Category: General Licenses

  • This time it’s Venezuela-related General License 5W (Authorizing Certain Transactions Related to the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. 2020 8.5 Percent Bond on or After June 19, 2026):

    And Frequently Asked Question 595 got an update, too:

    595. What does Venezuela-related General License 5W authorize?

    Answer

    The President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13835 on May 21, 2018. Subsection 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13835 prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in transactions related to the sale, transfer, assignment, or pledging as collateral by the Government of Venezuela (GOV) of any equity interest in an entity owned 50 percent or more by the GOV. One effect of subsection 1(a)(iii) is to require authorization before U.S. persons may engage in certain transactions regarding any equity interest in an entity owned 50 percent or more by the GOV. Subsequent to the issuance of E.O. 13835, OFAC received inquiries about how and whether subsection 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13835 could affect the ability to enforce bondholder rights to the CITGO shares serving as collateral for the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA) 2020 8.5 percent bond. OFAC issued General License (GL) 5 on July 19, 2018, which removed E.O. 13835 as an obstacle to holders of the PdVSA 2020 8.5 percent bond gaining access to their collateral.

    General License 5 was replaced and superseded by General License 5A on October 24, 2019 with a delay in the effectiveness of the authorization in the general license. Since that date, OFAC has extended the delay in effectiveness multiple times. Most recently, OFAC issued General License 5W on May 4, 2026, which further delays the effectiveness of the authorization in GL 5 until June 19, 2026. Between October 24, 2019 and June 19, 2026 (the date the authorization in General License 5Wbecomes effective), there is no authorization in effect that licenses against subsection 1(a)(iii) of E.O. 13835 applicable to the holders of the PdVSA 2020 8.5 percent bond. As a result, during such period, transactions related to the sale or transfer of CITGO shares in connection with the PdVSA 2020 8.5 percent bond are prohibited, unless specifically authorized by OFAC.

    To the extent an agreement may be reached on proposals to restructure or refinance payments due to the holders of the PdVSA 2020 8.5 percent bond, additional licensing requirements may apply. OFAC would encourage parties to apply for a specific license and would have a favorable licensing policy toward such an agreement.

    Date Updated: May 04, 2026

    Date Released

    January 20, 2022

  • First, Iran General License W (Authorizing the Wind Down of Transactions Involving Certain Persons Blocked on May 1, 2026):

    and the new Frequently-Asked Question 1250:

    IRAN SANCTIONS

    1250. Are Iranian digital asset exchanges blocked under OFAC sanctions?

    Answer

    Yes. Executive Order (E.O.) 13599, as implemented by section 560.211(b) of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 560 (ITSR), blocks the property and interests in property of Iranian financial institutions. An Iranian financial institution is blocked pursuant to E.O. 13599 regardless of whether it is listed on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List). Iranian digital asset exchanges meet the regulatory definition of an “Iranian financial institution” as persons that engage in the business of activities described in section 560.324 of the ITSR.

    All property and interests in property of Iranian digital asset exchanges in the possession or control of U.S. persons, including U.S. financial institutions, or within U.S. jurisdiction, are blocked pursuant to section 560.211 of the ITSR and must be reported to OFAC. See FAQ 160 for additional information regarding the sanctions implications of E.O. 13599. For additional information regarding the application of sanctions to digital assets, please see FAQs 559560561562563594646, and 647, as well as OFAC’s Sanctions Compliance Guidance for the Virtual Currency Industry.

    Date Released

    May 1, 2026

    and a new OFAC Alert (Hormuz News U Can Uz, as Stephen Colbert would say):

  • Here it is – “Authorizing Certain Transactions for the Negotiation of and Entry Into Contingent Contracts for the Sale of Lukoil International GmbH and Related Maintenance Activities”:

    And two amended FAQs:

    Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions

    1225. What activities do Russia-related General License 128C and General License 131E authorize related to Lukoil International GmbH (LIG)? 

    OFAC has issued two General Licenses (GLs) relating specifically to Lukoil International GmbH (LIG) and its majority-owned subsidiaries (“LIG Entities”): GL 128C and GL 131E. The GLs are similar but have different expiration dates and terms as each serves a different purpose.

