For someone who "practices" sanctions law, this thread is riddled with errors. Perhaps he and his firm need more "practice." Talk about disinformation. Time for some CLE. Let me assist.
Sec 104 of CISADA applies to banks that are found to be financing the IRGC, terrorism and proliferation activities. There should be no exceptions for obvious reasons. Dozens of Iranian banks aren't designated for such conduct. Still aren't. Let's move to other applicable acts.
As the quoted item states correctly, the "CBI sanctions" aka Menendez/Kirk sanctions aka FY12 NDAA Sec 1245 provided an explicit exception for transactions with the Central Bank of Iran for food, medicine and medical supplies. That exception still applies today.
The following spring, Congress went back into FY12 NDAA 1245 via Iran Threat Reduction Act to trap Iran's oil revenues in escrow accounts established in countries importing such oil. Iran could draw on these accounts for the import of humanitarian goods. This is still happening.
Then we wrote the FY13 NDAA provisions known as the Iran Freedom & Counterproliferation Act or IFCA. Again, specific exceptions throughout for humanitarian transactions despite multiple sectors being subjected to secondary sanctions.
In fact, one provision of IFCA got pretty close to an embargo by subjecting any Iranian entity on Treasury's SDN list to secondary sanctions. A specific exception exists therein for banks not otherwise designated for terrorism, WMD and human rights abuse.
As for EO 13902, Sec. 11 states: This order shall not apply with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction for the provision (including any sale) of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran. treasury.gov/resource-cente…
This further contradicts all negative commentary about adding Iran's financial sector to this EO, which would be prudent in the wake of the Financial Action Task Force (39 states including Russia/China) ordering countermeasures be reimposed on Iran's financial sector.
Finally, of course, there's no mention of the Swiss banking channel and the General License 8 issued by Treasury to authorize humanitarian transactions with the Central Bank of Iran following its terrorism designation (on top of the escrow draw-downs). treasury.gov/resource-cente…
Nor is there a simple question asked of whether Iran could pay for anything it needs (and they claim not to need anything at this time...also rejected US help) simply by reprogramming its terror/missile/nuclear budget (answer: it can and is doing so under max pressure).
In conclusion, please avoid mixing sanctions lawyering & anti-sanctions advocacy. Everyone is entitled to own opinions, not own facts. Humanitarian exceptions exist; Iran has a long history of abusing them; this is all political theater to save JCPOA, nothing to do with #COVID19.
