noted that the decision to withdraw appeared to reinforce the image of the Trump administration as isolationist. They cautioned that the refusal to participate was “shortsighted and counterproductive”. However, administration officials countered that its decision was merely a defense of American sovereignty and national security, not an unwillingness to cooperate with other countries. Still, the decision was celebrated by President Trump’s base as well as several conservative websites, many of whom have demanded stricter laws against immigration since the campaign trail.

The completion of the Global Compact comes in the midst of a major immigration crisis in the United States. The Trump administration has faced bipartisan uproar due to a policy set forth by the government in May 2018 that required DHS officials to separate asylum seekers from their children at the border. The policy was vehemently decried and has now been effectively ended by a federal judge. This lack of regard for the basic rights of migrants seems to confirm the initial fears of migrants rights advocates when the U.S. pulled out of the decision-making process. Back in December when the decision was first announced, Bill Frelick, an official at Human Rights Watch, said that the United States had demonstrated “a callous disregard for the lives of migrants and jaw-dropping irresponsibility toward the community of nations”. This comment was echoed by Kevin Appleby, the international migration policy direction at an immigration rights advocacy group, who observed that the Trump administration seemed to care more about the whims of its base “than working with the world on a pressing global issue”.

Grand Jury Indicts 12 Russian Intelligence Officers for Cybercrime Offices in the 2016 Election

July 16, 2018 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

On July 13, 2018, Deputy Attorney of the United States announced that a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia return an indictment presented by the Special Counsel’s Office.

The indictment charges twelve Russian national for committing federal crimes that were intended to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. All of the defendants are members of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (GRU), a Russian Federation intelligence agencies. In their official capacities, they worked for months started in March 2016 to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and released that information on the internet under the names of “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0” and through another entity.

Starting in March 2016, the Russian intelligence officials started spearphisphing volunteers and employees of the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, including the campaign’s chairman. They defendants were able to steal the usernames and passwords for numerous individuals and use the credentials to steal email content and hack into other computers. They also hacked into the computer networks of the DCCC and the DNC.

They defendants coordinated with other intelligence officials to release the stolen documents for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 presidential election. They registered the domain DCLeaks.com and later staged the release of thousands of stolen emails and documents through that website.

According to the indictment on July 27, 2016, Russian hackers tried for the first time to break into the servers of Mrs. Clinton’s personal offices. It was the same that then candidate Trump said “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope your’e able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing…I think you’ll probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” Trump was referring to the emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state.

The indictment states the hackers were communicating with “a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign” Two government officials identified the person as Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime adviser to Mr. Trump and the subject of close scrutiny by the FBI and the Special Counsel’s team.

To avoid detection, defendants used false identities, while using a network of computers located around the world, paid for with cryptocurrency. The funding structure supported their efforts to buy key accounts, servers, and domains.

The indictment alleges: a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S. through cyber operations by t he GRU that involved the staged release of stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 president election (Count 1); aggravated identity theft for using identification belonging to eight victims to further their computer fraud scheme (Counts 2-9); a conspiracy to launder money in which the defendants laundered the equivalent of more than $95,000 by transferring the money that they used to purchase servers and to fund other costs related to their hacking activities through cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin; and conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S. by trying to hack into the computers of state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and U.S. companies that supplied software and other technology related to the administration of elections.

There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity or knew they were communicating with Russian intelligence officers. However, the person who benefitted from the alleged crimes, had a one-on-one meeting on July 16, 2018 with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. The meeting occurred, notwithstanding the indictment and public warnings by Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, that “the digital infrastructure that services this country is literally under attack.“

Former Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif Sentenced to Ten Years for Corruption

July 11, 2018 by Yasmin Chaudhary Leave a Comment

Pakistan’s National Accountability Bureau court delivered a verdict sentencing former prime minister Nawaz Sharif to ten years in prison and fining him eight million pounds. His daughter Mariam Safdar and her husband were also implicated. The family was accused of illegally acquiring wealth through their offshore companies in order to purchase expensive properties in London.

Mr. Sharif has been prime minister three times—the first ended in his resigning due to military pressure and the second ended with an army coup. The third culminated a year ago when the Pakistani Supreme Court removed him from office. Five months ago, the court barred him from holding public office for the rest of his life.

