IELR Blog

Official Blog of the International Enforcement Law Reporter

Archives for April 2021

ASIL Task Force Recommends Steps for Biden’s Engagement with the International Criminal Court

by Leave a Comment

On April 28, 2021, a Task Force of the American Society of International Law issued a report recommending options for the Biden Administration and Congress to engage with International Criminal Court (ICC).

Background

The ASIL also held a webinar launch of the report.  Participating in the webinar were: Catherine Amirfar, President of the ASIL; Todd Buchwald, former Ambassador, Office of Global Criminal Justice, U.S. Department of State; and Beth Van Schaack, the Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor in Human Rights at Stanford Law School and former Deputy to the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues in the Office of Global Criminal Justice of the U.S. Department of State.

In 2009, as the Obama took office, an earlier ASIL Task Force, chaired by Ambassador William H. Taft IV and Judge Patricia M. Wald, did a report examining U.S. policy toward the ICC and making recommendations to help the incoming Obama Administration in developing its policy.

The Report

Section I provides a background about the U.S. relationship with the ICC.  Section II gives the basic legislative framework that governs U.S. relations with the ICC and the evolution of the framework. Section III looks at various ways in which the U.S. has engaged on ICC issues.  Section IV describes recent developments relevant in assessing the options for U.S. engagement with the ICC in the coming years. The discussion includes the ICC’s investigations in the “situation in Afghanistan” (potentially involving allegations of torture by U.S. personnel) and the “situation in Palestine” (potentially involving allegations against senior Israeli officials, including in connection with settlements policy).  Section IV also provides background on ongoing ICC review and reform efforts.

Section V describes a broad range of ways in which many elements of ICC policy intersect with other U.S. interests.  Section VI provides the Task Force’s recommendations for how the Biden Administration should engage with the ICC on a pragmatic basis moving forward.

Task Force’s Recommendations

The Task Force identified four categories of recommendations:  (A) initial steps to “clear the air,” revise the tone in the aftermath of U.S. government’s attacks on the Court, and strengthen the U.S. approach to multilateralism and its shared goals with the ICC; (B) 18 Steps that should be taken regardless of specific concerns about the ICC; (C) dealing with the biggest issues – the Afghanistan and Palestinian situations and the ICC review and reform; and (D) support for particular ICC Cases.

Most likely the Biden Administration will carefully consider the report and recommendations, so it is worth reviewing for persons interested in the ICC and U.S. government policy towards it.  The report portends a more positive engagement by the Biden Administration with the ICC. The current issue of the IELR will have a more comprehensive discussion of the report, its recommendations and implications.

Report Finds France Responsible for Rwandan Genocide

by Leave a Comment

On April 19, 2021, the Rwandan government released a report that found France responsible for the genocide in Rwanda that left as many as 800,000 dead in 1994.

The report found that France was complicit throughout and even after the genocide, and they “did nothing to stop” the genocide. The French government was aware that genocide was to come, yet it continued to support the then-Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana.

The report found that France was involved because the “French officials armed, advised, trained, equipped, and protected the Rwandan government, heedless of the Habyarimana regime’s commitment to the dehumanization and, ultimately, the destruction and death of Tutsi in Rwanda,” all in the years prior to the genocide.

Not only were the French acted as an accomplice to the genocide, but they “covered up its role, distorted the truth, and protected” perpetrators. “The French Government bears significant responsibility for enabling a foreseeable genocide,” the report mentioned.

The 600-page report was produced by Levy Firestone Muse, a Washington law firm. The report relied on various sources such as governments, non-government organizations, documentaries, videos, news articles, and more than 200 witnesses.

The Rwandan government report proceeds another similar report released by the French Commission in March that also found that France had been ignorant of genocide and bears responsibility for it. The Duclert Commission released its report in March 2021 after a two-year investigation into France’s role in the Rwandan genocide between 1990 and 1994 and the Tutsi genocide.

The French report concluded that the French bear “overwhelming responsibilities” to the genocide; and that France was responsible due to their “political, institutional, intellectual, moral and cognitive failure.”

Additionally, the commission acknowledged and provided a list of its shortcomings, including: “lack of coordination powers and absence of effective checks and balances”; “political [and] institutional responsibilities, both civilian and military”; “parallel chains of communication and even command”; “bypassing the rules of engagement and legal procedures”; “institutional abuses covered up by the political authority or in the absence of political control,” “an ethnicist reading” of the Rwandan condition.

