BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                AB 978
                                                                Page  1


         CORRECTED  :  05/17/2013 Changes per consultant.

        ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
        AB 978 (Blumenfield)
        As Amended  April 25, 2013
        Majority vote 

         ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT  8-0       BANKING & FINANCE   11-0         
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Ayes:|Medina, Mansoor, Daly,    |Ayes:|Dickinson, Morrell,       |
        |     |Fong, Fox, Melendez, V.   |     |Achadjian, Blumenfield,   |
        |     |Manuel Pérez, Brown       |     |Bonta, Chau, Gatto,       |
        |     |                          |     |Linder, Perea, Torres,    |
        |     |                          |     |Weber                     |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         APPROPRIATIONS                  16-1                             
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow,   |     |                          |
        |     |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian  |     |                          |
        |     |Calderon, Campos, Eggman, |     |                          |
        |     |Gomez, Hall, Ammiano,     |     |                          |
        |     |Linder, Pan, Quirk,       |     |                          |
        |     |Wagner, Weber             |     |                          |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
        |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
        |Nays:|Donnelly                  |     |                          |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         SUMMARY  :  Requires the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (CFI)  
        to ensure that state licensed financial institutions that maintain a  
        correspondence account or a payable-through account with a foreign  
        institution demonstrate compliance during certain examinations with  
        the federal Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and  
        Divestment Act of 2010 (Iran Sanctions Act) and related federal  
        regulations and presidential executive orders, as specified.  In the  
        case of violations, the CFI is authorized to bring state action and  
        is required to forward evidence to the U.S. Treasury.

        The terms of the bill are inoperative should Iran be removed from  
        the U.S. Department of State's list of counties that support acts of  
        international terrorism or the U.S. President certifies that Iran  
        has ceased its efforts relative to nuclear explosive devices of  








                                                                AB 978
                                                                Page  2


        related technologies, as specified.

         EXISTING FEDERAL LAW  , the Iran Sanctions Act, requires the U.S.  
        Department of the Treasury to prohibit, or impose strict conditions  
        on, the opening or maintaining in the U.S. of a correspondent  
        account or a payable-through account for a foreign financial  
        institution which the U.S. Department of the Treasury finds  
        knowingly facilitates the efforts of the government of Iran to  
        acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction, or provide support  
        for organizations designated as foreign terrorist organizations.   
        This includes the efforts of the Central Bank of Iran or any other  
        Iranian financial institution, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard  
        Corps, and other individuals or third parties.  In enforcement of  
        this law against U.S. persons (including corporations), the law  
        requires that the person accused knew or should have known that they  
        were violating the act.

         EXISTING STATE LAW  defines a licensee to mean any bank, savings  
        association, credit union, transmitter of money abroad, issuer of  
        payment instruments, issuer of traveler's checks, insurance premium  
        finance agency, and business and industrial development corporation  
        that is authorized by the commissioner to conduct business in this  
        state.

         FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,  
        implementation of this bill would result in minor and absorbable  
        costs to the Department of Financial Institutions.

         COMMENTS  :  This bill directs the CFI to ensure licensees have  
        established appropriate policies and are undertaking practices that  
        prevent the maintenance and opening of correspondent accounts and  
        payable-through accounts with foreign financial institutions that  
        illegally assist Iranian institutions.  As increasingly  
        sophisticated techniques are used by Iran to subvert economic  
        sanctions, this bill would use the existing licensee examination  
        process to address this matter of international concern. 

        In making the case for higher scrutiny, the author states that  
        subversion of U.S financial sanctions by Iran is a recognizable  
        threat to national and international security.  This analysis  
        provides a brief summary on the scope of economic sanctions imposed  
        on Iran and their enforcement procedures, and details on techniques  
        used by foreign financial institutions to subvert financial  
        sanctions.  Additional background was provided in the policy  








                                                                AB 978
                                                                Page  3


        analyses for the Assembly Jobs, Economic Development, and the  
        Economy Committee and the Assembly Banking and Finance Committee. 
         
         Background:  In June of 2010, the United Nations Security Council  
        adopted Resolution 1929, the fourth in a series of resolutions  
        imposing sanctions on Iran for nuclear activities.  Among its  
        measures, Resolution 1929 calls on nations to prevent any financial  
        service and to freeze any asset that could contribute to Iran's  
        nuclear activities.  More specifically, nations are called upon to  
        prohibit new banking relationships with Iran, including  
        correspondent banking relationships, if there is a suspected link to  
        proliferation.  Since the adoption and implementation of the  
        recommendations in Resolution 1929 by the European Union, U.S.,  
        Canada, Japan, South Korea, and others, Iran's access to the  
        international financial system has been significantly limited.

