Category: CAATSA – Russia
-
This includes CAATSA-Russia, Russia Harmful Foreign Activities sanctions, Ukraine/Russia-related sanctions and the Magnitsky sanctions (not the Global Magnitsky sanctions):
-
This is a special guide – it covers all the programs that involve Russia specifically, including CAATSA – Russia. In retrospect, I should consider re-doing the Iran guide to incorporate CAATSA – Iran…
This covers a lot of ground – all feedback appreciated greatly:
-
So, I asked my sanctions officer at work to look at those two guides I made, and tell me what she thought. She liked them, she said, but preferred the Plain Language one. So, I asked Claude to analyze that feedback in two ways: one with a bias towards her personal experience level and any personal biases, and a second analysis with a bias towards real differences in how the guides were constructed. After reading the analyses, I asked Claude to suggest how one would modify the Practitioner’s Guide based on the second analysis – and I got this:
Good question, and the answer isn’t simply “yes, fix it to be more like the Plain-Language Guide.” The Practitioner’s Guide has a defined purpose and audience, and some of what makes it less immediately accessible is a deliberate trade-off, not a flaw. The goal should be surgical improvement, not convergence.
Here’s how I’d think through it:
What Should NOT Change
The legal hierarchy section, the CFR citations, the near-verbatim FAQ content, and the compliance checklist structure are all correct for a practitioner reference. A practitioner who needs to cite authority, push back on outside counsel, or defend a compliance decision to a regulator needs that material in that form. Softening it would degrade the document’s core utility.
The Section 235 table is also a genuine strength that the Plain-Language Guide doesn’t match — particularly the per-institution vs. market-aggregate clarification on the $10M loan cap, and the 235(a)(12) mechanics. Leave it alone.
What Should Change, and How
1. Add a brief orientation header before the legal architecture
The single biggest structural problem is that Section 1 opens with the statutory hierarchy before giving the reader any sense of what the law actually does. A three-to-five sentence “How to Use This Guide” block at the very top — explaining that it’s a transaction-level reference, how the sections map to compliance decisions, and when to use the checklist vs. the substantive sections — would solve this without changing any content. The reader arrives knowing where they’re going.
2. Integrate the enforcement examples into the Section 231 analysis
Currently the China and Turkey examples sit in a separate “Enforcement Track Record” subsection after the legal analysis. The second analysis correctly identified that this requires the reader to mentally connect the rule to its application. The Turkey example in particular is the best available illustration of what “significant transaction” means in practice — it should appear within the significant transaction discussion, not after it. Moving two paragraphs changes the document’s usefulness for compliance work substantially.
3. Make the Section 231 ambiguity more prominent
The absence of a bright-line dollar threshold for Section 231 — and the explicit note that there’s no § 589.413(i) safe harbor equivalent for State Department Section 231 determinations — is currently buried in the middle of Section 6.1. This is arguably the single most practically important distinction in the entire secondary sanctions framework, because it’s where practitioners are most likely to underestimate exposure. It should be called out as a labeled note or callout immediately after the trigger is stated, not left to be found mid-paragraph.
4. Add inline FAQ cross-references throughout the substantive sections
The FAQ section at the end is thorough, but a practitioner working through Section 4 on Directive 1 has no signal that FAQ #373 directly addresses the 50% Rule application they might be wondering about. Light inline references — “(see FAQ #373)” at the relevant point in the text — would make the document dramatically more navigable as a reference tool without adding any content. This is a formatting change, not a substantive one.
5. Add a one-line “key compliance takeaway” at the end of each major section
This is the one change that borrows something structural from the Plain-Language Guide’s approach. Not a full summary — just a single sentence that states the operative compliance implication of what was just explained. For example, at the end of the Directive 4 section: “The critical practical question for U.S. service providers is ownership stake, not project location — a non-Russian deepwater project with a 33%+ Directive 4 entity stake is covered.” This gives a practitioner who is skimming — as practitioners using reference documents typically do — a reliable landing point in each section.
What to Avoid
Don’t add narrative framing, analogies, or explanatory context of the kind that makes the Plain-Language Guide work for its audience. Those are appropriate for someone building a schema; a practitioner reference should assume the schema exists and serve lookups efficiently. Adding that material would lengthen the document, dilute its density, and undermine the reason someone reaches for it instead of the other guide.
The goal is a document that’s faster to navigate and more explicit about where ambiguity lives — not one that explains itself the way the Plain-Language Guide does.
So, I had it implement those changes and I got the following:
What do you think? Do you feel it was an improvement? My colleague thinks so.
-
And, as a follow up to the previous post, this guide is in for people who are new or unfamiliar with sanctions:
Again, I’d love feedback on this guide, as well. While the time involved for making these is not unreasonable, I’d prefer to produce content that you find interesting and useful.