The implications of the reports are that France can adjudicate criminal and civil cases against the suspects who allegedly participated in the genocide and are found in France.  In addition, France give provide foreign assistance to Rwanda in the future, especially insofar as Rwanda wants to overcome the adverse effects of the genocide.

Biden Administration Imposes Sanctions Against Russia for Alleged Election Interference and SolarWinds Cyber Hack

by Leave a Comment

On April 14, 2021, the Biden Administration announced it imposed new sanctions against Russia for its alleged involvement in the U.S. 2020 election interference and the solar winds cyber infiltration.

In a press statement, the White House announced new sanction against six Russian companies with ties to Russian spy services cyber hacking and will expel 10 Russian diplomats in the United States. It also officially named the Russian intelligence service (SVR) for their alleged involvement in the SolarWinds hack that affected several U.S. agencies and 100 private firms.

The White House also released approaches to bettering cybersecurity, including “bolstering its efforts to promote a framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace and to cooperate with allies and partners to counter malign cyber activities.” Also, the Department of Defense is “taking steps to incorporate additional allies, including the UK, France, Denmark, and Estonia, into the planning for CYBER FLAG 21-1, which is an exercise designed to improve our defensive capabilities and resiliency in cyberspace.”

The Treasury Department also released a press statement of the actions they will take under the new sanctions. The Treasury sanctioned 32 entities and individuals allegedly directed by the Russian government to influence the 2020 U.S. presidential elections. The acts included disseminating disinformation and other actions aimed to influence and undermine the election.

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed financial sanctions that prevent U.S. financial institutions from purchasing government bonds from the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, or the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.

“This action seeks to disrupt the coordinated efforts of Russian officials, proxies, and intelligence agencies to delegitimize our electoral process. The U.S. government will continue to pursue those who engage in such activity,” the White House Press release statement said.

These sanctions are noteworthy because they are comprehensive as they sanction individuals, companies, and entities alike.

The April issue of the IELR will have a more comprehensive discussion of this topic.

 

Department of State Announced Grant Opportunity to Combat Corruption in the Northern Triangle

by Leave a Comment

On April 13, 2021, the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) announced a funding opportunity to combat corruption in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (the “Northern Triangle”).

Human rights abuses, endemic corruption, and violence has been plaguing the Northern Triangle region; these are just a few of the “root causes of human insecurity and irregular migration.” Guatemala and Honduras have made efforts to prosecute corrupt officials; however, those efforts have not succeeded because they have been “undermined by the termination of internationally-backed anticorruption missions,” the notice stated. Anticorruption organizations in the region often lack oversight, citizen participation, and do not abide by international standards. Even outside organizations such as independent media, civil societies, and advocates have attempted to expose corruption; however, authorities in the region undermined that effort.

Thus, the DRL funding opportunity particularly focuses on combating political corruption as this is a common obstacle among the countries in the Northern Triangle. By offering the grant, “DRL hopes to effectively address corruption in the Northern Triangle to help create a safer, stronger, and more prosperous region.”

 

DRL hopes to support civil society-led collations aimed at combating corruption in the Northern Triangle.  In particular, “Proposals should focus efforts on strengthening civil society organizations (CSOs) utilizing a regional approach to achieve the following objectives:

1) increase accountability for corrupt actors;

2) strengthen public oversight of national anticorruption mechanisms; and,

3) increase awareness of the impacts of corruption and potential redress mechanisms before national, regional, and international bodies.”

DRL requests that applicants submit new and innovative approaches to fighting corruption. DRL hopes that applicants will collaborate with civil society organizations, journalists, and anticorruption advocates alike. Proposal objectives can include: “documenting cases of corruption to feed into national, regional, or international accountability mechanisms; facilitating public oversight of anticorruption proceedings; and increasing awareness of potential redress mechanisms for anticorruption advocates and independent journalists before national, regional, and international bodies.” For example, these projects can include partnering with independent journalists and law schools to train them on effective accountability mechanisms and use their expertise to investigate, document, and analyze corruption cases to create transparency and mitigate corruption.

In its notice, DRL wrote that certain activities such as humanitarian assistance, English instructions classes, advance technology purchases, or small-loan business developments are not covered under the grant.