        One month following the approval of Resolution 1929, President  
        Barack Obama signed the Iran Sanctions Act (July 2010), which  
        further strengthened U.S. sanctions against Iran by specifically  
        targeting its energy and financial industries.   The Sanctions Act  
        is applicable to all banks that operate within the U.S., including  
        foreign financial institutions that operate branches within the U.S.  
         The Sanctions Act also applies to money service businesses, trust  
        companies, insurance companies, securities brokers and dealers,  
        commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies,  
        employee benefit plans, and U.S. holding companies, U.S. affiliates,  
        or U.S. subsidiaries of any of these entities.

        Under the Iran Sanctions Act, imports of goods and services of  
        Iranian origin into the U.S. (either directly or through a third  
        country) are generally prohibited, with limited exceptions for  
        personal items.  Exports from the U.S. of goods, technologies, or  
        services (either directly or indirectly) to Iran are also generally  
        prohibited, unless licensed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control  
        (OFAC).  Exceptions are made for articles intended to relieve human  
        suffering, such as clothing, food, and medical supplies.  U.S.  
        persons are also prohibited from facilitating any transactions with  
        the intent of subverting the Sanctions Act.

        Financial transactions between U.S. and Iranian financial  
        institutions are also generally prohibited.  In some cases, fund  
        transfers through third-country banks are permitted for several  
        types of underlying instances, including:  noncommercial family  
        remittances, travel-related remittances, and transactions authorized  








                                                                AB 978
                                                                Page  4


        by OFAC.  U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in any  
        transactions with banks OFAC has identified for their involvement in  
        the financing of either weapons of mass destruction or terrorism.  

        While targeted and coordinated efforts among nations have severely  
        limited legal access to the international financial system, Iranian  
        financial institutions continue to gain illegal access to U.S.  
        financial institutions.  OFAC has identified several evasive  
        practices including the use of third-country exchange houses and  
        trading companies, the use of correspondent accounts, and  
        payable-through accounts.  
           
        Any foreign financial institution found to be in non-compliance with  
        the Iran Sanctions Act is added to the OFAC Foreign Financial  
        Institutions Subject to Part 561, which severely prohibits their  
        ability to engage in financial transactions with U.S. financial  
        institutions.  Federal laws also prescribes domestic penalties for  
        any person that violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate,  
        or causes a violation of the Sanctions Act may be subject to both  
        civil and criminal penalties.

        a)Civil Penalty: A civil penalty may be imposed that is not to  
          exceed the greater of $250,000 or an amount that is twice the  
          amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation; and 

        b)Criminal Penalty: A person that willfully commits, willfully  
          attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or  
          abets in the commission of a violation shall, upon conviction, be  
          fined no more than $1 million, or if a natural person, may be  
          imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.

        In addition to fines and actions under the Iran Sanctions Act, the  
        Assembly Banking and Finance Committee's Analysis provided  
        information on how the U.S. Treasury applied more general laws to  
        inhibit Iran's access to U.S. financial markets.  In December 2009,  
        U.S. Treasury announced that Credit Suisse would pay a $536 million  
        settlement for illicitly processing Iranian transactions with U.S.  
        banks.  And, in June 2012, Dutch bank ING agreed to pay a $619  
        million penalty for moving billions of dollars through the U.S.  
        financial system, using falsified records, on behalf of Iranian and  
        Cuban clients. 

        Individual states have also been active.  In the August 2012 case of  
        Standard Chartered, the company agreed to pay a $340 million  








                                                                AB 978
                                                                Page  5


        settlement with New York State regulators for allegedly processing  
        transactions with Iran in contravention of U.S. regulations.  The  
        settlement was the largest fine ever collected by a single U.S.  
        regulator in a money-laundering case.  The bank is alleged to have  
        schemed for over a decade to hide over 60,000 transactions totaling  
        more than $250 billion for Iranian clients.  For example, Standard  
        Chartered was accused of failing to maintain accurate books and  
        records, obstructing the regulatory investigation, failing to report  
        crimes and misconduct, falsifying books and reports, filing false  
        instruments, falsifying business records, and engaging in  
        unauthorized Iranian transactions in violation of federal law

        California law authorizes penalties for licensees including up to  
        $1,000 a day, provided that the aggregate penalty of all offenses in  
        any one action against any licensee or subsidiary of a licensee  
        shall not exceed $50,000.  Higher penalties may be applied if a  
        licensee or subsidiary of the licensee that has been found to have  
        recklessly ($5,000 per day not to exceed $75,000) or knowingly  
        ($10,000 per day not to exceed the value of 1% of total licensee  
        assets) violated a law, order, condition, or written agreement, as  
        specified.  State law also authorizes the CFI to pursue other  
        administrative actions, as well as court actions in order to enforce  
        specified laws.  
         

        Analysis Prepared by  :    Toni Symonds and Zachary Hutsell / J., E.D.  
        & E. / (916) 319-2090 


                                                                  FN: 0000467