Leave your feedback in the comments, please.
-
So, I asked Claude to make me a guide to CAATSA sanctions, including the legislation, regulation, GLs, guidance, etc., etc….
Actually, I asked it to make 2 guides – one for sanctions professionals that are not lawyers, and one for non-expert professionals who may be new to sanctions.
So, here’s the non-lawyers guide to CAATSA:
So, what do you think? Should I make more of these? I thought I’d do a relatively easy sanctions program to start… All the Russia programs (including Ukraine/Russia and Magnitsky) is my white whale…
-
Cyber-related Designations; CAATSA – Russia-related Designations; PAIPA Designations
Treasury Press Release: Treasury Sanctions Exploit Broker Network for Theft and Sale of U.S. Government Cyber Tools
State Press Release: Designation of Russia-Based Zero-Day Exploits Broker and Affiliates for Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets
Additions:
The following individuals have been added to OFAC’s SDN List:
OFAC Programs:
- OFAC Programs:
- [CAATSA – RUSSIA] Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA) – Title II.
- [CYBER4] Sanctions related to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities.
KUCHEROV, Oleg Vyacheslavovich
- AKA: “GABR”
- Address: Samara, Russia
- DOB: 03 Jun 1973
- POB: Togliatti, Russia
- Nationality: Russia
- Gender: Male
- Secondary sanctions risk: Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR 589.201
- Party Type: Individual
- Linked to: ZELENYUK, Sergey Sergeyevich
Supplemental Information: Oleg Kucherov is a Russian national and a suspected member of the Trickbot cybercrime gang. He is designated for his association with the Sergey Zelenyuk exploit broker network.
MAMASHOYEV, Azizjon Makhmudovich
- AKA: MAMASHOYEV, Azizjon Maxmudovich
- Address: 60 Amir Timur Avenue, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
- DOB: 20 Feb 1987
- Nationality: Uzbekistan
- Gender: Male
- Secondary sanctions risk: Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR 589.201
- Passport: FA2783585 (Uzbekistan) expires 16 May 2031
- National ID No.: AD3927969 (Uzbekistan)
- Party Type: Individual
- Linked to: ZELENYUK, Sergey Sergeyevich
Supplemental Information: Azizjon Mamashoyev is the founder of Advance Security Solutions, an offensive cybersecurity firm and exploit brokerage company operating in the UAE and Uzbekistan. He is a key affiliate of the Zelenyuk network.
VASANOVICH, Marina Evgenyevna
- AKA: VASANOVICH, Marina Yevgenyevna
- Address: Russia
- DOB: 21 Nov 2003
- POB: Novocherkassk, Rostovskaya Oblast, Russia
- Nationality: Russia
- Gender: Female
- Secondary sanctions risk: Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR 589.201
- Passport: 761424486 (Russia) expires 23 Aug 2029
- National ID No.: 40 23 685988 (Russia)
- Party Type: Individual
- Linked to: ZELENYUK, Sergey Sergeyevich
Supplemental Information: Marina Vasanovich is an assistant to Sergey Zelenyuk. She is designated for being owned or controlled by, or having acted for or on behalf of, Zelenyuk in the operation of his exploit brokerage activities.
OFAC Programs:
- OFAC Programs:
- [CAATSA – RUSSIA] Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA) – Title II.
- [CYBER4] Sanctions related to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities.
- [PAIPA] Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022.
ZELENYUK, Sergey Sergeyevich
- AKA:
- ZELENYUK, Sergei Sergeevich
- ZELENYUK, Sergey Sergeevich
- “MORTENOIR”
- “SRGSRGSRG111”
- Address: Rimsky-Korsakov Prospect, Building 109-111, Litera/Block A, Apartment 20, Saint Petersburg 190068, Russia
- DOB: 17 Mar 1994
- POB: Saint Petersburg, Russia
- Nationality: Russia
- Gender: Male
- Secondary sanctions risk: Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR 589.201
- PAIPA Section 2 Information: BLOCKING OF PROPERTY (individual). Sec.2(b)(2)(a)- All property and interests in property of this individual are blocked, and all transactions with this individual are prohibited, except for the importation of goods.
- Tax ID No.: 780223642330 (Russia)
- Party Type: Individual
Supplemental Information: Sergey Zelenyuk is the director and sole owner of Matrix LLC (doing business as Operation Zero). He is an exploit broker who acquired at least eight proprietary U.S. government cyber tools stolen from defense contractor L3Harris Technologies (specifically its subsidiary Trenchant) by former employee Peter Williams. Zelenyuk paid Williams millions in cryptocurrency for these “zero-day” exploits and subsequently resold them to unauthorized users, including the Russian government. This action marks the first individual designation under the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act (PAIPA).