The application deadline is on May 28, 2021. The total funding amount is 740,740 dollars. DRL requests that projects last between18 to 36 months.

The announcement is consistent with the enactment of the U.S.-North Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act[1] and underscores the emphasis by the Biden Administration of trying to go the source of the instability in the Northern Triangle: the need to improve the rule of law, democratic institutions, anti-corruption, transparency, and governance.  Unfortunately this undertaking cannot produce results overnight.

 

[1]    See also Bruce Zagaris, US-N.Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act Sets Stage for New US Policy, 27 Int’l Enforcement L. Rep. 130 (Mar. 2021).

U.S. Files Statement of Interest Supporting Dismissal of Egyptian from Human Rights Lawsuit due to Diplomatic Immunity

by Leave a Comment

On April 1, 2021, the United States Department of Justice filed a statement of interest, supporting the motion to dismiss for a former Egyptian prime minister and IMF representative, whom a U.S. national sued in June 2020 for unlawful detention and torture for 21 months in Cairo at El Beblawi’s alleged authorization.[1]

Soltan’s Law Suit against El Beblawi

On June 1, 2020, U.S. citizen and former dual  U.S.-Egyptian national Mohamed Soltan, 32 at the time of the lawsuit and a student at Georgetown University, brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accusing El Beblawi of ordering his arrest, torture and attempted assassination.  The Complaint alleges that El Beblawi, while Prime Minister of Egypt,  was responsible for his being “almost killed, brutally wounded, imprisoned and tortured for nearly two years in Egypt because he dared to expose to the world the Egyptian military government’s brutal suppression and massacre of peaceful demonstrators.” Compl. ¶ 1.

According to his suit, the Egyptian Government targeted Soltan for abuse during his 634 days of imprisonment.

The 1991 Torture and Victim Protection Act permits civil suits in the U.S. against individuals who perpetrated torture or extrajudicial killings while acting in an official capacity for a foreign country if the defendants are in the U.S. and are no longer head of state.

DOJ’s Statement of Interest

The DOJ filing explained that, consistent with standard accreditation practice, the IMF notified the U.S. Department of State that El Beblawi assumed the position as Egypt’s Principal Resident Representative to the IMF, effective November 2, 2014.  The handling of the accreditation followed the State Department’s standard practice for the accreditation of foreign representatives to international organizations.   The U.S. accepted the IMF’s notification.  State’s records show El Beblawi’s  status as Egypt’s Principal Resident Representative to the IMF effective November 2, 2014.

On June 24, 2020, El Beblawi moved to dismiss the Complaint based, inter alia, on his diplomatic and foreign official immunity.  On July 7, 2020, the State Department provided the Government of Egypt with a certification of his diplomatic status and immunity, which El Beblawi filed with the court.

The DOJ’s filing said foreign policy considerations require that the court give “conclusive weight to the Executive’s determination of an individual’s diplomatic status.”

The State Department’s records show  that the IMF notified the State Department of El Beblawi’s termination as the Principal Resident Representative of Egypt to the IMF, effective October 31, 2020.  El Beblawi’s change of status does not affect his immunity in this case because Soltan served him while he enjoyed diplomatic agent status.  Hence, the DOJ asks the court to dismiss without prejudice claims failing with the scope of his immunity.

The DOJ statement of interest then leaves open the right of Soltan to try to reinstitute the suit, if it is dismissed, and perfect proper service.

Analysis

Meanwhile, on March 30, 2021, the U.S. Department of State’s annual human rights report, condemned the Egyptian government for “unlawful or arbitrary killings…forced disappearance; torture and cases of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by the government…harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention”…

Human rights groups have criticized Egypt for its international human rights abuses. Such abuses include targeting relatives in Egypt of political opponents, human rights workers, pro-democratic activists, and journalists living abroad, arresting them, interrogating them and harassing them.

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden referred to Soltan’s case.  He said that torturing Egyptian activists and “threatening their families is unacceptable.”[2]

[1]    Spencer S. Hsu and John Hudson, Biden officials reaffirm Egyptian’s immunity from lawsuit, Wash. Post, Apr. 6, 2021, at A7, col. 1.

[2]    Id.

Michigan Man of Lebanese-descent Wrongfully Placed on the No-Fly List

by Leave a Comment

In April 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of D.C. filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Michigan man that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) placed on a no-fly list because he refused to become an informant.

