3 ms·

Question is, does the gov specify what actions to take when a word is encountered? Sure scan for them, maybe report them but banning, blocking etc without prope

Question is, does the gov specify what actions to take when a word is encountered? Sure scan for them, maybe report them but banning, blocking etc without proper investigation seems more a typical Paypal thing I have come to expect over the years working with them than something the US gov would specify.

skissane 10y ago
Engaging in transactions (exports, financial services) with certain specified parties is illegal (and potentially even a crime in some cases). The US government tells you to screen your transactions against their lists, and that due dilligence must be performed to investigate matches – https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-parties-of-concern/denied-persons-list/23-compliance-a-training/46-how-do-i-avoid-dealing-with-unauthorized-parties https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-p... If you apply your best efforts to following the US government's advice, but then unintentionally end up doing business with a denied party – they are unlikely to prosecute you, and any prosecution is unlikely to suceed. If you ignore their advice, and then end up doing business with a denied party – even if you never realised they were one – then negative legal consequences are much more likely. Any US exporter (including overseas subsidiaries of US corporations) is required to obey these laws. Other countries have similar laws which must be obeyed as well. For a large global business, this can get very messy fast, which is why large businesses employ whole teams of people to manage this and use software to help them do it (many ERP packages incorporate this functionality). And these laws don't say "report the transaction to the government but let it through anyway". The laws say "report the transaction to the government AND deny it". If you do the former instead of the later, you are likely both breaking the law and telling the government that you've done it, which is unlikely to end well for you. From an end-user perspective, freezing the suspect transaction until an investigation can confirm it is harmless is unpleasant. But, from the company's viewpoint, if they don't take the time to do a through investigation of a suspect transaction, they are exposing themselves to significant legal risks. (Disclaimer: I speak for myself, and these statements should not be taken as statements of my employer. I am not a lawyer and I don't work in the export control field.)

skissane 10y ago

Engaging in transactions (exports, financial services) with certain specified parties is illegal (and potentially even a crime in some cases). The US government tells you to screen your transactions against their lists, and that due dilligence must be performed to investigate matches – https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-parties-of-concern/denied-persons-list/23-compliance-a-training/46-how-do-i-avoid-dealing-with-unauthorized-parties https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-p... If you apply your best efforts to following the US government's advice, but then unintentionally end up doing business with a denied party – they are unlikely to prosecute you, and any prosecution is unlikely to suceed. If you ignore their advice, and then end up doing business with a denied party – even if you never realised they were one – then negative legal consequences are much more likely. Any US exporter (including overseas subsidiaries of US corporations) is required to obey these laws. Other countries have similar laws which must be obeyed as well. For a large global business, this can get very messy fast, which is why large businesses employ whole teams of people to manage this and use software to help them do it (many ERP packages incorporate this functionality). And these laws don't say "report the transaction to the government but let it through anyway". The laws say "report the transaction to the government AND deny it". If you do the former instead of the later, you are likely both breaking the law and telling the government that you've done it, which is unlikely to end well for you. From an end-user perspective, freezing the suspect transaction until an investigation can confirm it is harmless is unpleasant. But, from the company's viewpoint, if they don't take the time to do a through investigation of a suspect transaction, they are exposing themselves to significant legal risks. (Disclaimer: I speak for myself, and these statements should not be taken as statements of my employer. I am not a lawyer and I don't work in the export control field.)