The information that led to the conviction stemmed from the Panama Papers leak, and first reported by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The Sharifs were long suspected of corruption, tax avoidance, money laundering, and ownership of illegal assets. The Supreme Court concluded that the family was unable to adequately explain the sources of wealth that allowed them to purchase their London flats, while Mr. Sharif continues to claim that these purchases were made in a legitimate manner.

Many believe that the military, which has been grappling for power with Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Party (PML-N), had a hand in this through its pressuring of the media and petitioning of the court. Taha Siddiqui, a journalist that had been a target of such military pressures, stated the following in a Twitter post:

A silent coup has taken place, far softer and subtler than any previous coups. As a result of that coup, there is a civilian govt but without powers; there is media but without freedoms; there are election candidates without freedom to choose a political platform.

Foreign policy analyst Ahmed Rasheed said that despite being corrupt, he did not believe that the PML-N deserve this kind of election harassment.

Mr. Sharif’s brother, Shahbaz Sharif, is now leading the PML-N as well as running in the upcoming elections. Mr. Sharif himself and his daughter Mariam are currently in London tending to his wife, Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif, who is sick with cancer. While he said he would return to Pakistan to serve his sentence, when he plans to do so is unknown.

Federal Judge Ends Trump Administration Practice of Arbitrarily Detaining Asylum Seekers

July 9, 2018 by Madeline Henshaw-Greene Leave a Comment

A federal judge in the District of Columbia has effectively ended the Trump administration’s practice of detaining asylum seekers indefinitely and denying them parole, citing that this goes against government policy. The ruling was the result of a challenge brought forth by the ACLU and several other organizations on behalf of nine detained asylum seekers who have been jailed for up to two years. None of these individuals have committed any crimes and all were initially determined to have credible reasons for seeking asylum. The court ordered Department of Homeland Security officials to go back and review the case of each individual involved in the class action suit and decide which of them should be released on humanitarian parole. Furthermore, while the lawsuit is ongoing, the order prevents ICE from detaining any applicants for asylum for more than a week, unless they have reviewed the case and found credible evidence that the individual poses a threat to national security.

The order specifically targets five ICE agents in officers around the country who have stopped granting parole to asylum seekers since early 2017. This practice violates a government directive from 2009 that indicates that people who demonstrate “credible fear” in their initial asylum interview should be at least considered for release while their application makes its way through the courts, a process that often takes months or even years. In the class action suit, the ACLU argued that the Trump administration has been unlawfully detaining asylum seekers in order to deter others from seeking out asylum. The same argument has been made to explain the government’s impetus for invoking the family separation policy. The ACLU pointed to a surge in detention rates to make their case, noting that in the first eight months after President Trump took office, the number of detained asylum seekers shot up to 96 percent. At its lowest, detention rates were less than 10 percent in 2013.

In his opinion, Judge Boasberg noted that “as the events of recent months make clear, the question of how this nation will treat those who come to our shores seeking refuge generates enormous debate.” He mentioned the previous precedent for treating asylum seekers as established in a “Parole Directive” issued by ICE in 2009, which the plaintiffs insisted the government was no longer following, citing the rising detention rates as evidence. The district court judge ultimately sided with the plaintiffs, arguing that his opinion “does no more than hold the Government accountable to its own policy”.

CARICOM HEADS ISSUE COMMUNIQUÉ ON SECURITY, MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES

July 9, 2018 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

At 39^th meeting of the heads of government of the Caribbean Community in Montego Bay, Jamaica on July 4-6, 2018, several significant actions occurred on international enforcement and security cooperation, as shown by the Communique.

Jamaica signed the CARICOM arrest warrant treaty, which enables Jamaica and CARICOM countries to more easily surrender individuals without need to extradite them.

After receiving an update on current and emerging Crime and Security issues in the region, the Heads mandated the Regional Security Agencies to work closely with the National Security Heads to address the various challenges emphasizing the need to strengthen the network of security head in the region to promote further information and intelligence sharing.

The Heads underscored the importance of strengthening the use of information and Communications technology in the fight against illicit trafficking in narcotics and firearms, trans-border criminal activities and cyber attacks. They emphasized the importance of working more closely with their international development partners to help the region in this regard.

CARICOM Members were encouraged to urgently update all legal instruments to combat crime and enhance regional security.