According to the lawsuit, in August 2018, the FBI started to target Ahmad Chebli, a U.S. born citizen who grew up and has an educational background in Lebanon and now lives in Dearborn, Michigan. The compliant states that the FBI coerced him to work as an informant because of his “language skills, Lebanese background, and technical expertise as an engineer.”Chebli would help the FBI locate suspects in his community that are attempting to harm the United States. The agents focused their questioning on his educational background and life in Lebanon, political and religious beliefs. Chebli did not want any involvement with the FBI, but they were persistent.

The FBI allegedly engaged in coercive tactics such as intense surveillance and accused him of being part of the terrorist group Hezbollah, which he denies any involvement. The FBI proceeded to place him on the no-fly list. By placing Chebli on the list, he loses his ability to travel domestically and internationally, and is denied government benefits.

Chebli challenged the no-fly list claim, and the government did not give a reason for his placement on the list.

The no-fly list is often criticized for its vague standards and often used in a discriminatory manner to target Muslims and those from Arab and Middle Eastern descents.

Chebli’s case is one of many lawsuits that challenge the legality of the no-fly list. In 2014, the ACLU filed a lawsuit that challenged the protocol for placement on the no-fly list. The federal court in Oregon ruled that the no-fly list regulations violate the Fifth Amendment rights and right to due process.

In contrast, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., concurred with the government’s use of the Terrorist Screen Database, a less restrictive version of the no-fly list. This database contains 1.2 million people, 4,600 of which are U.S. citizens.

In December, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case on a matter related to the no-fly list. The case involved three Muslim-American men placed on the no-fly list as retaliation for refusing to become informants. The judges unanimously ruled in favor of the three men.

The suits over the no-fly list exemplify how the U.S. government and courts balance national security restrictions against fundamental rights set forth in its Constitution and international human rights laws.  The great bulk of persons on the no-fly list are aliens, to which the U.S. courts have excepted from the protection of most of the Bill of Rights.  However, Chebli and other persons targeted have been U.S. citizens and green card holders.

The next issue of the IELR will have a more comprehensive discussion of these matters.

 

 

President Biden Revokes Executive Order Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court

by Leave a Comment

On April 1, 2021, United States President Joseph R. Biden terminated the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13928 of June 11, 2020, which blocked property of certain persons associated with the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Biden Executive Order

The new Executive Order explained that the U.S. continues to object to the ICC’s assertions of jurisdiction over personnel of such non-States Parties as the U.S. and its allies without their consent or referral by the United Nations Security Council.  President Biden said the U.S. “will vigorously protect current and former United States personnel from any attempts to exercise such jurisdiction, the threat and imposition of financial sanctions against the Court, its personnel, and those who assist it are not an effective or appropriate strategy for addressing the United States’ concerns with the ICC.”

Statement by U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken

On April 2, 2021, U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken in a press statement explained that, as a result of the new Executive Order, the U.S. has removed the sanctions imposed by the prior administration against ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and Phakiso Mochochoko, the Head of Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Cooperation Division of the Office of the Prosecutor.

According to Blinken, the U.S. continues to disagree strongly with the ICC’s actions concerning the Afghanistan and Palestinian situations.  Blinken also reiterated the U.S. government’s objection to the ICC’s efforts to assert jurisdiction over personnel of non-States Parties such as the U.S. and Israel.  Blinken continued that the U.S. concerns about these cases would be better addressed through engagement with all stakeholders in the ICC process rather than through the imposition of sanctions.

According to Blinken, U.S. support for the rule of law, accesses to justice, and accountability for mass atrocities are significant U.S. national security interests that are protected and furthered by engaging with the rest of the world to meet the challenges.  The U.S. government leadership was important in forming the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals after World War II and bringing accountability in the Balkans, Cambodia, Rwanda and elsewhere.  The U.S. government leadership has supported various international, regional, and domestic tribunals, and international investigative mechanisms for Iraq, Syria, and Burma, to bring justice for victims of atrocities.

Blinken mentioned the U.S. is encouraged that States parties to the Rome Statute are considering a large range of reforms to assist the ICC prioritize its resources and to achieve its core mission of serving as a court of last resort in punishing and deterring atrocity crimes.