    • To mitigate the effects of Lukoil’s OFAC designation on retail consumers, OFAC issued on December 4, 2025 GL 128B to authorize maintenance, operation, and wind down activities for a narrow range of LIG entities, specifically Lukoil retail automobile service stations outside of the Russian Federation. OFAC subsequently issued GL 128C to extend the existing authorization until October 29, 2026.
    • To enable Lukoil to divest its assets outside of Russia to non-blocked parties, OFAC issued on December 10, 2025 GL 131A to authorize, among other things, maintenance and wind down activities of all LIG Entities. OFAC subsequently issued GLs 131B, 131C, 131D, and 131E to extend the existing authorization until May 30, 2026. Please see Frequently Asked Question 1224 for additional information on authorizations regarding negotiations for the sale of LIG Entities.

    GL 128C and GL 131E expressly authorize transactions undertaken in the ordinary course of business, provided that the transactions do not involve any blocked persons other than the LIG Entities described in GL 128C and GL 131E. Transactions undertaken in the ordinary course of business may involve (but are not limited to): supply of motor fuel and lubricants; lease payments; insurance payments; property maintenance and environmental services; employee payroll, benefits, severance, and reimbursements; information technology services; payments to government authorities; legal services and proceedings; payments to suppliers, landlords, lenders, and partners; the preservation and upkeep of pre-existing tangible property; and activities associated with maintaining pre-existing capital investments. Also, both GL 128C and GL 131E authorize transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to performing pre-existing agreements and conducting intracompany transfers, provided that such transactions are consistent with previously established practices and support pre-existing projects or operations, consistent with the terms of the respective authorizations.

    Both GL 128C and GL 131E also authorize financial institutions, payment processors, and other entities to use, debit, and credit the accounts of the relevant LIG Entities to effectuate the respective authorizations, but both GLs are also expressly limited by the condition that no funds may be transferred to a person or account in the Russian Federation.

    Non-U.S. persons generally do not risk exposure to U.S. sanctions under E.O. 14024 for engaging in transactions with blocked persons that are generally authorized for U.S. persons, including for those authorized by GL 128C and GL 131E. Similarly, non-U.S. persons may rely upon GL 128C and GL 131E regardless of whether a foreign financial institution maintains blocked accounts, provided the non-U.S. person’s activities are consistent with the terms of GL 128C and GL 131E, including the requirement that no payments may be transferred to any person or account located in the Russian Federation.

    Date Updated: April 29, 2026

    Updated on Apr 29, 2026

    Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions

    1224. What negotiations does Russia-related General License 131E authorize, and what transaction conditions will OFAC consider when evaluating requests for further authorization to effectuate a sale of Lukoil International GmbH (LIG) assets? 

    On October 22, 2025, OFAC designated Public Joint-Stock Company Oil Company Lukoil (Lukoil) to increase pressure on Russia’s energy sector and degrade Russia’s ability to raise revenue for its war machine. OFAC is aware of potential efforts by Lukoil to divest its assets outside of Russia to non-blocked parties, given the impact of sanctions. To support such divestments and further cut off funding to Russia, OFAC issued Russia-related General License (GL) 131E, which authorizes negotiations and entry into contingent contracts with Lukoil for the sale of LIG or any of LIG’s majority-owned subsidiaries. Authorized activities include negotiations on terms for definitive agreements and financial, legal, or operational due diligence, including engagement of outside counsel or advisors. GL 131E expires on May 30, 2026.

    GL 131E does not authorize transactions to effectuate the actual sale, disposition, or transfer of any LIG entity or asset. Any contract entered into pursuant to GL 131E must expressly be made contingent upon the receipt of a separate authorization from OFAC. The goal of OFAC’s Russia sanctions is to place pressure on Moscow to end its war.

    As such, Treasury would evaluate any proposed sale of LIG based on factors that support U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives. OFAC expects that, at a minimum, the proposed transaction must: completely sever LIG’s ties with Lukoil; block any funds owed to Lukoil until sanctions are lifted by placing them in an account subject to U.S. jurisdiction; and not provide a windfall to Lukoil, such as by providing up-front value to Lukoil, including through asset or share swaps. Further, as a condition of any future license for effectuating a sale of LIG, OFAC expects that it will require persons purchasing LIG’s assets to seek OFAC review before further divestment of material LIG assets.

    OFAC may revoke GL 131E at any time, including if Lukoil and LIG do not appear to be engaging in good faith negotiations regarding the divestment of LIG or its assets.