The Heads observed with great concern the amendment approved by the UK House of Commons to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill requiring the UK Government to ensure that the British Overseas Territories, but not Crown Dependencies, establish public registers of beneficial ownership information by no later than December 31, 2020.

They expressed solidarity with the territories “adversely affected by this unfair and unilateral action to legislate in areas of domestic policy constitutionally devolved to the territories without the consent of the people. Moreover, the action ran counter to an alternative arrangement to public registers earlier negotiated and agreed with the UK government and put in place at great cost to the overseas territories.”

According to the Heads, this they view as similar to the “unfair, unilateral and punitive extraterritorial measures such as blacklisting and de-risking taken against their own countries financial services sector, also a critical aspect of their economies, despite their best efforts at transparency and compliance.”

The Heads welcomed the report of the Regional Commission on Marijuana, which reviewed information and studies pertaining to marijuana legislation regulating its use and classification, findings related to research conducted on the medicinal use of marijuana as well as the economic and social impact and its implications for the region.

The Heads accepted in principle the need for changes in the classification of the drug which will make it more available for medicinal purposes and research. The acknowledged the region must intensify its lobbying at the international level to facilitate reclassification.

The Communiqué shows that the Caribbean Single Market Economy continues to facilitate streamlined procedure to enforcement cooperation, such as the CARICOM arrest warrant treaty. They continue to try to develop common approaches and policies to transnational criminal threats, such as illicit trafficking in narcotics and firearms, trans-border criminal activities and cyber attacks.

The Heads are also developing common approaches to efforts by extraregional actors to impose tax transparency and money laundering/counter-terrorism financial regulatory and enforcement policies on them. They are especially supportive of the overseas territories because the same policies, e.g., the requirement to have corporate public registers, will undoubtedly be imposed on them, even as they continue losing their financial service markets to other jurisdictions, especially to states in the U.S. which do not even have any private registers and the Trump Administration has not prioritized or pledged to meet international standards in tax transparency or anti-money laundering.

CARICOM has developed a number of regional enforcement and security mechanisms, including CARICOM Implementing Agency for Crime and Security (IMPACS), the Association of Caribbean Commissioners of Police, and subregional enforcement mechanisms, such as the Organization of East Caribbean States (OECS) Regional Security System.

Senate Committee Confirms Russian Meddling in 2016 President Election

July 6, 2018 by Max Raileanu Leave a Comment

For nearly a year and a half, American citizens and government officials have been debating the degree of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It has been alleged that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for at the time candidate Trump to win the election. The Russians attempted to infiltrate state election infrastructure while creating a system to utilize social media platforms to influence the election. Three reports have been released detailing the Russian’s involvement, or lack thereof.

The first is the Intelligence Community Assessment (“ICA”) created by the CIA, NSA, and FBI in January 2017. This report “assessed that Russian activities in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election represented a significant escalation in the long history of Russian attempts to interfere in U.S. domestic politics.” President Obama tasked the Intelligence Community with creating this report and thousands of files and pages were examined to reach their ultimate conclusion that the “Russians created a comprehensive and multifaceted campaign against the U.S.” President Trump and many others within the U.S. government refuted the claims that his campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the election.

The second released report, published by the House Intelligence Committee, supported President Trump’s claim that his campaign did not work with the Russian government, but it did conclude that the Russian government interfered with the election, as reported in the ICA. The report found that the ICA’s conclusions on Putin’s strategic intentions did not utilize proper analytic tradecraft and that there was no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. This was seen as a victory for President Trump and Republicans, while Democrats rejected these conclusions due to the alleged existence of ample evidence of collusion.

The third and most recent report was released on July 3^rd, 2018. The report, published by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, found further evidence of Russian interference, and that the ICA utilized proper analytic tradecraft. The report contradicts the House Committee Report because it concluded that President Putin approved of the media campaign to influence the elections. The Senate investigators also rejected President Trump’s claims that the ICA was politically influenced and used to discredit his presidency. However, the report is silent on the matter of collusion between President Trump’s campaign and the Russian government. The answer to this national debate will come once special counsel Robert Mueller concludes his investigation into Russian meddling. Mueller has already indicted 13 Russian nationals for interfering with the elections, and the Senate’s new report lends credibility to his decision.