Litigation against Trump’s Executive Order Authorizing Sanctions on Officials of the ICC

The Biden Executive Order precedes by days a deadline on April 5 for the Biden administration to respond to a lawsuit by civil society (Open Society Justice Initiative) and law professors challenging the constitutionality of the executive order.  In October, the OSJI and four law professors brought a lawsuit against the U.S. government in U.S. District S.D.N.Y., claiming that the executive violated their rights of free speech and association.  Some of the professors worked in various capacities for the ICC prosecutor and victims of alleged atrocities.

Already, the Biden administration decided not to appeal a preliminary injunction the court issued in the litigation barred the implementation of the Executive Order.

The American Civil Liberties union and several U.S. citizens also brought a lawsuit challenging the Trump Executive Order.  The Biden administration would have had to respond on April 9.

Analysis

The new Executive Order by President Biden and its timing illustrate the utility of the lawsuits.

The new E.O. and the Blinken statement also show an effort by the Biden administration to re-engage in acting against international atrocities and international human rights more generally.

The current issue of the IELR will have more discussion on these developments.

U.S. Tax Court Rules Against Constitutional Challenge to Passport Denial for Delinquent Taxpayers

by Leave a Comment

On March 30, 2021, the United States Tax Court granted summary judgment to the Internal Revenue Service with respect to a taxpayer debtor/physician’s constitutional challenge to the IRS’ certification of the delinquent tax debt under IRC, § 7345.  The taxpayer’s outstanding tax balance was close to $500,000 and so the IRS turned to a new tool in its collection toolbox – § 7345.1.  Under this section, the IRS certified that Robert Rowen, the taxpayer, had a seriously delinquent tax debt to the Treasury secretary, who then transmitted the certification to the State Department.  The IRS notified Rowen of the certification.  At the time of the suit and the Tax Court’s opinion, the State Department had not taken any action concerning Rowen’s passport.  Nevertheless, Rowen petitioned the Tax Court, challenging the IRS’s certification as unconstitutional and a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Opinion

The court held that the certification does not deny his right to travel or his rights under the UDHR.

Judge Emin Toro authored the court’s opinion and observed that this is the first time the court has considered the merits of certification under 26 U.S. § 7345.  Judge Toro observed that §7345 was enacted as part of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act).   The opinion explains that the IRS certifies the delinquent tax debt and sends it to the Treasury secretary, who must then transmit the certification to the State Department.  The State Department can revoke, deny, or limit a tax delinquent individual’s passport.

The opinion rejected Rowen’s argument that § 7345 violates his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment since it forbids international travel.  Rowen claimed such travel is a fundamental right.  The opinion ruled that claim was meritless since the plain text of the statute does not prohibit international travel.  The opinion observed that § 7345 only certifies that an individual has a serious tax delinquency.  Thereafter, the State Department makes any passport-related decisions.    The opinion also rejected Rowen’s claim that §7345 violates his right to travel under the UDHR, since the statute does not impose a limit on the right to travel.

According to the opinion, Rowen’s procedural due process and statute of limitations claims do not have merit because he did not make such arguments in his summary judgment motion.  In addition, Rowen to not introduce evidence establishing that the period of limitations has elapsed.  The opinion found that the IRS’s certification was not erroneous and that the IRS met the requirements for certification under § 7345.  Hence, the IRS was entitled to summary judgment.

Judge Paige Marvel wrote a concurring opinion, stating that the court’s opinion does not foreclose a constitutional challenge in a future case with appropriate facts and squarely presented arguments to the entire tax collection mechanism created by FAST.

Analysis

Clearly the taxpayer’s petition and request for summary judgment were flawed in their efforts to challenge one of the new mechanisms to collect taxes.

The current issue of the IELR will discuss the implications of the case in more detail.

FinCEN Starts Beneficial Ownership Regulation Comment Period and Announces Staff Changes

by Leave a Comment

On April 1, 2021, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to request public comment on a wide range of questions related to the implementation of the beneficial ownership information reporting provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA).

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

This ANPRM is the first in a series of regulatory actions that FinCEN will undertake to implement the CTA, which is included within the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AML Act).  The AML Act is part of the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, which became law on January 1, 2021.

The CTA amended the Bank Secrecy Act.  The CTA requires corporations, limited liability companies, and similar entities to report certain information about their beneficial owners (the individual natural persons who ultimately own or control the companies).  This new reporting requirement will enhance the national security of the United States by making it more difficult for malign actors to exploit opaque legal structures to launder money, finance terrorism, proliferate weapons of mass destruction, traffic humans and drugs, and commit serious tax fraud and other crimes that harm the American people.