    Date Updated: April 29, 2026

    Updated on Apr 29, 2026

    And my apologies for the Blondie deep cut (from Plastic Letters, when I first started listening to them)…

  • Export Control & Sanctions

    Final reminder to have your say: Survey on Open General Export Licences

    The Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) administers the UK’s system of export controls and licensing for military and dual-use items. This includes Open General Export Licences (OGELs), which are available for pre-determined military and dual-use controlled items being exported to a range of permitted restricted destinations.
    OGELs are often reported as a flexible and useful licence option, and can generally be used as soon as the exporter has registered. As such, ECJU is reviewing their usage and our overall service to exporters.
    If you are an exporter who has applied for an export licence from ECJU (whether or not you have registered for or regularly use OGELs), we would welcome your views to help shape our thinking.
    This week is your last chance to provide feedback via our short survey on:
    • exporter behaviour and experience in terms of using OGELs
    • why you do (or do not) use OGELs
    • what improvements to our service could be made to optimise their use

    The survey takes around 15 minutes to complete. Please note there is an opportunity to share contact details to allow us to follow up with you for further insights, but this is entirely optional and otherwise your survey responses will remain anonymous.

    Give your feedback via our survey hosted on Qualtrics.

    The closing date is 11:45pm on Thursday 30 April 2026.

    ECJU’s website can be found on GOV.UK

  • Iran-related General License V (Authorizing the Wind Down of Transactions Involving Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian) Refinery Co., Ltd.):

  • Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation HM Treasury

    General Licence INT/2026/9512597 issued and 1 FAQ added, 1 FAQ withdrawn and 2 FAQs amended

    On 24 April 2026, the General Licence INT/2026/9512597 was issued. The General Licence pertains to legal Services which will take effect following the expiry of Legal Services General Licence INT/2025/7323088 on 28 April 2026.

    Any persons intending to use General Licence INT/2026/9512597 should consult the copy of the Licence for full details of the definition, permissions, and usage requirements.

    FAQ 170 was withdrawn and FAQ 184 was added following the new General Licence. FAQ 50 and FAQ 57 were amended.

    Don’t want to click? Here’s the new General License’s Publication Notice:

    and the General Licence:

    the new FAQ:

    Legal Services General Licence (INT/2026/9512597) 

    184. The Legal Services General Licence has been updated and is available online. What has changed and what does this mean for law firms, legal advisors, Counsel and providers of Expenses?

    General Licence INT/2026/9512597 refreshes the fees and expenses caps for Parts A and B for the six-month period from 29 April 2026 until 28 October 2026, when the licence expires.

    In addition to refreshing the caps, OFSI has also made some amendments to the General Licence.

    General Licence INT/2026/9512597 introduces a new definition:

    ‘DP Group’ means a DP designated for the purposes of an asset freeze by the UK under the UK Autonomous Sanctions Regulations, excluding those designated for the purpose of compliance with United Nations obligations, together with any entities owned or controlled by that DP.

    Several permissions and conditions of the General Licence have been amended to incorporate this definition. Please consult the full licence online.

    A DP and its owned or controlled entities may pay the legal fees for that DP or another entity within that DP group.

    The Licence fee and expenses caps apply to all matters that a Law Firm (or Counsel, if engaged under a direct instruction) are handling for individuals or entities within a DP group, or, where there is no DP Group, for the designated entity or individual.

    General Licence INT/2026/9512597 has also been amended to permit payments to a Non-UK Bank Account held by an individual regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Law Society of Scotland or the Law Society of Northern Ireland, who provides Legal Services outside the United Kingdom, otherwise than at a branch of a Law Firm that falls within paragraph 8.2.1 (Part A) or 11.2.1 (Part B). Please consult the full licence for the complete permission.

    Added on: 24 April 2026

    and the amended ones:

    Legal Services General Licence (INT/2024/5334756)

    50. How do the fees and expenses caps apply? Is it per DP (i.e., for all a DP’s matters across all law firms) or is it per law firm being instructed by a DP? 

    OFSI has amended the General Licence so the £2,000,000 caps for each of Parts A and B, and the related expenses caps, now apply to each law firm instructed by the DP Group, or where there is no DP Group, to the designated entity or individual.  

    The caps cover all the matters being handled by that law firm for the DP Group, or where there is no DP Group, to the designated entity or individual. This means that the caps do not apply to each individual matter handled by that law firm.

    Amended on: 24 April 2026

    Scope of Legal Services General Licence 

    57. Can an entity owned and/or controlled by a designated person (DP) pay the DP’s legal fees even though the entity did not explicitly receive the legal advice? 

    Yes, provided the conditions of the General Licence are met. The General Licence states at paragraph 5 that a DP may pay professional legal fees, Counsel’s fees, and/or Expenses to a Law Firm, a Legal Adviser, Counsel or a provider of Expenses for Legal Services which have been provided to that DP or to any other DP in the same DP Group.”