The Senate’s full classified report has yet to be written and it could reveal more information that was not released to the public on July 3^rd, 2018. Both the relevant House and Senate committees continue to gather information, but it is clear from these reports that Russia influenced a U.S. presidential election for their own political gain. The Senate’s report can be seen as a victory for the rule of law and bipartisanship.

Governor of Latvian Central Bank Accused of Taking Bribes

July 6, 2018 by Yasmin Chaudhary 1 Comment

European Central Bank governing council member and Bank of Latvia governor Ilmars Rimsevics has been accused of accepting bribes from shareholders of Trasta Komercbanka. This follows the closing of Latvia’s third-largest bank, ABLV, after it was accused of money laundering.

These events have cast a negative light on the country as well as the European Central Bank, which oversaw ABLV and has protested Rimsevics’s removal from his post. Latvian state prosecutor Viorika Jirgena stated that Rimsevic began taking bribes in 2010, when shareholders of struggling bank Trasta Komercbanka paid for his vacation to Kamchatka, in return for his aiding them with responses to questions posed by the country’s bank regulator. Two years later, the shareholders needed Rimsevics’s influence within this agency, known as the Financial and Capital Market Commission (FCMC), in order to prevent Trasta Komercbanka from closing. Jirgena said that they paid him half of 500,000 euros in advance, with the other half following a favorable decision by the FCMC. However, Rimsevics was unable to prevent the FCMC from accusing the bank of money laundering, resulting in its closing in 2016.

While his position as central bank governor grants him the power to suggest a head for the FCMC, as well as attend its meetings, a spokesperson for the agency stated that he could not have influenced the decision regarding Trasta Komercbanka, because “the FCMC performs its work as an autonomous public institution and adopts its decisions independently.”

The failed bank’s shareholders refused to pay Rimsevics his second installment, and instead willingly provided evidence of the bribe to anti-corruption investigators in order to avoid prosecution. Rimsevics claims that these accusations had been conjured up by banks that were displeased with his attempts to increase transparency in offshore banking.

In February 2018, the U.S. Department of Treasury issued a Section 311 action under the USA Patriot Act against ABLV for its failure to implement proper AML/CFT systems. The IELR article on the action can be found here.

State Department’s 2018 Trafficking in Persons Report Stresses Role of Local Communities in Combating Human Trafficking

July 3, 2018 by Zarine Kharazian Leave a Comment

Last week, the U.S. State Department released its annual Trafficking in Persons report for 2018. This year’s report stresses the importance of understanding human trafficking from a local perspective, and outlines community-based initiatives to combat the practice.

The report puts forward a cross-cutting framework for cooperation among multiple stakeholders. In particular, cooperation must take place vertically between, national, regional, and local governments, and horizontally between law enforcement officials, service providers, and other key stakeholders, such as NGOs. According to the report, the most comprehensive model for community-based action would also involve the following steps:

Conducting assessments of the nature and scope of the problem (How many potential victims are there? What demographic is most affected? What are the underlying socioeconomic factors fueling the human trafficking problem in the community?)
Raising awareness on victim identification among stakeholders;
Engaging professionals likely to come into contact with the affected population, such as health care professionals and educators;
Raising community awareness and fighting social stigma towards victims; and
Developing institutional processes and protocols to provide housing, legal assistance, etc. to victims.

In a post on the Department of State’s official blog, Kari Johnstone, the Acting Director of the agency’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, also highlighted that human trafficking is at its root a community issue, albeit a multifaceted and far-reaching one. “It is important to remember, however, that despite its pernicious global sweep, human trafficking happens in local communities — in a favorite nail salon or restaurant, in a neighbor’s home, on a farm, or in a city’s streets,” she writes. “Traffickers reap profits from the exploitation of others, leaving individual victims and their local communities to face the consequences.”

Broader attention is being paid to human trafficking, both in the international community and in the United States, in light of the United States controversial sex trafficking law, FOSTA. The Global Initiative, Babson College’s Initiative on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery, and the United Nations Migration Agency recently founded the RESPECT initiative: the Responsible and Ethical Private Sector Coalition against Trafficking. The initiative aims to foster public and private sector cooperation to combat human trafficking.

Critics of FOSTA have denounced the legislation for infringing on free speech and sex workers’ rights. The digital rights organization Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) recently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the government, arguing that the law violates the First and Fifth Amendments.

The full 2018 Trafficking in Persons Report can be accessed here. The EFF complaint can be accessed here.