Pursuant to the CTA, FinCEN  must  maintain the reported beneficial ownership information in a confidential, secure, and non-public database.  In addition, the CTA authorizes FinCEN to disclose beneficial ownership information subject to appropriate protocols and for specific purposes to several categories of recipients, such as federal law enforcement. Under the CTA, FinCEN must revise existing financial institution customer due diligence regulations concerning beneficial ownership to take into account the new direct reporting of beneficial ownership information.

FinCEN encourages all interested parties, particularly those that would be affected by the beneficial ownership information reporting provisions or would seek access to reported beneficial ownership information, to submit written comments.  The comments can come from interested persons outside the U.S.   Such written comments will help inform FinCEN’s implementation of all aspects of the beneficial ownership reporting rulemaking.

Comments should be submitted by May 5, 2021.

This ANPRM seeks comment on FinCEN’s implementation of certain provisions in Section 6403 of the CTA. Section 6403 requires reporting companies (corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), and similar entities, subject to certain statutory exemptions) to submit to FinCEN specified information on their beneficial owners—the individual natural persons who own or control them—as well as specified information about the persons who form or register those reporting companies. Section 6403 further requires FinCEN to maintain this information in a confidential, secure, and non-public database, and it authorizes FinCEN to disclose the information to certain government agencies for certain purposes specified in the CTA, and to financial institutions to assist in meeting their customer due diligence obligations. In both cases, these disclosures are subject to appropriate protocols to protect confidentiality. This ANPRM seeks comment on numerous questions as FinCEN begins to develop proposed regulations implementing these provisions.

While only the regulations implementing the reporting requirements must be promulgated by January 1, 2022, with an effective date to be determined. FinCEN also requests comment on its implementation of the related database maintenance use and disclosure provisions. Section 6403 requires that the final rule on customer due diligence requirements for financial institutions be revised will be the subject of a separate rulemaking, about which the public will receive notice and opportunity to comment.

Staff Changes

Today, FinCEN announced a change in staff. Director Kenneth A. Blanco announced he will depart FinCEN on April 9, after serving as the organization’s director since December 2017. Michael Mosier, former FinCEN Deputy Director and current Counselor to the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, will return to FinCEN as Acting Director. AnnaLou Tirol, former Associate Director of FinCEN’s Strategic Operations Division, is serving as FinCEN Deputy Director.

Mr. Mosier most recently served as Counselor to the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, a role he assumed last month after serving as FinCEN’s Deputy Director and first Digital Innovation Officer. Mr. Mosier previously worked at the cryptocurrency analytics, compliance, and investigations firm Chainalysis, where he was Chief Technical Counsel. Prior to FinCEN and Chainalysis, Mr. Mosier was an Associate Director at Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. Mr. Mosier has also served as a Deputy Chief in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Money Laundering & Asset Recovery Section. He also served a tour at the White House National Security Council as Director for Transnational Organized Crime. Mr. Mosier began his public service as a prosecutor with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, and has served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. He previously worked at a law firm representing technology, media, and financial services clients.

Ms. Tirol is now serving as Deputy Director. In this capacity, she assists in overseeing FinCEN’s wide-ranging work to enhance the national security of the United States. Ms. Tirol joined FinCEN in September 2019, serving as Associate Director of the Strategic Operations Division, where she worked extensively to promote FinCEN’s strategic partnerships with government and private industry stakeholders, both domestically and internationally. Ms. Tirol came to FinCEN after overseeing DOJ’s Public Integrity Section prosecuting public corruption matters. She began her public service as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in San Diego, and has served overseas tours for DOJ in Belgrade, Serbia, focusing on anti-corruption issues, and in Panama City, Panama, focusing on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism. Ms. Tirol is an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

Director Ken Blanco will depart on April 9th to Citi to lead Financial Crimes Compliance

 

 

Disclaimer

Nothing in this blog constitutes or is intended to constitute legal advice. Neither transmission nor receipt of such materials creates an attorney-client relationship. Blog readers and subscribers should consult with an attorney. This blog may be considered attorney advertising under the rules of some states. The hiring of an attorney is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Pages

Categories

Sign up for our mailing list!
Get the latest blog posts, and an exclusive discount offer for one year's subscription to the International Enforcement Law Reporter.
We respect your privacy.