    The General Licence defines a DP as “those individuals or entities designated (or owned or controlled by an individual or entity designated) … excluding those designated for the purpose of compliance with United Nations obligations.”

    Please see related FAQ 50.   

    Amended on: 24 April 2026

  • Today, OFAC issued Cyber-related General License 2 (Authorizing Certain Transactions Involving Anco Water Supply Co. Ltd. Related to the Treatment and Distribution of Drinking Water):

    Sounds reasonable to me – safe drinking water kinda trumps foreign policy concerns…

    , ,
  • About 8:30 last night, I got OFAC’s notice of issuing General License 134B (Authorizing the Delivery and Sale of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products of Russian Federation Origin Loaded on Vessels as of April 17, 2026):

    Of course, this seems different from what OFAC usually does when they change versions, as opposed to issuing a new GL. Let’s let Claude explain the history of this GL:

    Good question — your instinct is right that 134B is structurally unusual compared to a typical amended GL. Here’s a breakdown:

    The GL 134 lineage in brief:

    • GL 134 (March 12, 2026) authorized transactions for Russian-origin oil loaded on vessels before 12:01 a.m. EDT on March 12, 2026, through April 11, 2026.
    • GL 134A (March 19, 2026) amended GL 134, keeping the same March 12 loading cutoff and April 11 expiration, but added a new prohibition in paragraph (b)(1) barring transactions involving persons in or organized under the laws of North Korea, Cuba, Iran, the Crimea, and Covered Regions of Ukraine. That Cuba exclusion was notably the key change — GL 134 had apparently left open a question about whether Cuban transactions were covered, prompting OFAC to quickly amend it.

    134A → 134B: The key differences

    Comparing 134A to the 134B you’ve uploaded, there are two substantive changes:

    1. Loading cutoff date extended by ~36 days — from March 12 to April 17, 2026. This is the big one.
    2. Authorization window extended — from April 11 to May 16, 2026.

    The paragraph (b)(1) exclusion list (Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Covered Regions/Crimea) appears to be carried over from 134A unchanged.


    Why your observation is correct

    Normally when OFAC issues an amended GL (the A, B, C progression), the change is clarificatory or administrative — same underlying authorization, tweaked language. What makes 134B unusual is that extending the loading cutoff date by over a month is not a clarification — it’s a new substantive authorization covering an entirely different universe of cargo (everything loaded between March 12 and April 17 that 134A never covered at all). In effect, OFAC has used the amendment format to issue what is functionally a fresh, broader wind-down license, rather than simply extending or clarifying the original. This mirrors what OFAC did with the parallel Iran GL U series and likely reflects a deliberate policy choice to keep rolling authorizations flowing as market conditions evolve, without the optics of issuing a wholly new GL from scratch.

    , ,
  • I always wondered about this… Claude’s answer gives some insight into OFAC’s thinking:

    EMSA and Nicaragua General License 5

    What is EMSA?

    Exportadora de Metales Sociedad Anonima (EMSA) is a Managua-based precious metals company that collects unrefined gold from six locations across Nicaragua, smelts it at its Managua headquarters, and sells it in bulk in the United States, with proceeds electronically transferred to a Nicaraguan bank account. Treasury describes it as “one of multiple enterprises organized by the Nicaraguan government to generate revenues for government use” — framing it not as an independently problematic private firm but as a deliberate instrument of the regime. Those proceeds have, per the press release, “possibly been used to equip, train, and pay the salaries of Nicaraguan paramilitary groups subordinate to the Nicaraguan government.”

    Investigative reporting (Expediente Público) identifies EMSA’s owner as Edward Irías Pastora, nephew of Sandinista official Edén Pastora, who was linked to paramilitary organization during the 2018 social protests. That ownership connection helps explain how EMSA fits into the regime’s network, though Treasury’s designation rests on EMSA’s operational role in the gold sector, not the ownership lineage per se.

    The April 16, 2026 Action

    EMSA’s designation was part of a large, coordinated action targeting five individuals and seven companies. The broader sweep included:

    Two sons of Ortega and Murillo — Maurice Ortega (Presidential Delegate for Sports) and Daniel Edmundo Ortega (head of the Communication and Citizenship Council) — designated as government officials, extending the family dynasty designations beyond the previously sanctioned Laureano Ortega Murillo.

