Sanctioning the sanctimonious use of sanctions against alien insurers where regulators have sanctioned the belief that there is no need for sanctions: what doesn’t make sense about that? Michael Kasdin, a partner at law firm Dentons, untangles the complexities of increasing sanctions.
In July, it will be a year since the US expanded its use of sanctions in an effort to pressure the Islamic Republic of Iran into cooperating with international efforts to inspect Iran’s nuclear programme. This latest round of sanctions, including Executive Order 13645 and the implementation of the Iran Freedom and Counter Proliferation Act of 2012 (IFCA), has focused on indirect transactions with Iran and, in particular, on insurers and reinsurers and whether their activities somehow financially support the Iranian regime.
Regulators have implied that the use of the traditional sanctions clause in treaty and policy wordings may no longer be enough—but then again, maybe it is.
To continue reading, you need a subscription to Intelligent Insurer. Start a subscription today for £655.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the Intelligent Insurer website – register and select “Two Week Free Trial” to begin access to the full Intelligent Insurer archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £655 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please contact support.
Michael Kasdin, Dentons, Sanctions, New York Department of Financial Services, US, Dan Marino, Iran Freedom and Counter Proliferation Act of 2012