The Intermediary Illusion: Unpacking OFAC’s $1M Sectoral Sanctions Settlement with FTI Consulting
In this episode, we break down the critical compliance lessons from the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) June 1, 2026, enforcement release. Global business advisory firm FTI Consulting, Inc. has agreed to pay $1,050,000 to settle potential civil liability for apparent violations of Russia-related sectoral sanctions.
The case centers on a fundamental compliance blindspot: attempting to structure an engagement through an intermediary law firm to provide services to a blocked entity on the Sectoral Sanctions Identification (SSI) List. We dissect how FTI indirectly extended credit to Russia's state-owned VTB Bank by issuing invoices that went unpaid long past the permissible 14-day maturity period under Directive 1 of Executive Order 13662.
Key Takeaways for Compliance Professionals:
* The "Indirect" Prohibition: You cannot do indirectly what you are prohibited from doing directly. OFAC scrupulously examines the underlying economic and practical realities of formal billing structures.
* Invoices as New Debt: Under Directive 1, issuing an invoice to an SSI-listed entity (or for its benefit) constitutes an extension of debt. If those invoices remain unpaid past the regulatory threshold (14 days), you are actively dealing in prohibited debt.
* Credit Risk & Warning Signs: Continuing to perform valuable services and issuing subsequent invoices while prior bills are heavily overdue constitutes a major regulatory warning sign.
* Intermediary Shielding Fails: Relying on a law firm's client relationship or unique billing terms does not absolve a technical service provider from direct sanctions liability.
Keywords:
OFAC enforcement, Trade Compliance, Sectoral Sanctions, Directive 1, Russia Sanctions, VTB Bank, FTI Consulting, Extension of Debt, SSI List, Law Firm Compliance, Corporate Risk Management, URSR.