    The Vice Minister of Energy and Mines, Santiago Bermudez, designated as a government official — targeting the ministry that controls mining concessions and has been central to every prior round of Nicaragua gold sanctions.

    Companies that stepped into the shoes of previously sanctioned entities: Grupo Minero Xiloa (Minero) explicitly became more prominent after COMINTSA and Capital Mining were sanctioned in May 2024, and multiple former officials of sanctioned entities ENIMINAS, Caruna, and Albanisa are now involved in it. Nelson Sobalvarro, the legal representative of COMINTSA, transferred its concessions to new entities — Zhong Fu before sanctions and Thomas Metal after — and was designated as a frontman. A notary, Lester Tamariz, who expedited those transfers was also designated.

    Several Chinese-linked firms (Thomas Metal, Xinxin, Brother Metal) granted large concessions by the regime, and Xinxin is specifically noted as having shipped over $25 million in gold to the United States in early-to-mid 2025.

    Companies involved in the forcible seizure of a U.S.-owned facility: Zhong Fu and Santa Rita, along with two individuals, physically occupied the plant of BHMB Mining Nicaragua S.A. — a company with U.S. investment — expelled its security personnel, and assumed control of the property without compensation. Secretary Bessent’s statement leads with this: “The United States will not allow the illicit confiscation of American-owned assets.”

    Why EMSA Got a Wind-Down GL When the Other Six Designated Companies Did Not

    GL 5 authorizes wind-down transactions involving EMSA through May 16, 2026 — a 30-day window. None of the other six companies designated in the same action received one.

    The answer is in the press release itself. EMSA is specifically described as selling gold “in bulk in the United States” — it had active, ongoing commercial relationships with U.S. buyers at the moment of designation, with electronic transfers presumably clearing through U.S. financial institutions. Immediately blocking EMSA without any safe harbor would have instantly put U.S. counterparties — refiners, traders, banks processing open transactions — in violation of OFAC regulations for deals already in the pipeline through no fault of their own.

    The other designated companies do not carry the same characterization. Xinxin’s U.S. shipments are described in the past tense (early-to-mid 2025); the others are not described as having direct, current bulk U.S. sales relationships. The GL follows the pattern established in this same sanctions program: when ENIMINAS was designated in June 2022, OFAC issued GL 3; when the General Directorate of Mines was designated in October 2022, OFAC issued GL 4. In each case, the wind-down license accompanied entities with live U.S. commercial exposure.

    Nicaragua’s Gold Sector and the Regime’s Use of It

    At the country level, the United States has been Nicaragua’s dominant gold export destination — in 2021, Nicaraguan gold exports to the U.S. reached $1.534 billion, representing the vast majority of total gold exports that year. By 2025, the U.S. remained Nicaragua’s largest overall export destination at 38% of total merchandise exports, with Canada second largely due to gold shipments.

    Treasury has been systematically targeting this revenue stream since 2022, and the regime has consistently adapted — restructuring around new entities after each designation wave. The press release describes the mining sector since 2020 as “a complex network of front companies and frontmen designed to generate foreign currency, launder sanctioned assets, and reinforce political control,” managed by two previously sanctioned individuals: Laureano Ortega Murillo and Energy Minister Salvador Mansell Castrillo.


    Source Check

    What is directly supported by the press release: EMSA’s operational description (bulk U.S. gold sales, six collection locations, Managua smelting, electronic transfers); its characterization as a regime revenue instrument; the paramilitary financing allegation (with Treasury’s own “possibly” hedge); the full list of co-designees and their roles; the BHMB property seizure; Secretary Bessent’s quoted rationale; the legal authority (EO 13851 as amended by EO 14088); FBI and CBP collaboration; the history of prior designations (ENIMINAS, COMINTSA, Caruna, Albanisa, Laureano, Mansell).

    What is supported by other sourced materials: EMSA ownership by Edward Irías Pastora (Expediente Público); U.S. dominance as Nicaragua gold export destination (Confidencial Digital, BLP Legal); prior wind-down GLs for ENIMINAS and DGM (Treasury press releases from 2022).

    What is inference, clearly labeled as such: The causal link between EMSA’s U.S. bulk sales and OFAC’s decision to issue a wind-down GL is logical and consistent with established OFAC practice, but OFAC does not publish a written explanation for why any particular entity receives a wind-down GL. The connection is well-supported but not explicitly stated in any source.

  • Nicaragua GL 5 (Authorizing the Wind Down of Transactions Involving Exportadora de Metales Sociedad Anonima):