The following entities have been added to OFAC’s SDN List:
OFAC Programs:
- OFAC Programs:
- [CAATSA – RUSSIA] Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA) – Title II.
- [CYBER4] Sanctions related to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities.
ADVANCE SECURITY SOLUTIONS
- AKA: “ADVANCED SECURITY SOLUTIONS”
- Address:
- R-311-315, Jumeirah Living Marina Gate 3, P.O. Box 121828, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
- Tashkent, Uzbekistan
- Website: advance-sec.com
- Secondary sanctions risk: Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR 589.201
- Organization Established Date: 2025
- Organization Type: Computer programming activities
- Linked to: MAMASHOYEV, Azizjon Makhmudovich
Supplemental Information: Advance Security Solutions is a Dubai- and Uzbekistan-based company that functions as an offensive cybersecurity firm and exploit broker. It was founded by Azizjon Mamashoyev and works within the broader network managed by Sergey Zelenyuk to acquire and market vulnerabilities in U.S.-built software.
OFAC Programs:
- OFAC Programs:
- [CAATSA – RUSSIA] Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA) – Title II.
- [CYBER4] Sanctions related to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities.
- [PAIPA] Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022.
MATRIX LLC
- AKA:
- LLC MATRITSA
- MATRIX LIMITED
- MATRIX LTD
- OPERATION ZERO
- OPZERO
- Address: Sh. Petergofskoe, 73, Letter T, Office 26/1, Room 1, Municipal District Sosnovaya Polyana, Saint Petersburg 198206, Russia
- Website: opzero.ru
- Secondary sanctions risk: Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR 589.201
- Organization Established Date: 27 Sep 2021
- Organization Type: Computer programming activities
- PAIPA Section 2 Information:
- BLOCKING OF PROPERTY (entity): Sec.2(b)(1)(A) – All property and interests in property of this entity are blocked, and all transactions with this entity are prohibited, except for the importation of goods.
- LOANS FROM UNITED STATES FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Sec.2(b)(1)(D) – United States financial institutions are prohibited from making loans or providing credits to this entity totaling more than $10,000,000 in any 12-month period, subject to the exception set forth in PAIPA Section 2(b)(1)(D).
- FOREIGN EXCHANGE: Sec.2(b)(1)(H) – Transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in which this entity has any interest are prohibited.
- BANKING TRANSACTIONS: Sec.2(b)(1)(I) – Any transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions or by, through, or to any financial institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and involve any interest of this entity, are prohibited.
- BAN ON INVESTMENT IN EQUITY OR DEBT OF SANCTIONED PERSON: Sec.2(b)(1)(J) – Any United States person is prohibited from investing in or purchasing significant amounts of equity or debt instruments of this entity.
- Tax ID No.: 7807251301 (Russia)
- Registration Number: 1217800148609 (Russia)
SPECIAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC FZ
- Address: Meydan Grandstand, 6th Floor, Meydan Road, Nad Al Sheba, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
- Secondary sanctions risk: Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR 589.201
- Organization Established Date: 07 Dec 2024
- Organization Type: Computer programming activities
- PAIPA Section 2 Information:
- BLOCKING OF PROPERTY (entity): Sec.2(b)(1)(A) – All property and interests in property of this entity are blocked, and all transactions with this entity are prohibited, except for the importation of goods.
- LOANS FROM UNITED STATES FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Sec.2(b)(1)(D) – United States financial institutions are prohibited from making loans or providing credits to this entity totaling more than $10,000,000 in any 12-month period, subject to the exception set forth in PAIPA Section 2(b)(1)(D).
- FOREIGN EXCHANGE: Sec.2(b)(1)(H) – Transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in which this entity has any interest are prohibited.
- BANKING TRANSACTIONS: Sec.2(b)(1)(I) – Any transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions or by, through, or to any financial institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and involve any interest of this entity, are prohibited.
- BAN ON INVESTMENT IN EQUITY OR DEBT OF SANCTIONED PERSON: Sec.2(b)(1)(J) – Any United States person is prohibited from investing in or purchasing significant amounts of equity or debt instruments of this entity.
- Linked to: ZELENYUK, Sergey Sergeyevich
Supplemental Information: Matrix LLC (operating as Operation Zero) and Special Technology Services LLC FZ (STS) are the first entities sanctioned under the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act (PAIPA). Matrix LLC is a Russian-based broker that acquired eight sensitive zero-day exploits stolen by Peter Williams from L3Harris Trenchant. STS was established by Zelenyuk in the UAE to expand his brokerage business into Asia and the Middle East and to circumvent U.S. sanctions on Russian financial accounts. These entities facilitate the distribution of tools used for espionage, theft, and sabotage against U.S. interests.
- OFAC Programs: