31 C.F.R. § 535.201
Transactions involving property in which Iran or Iranian entities have an interest
No property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or which is in the possession of or control of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in which on or after the effective date Iran has any interest of any nature whatsoever may be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn or otherwise dealt in except as authorized.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Ministry of Def. & Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Repub. of Iran v. Elahi, 556 U.S. 366 (2009).
Ministry of Def. & Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Repub. of Iran v. Elahi, 556 U.S. 366 (2009). “V); 31 CFR §535.201 (1980). About a year later, on January 19, 1981, Iran and the United States settled the crisis, in part with an agreement called the “Algiers Accords.”
Rubin v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 709 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2013). “, 31 C.F.R. §§ 535.201 , 535.310, 515.201, 515.”
In Re Islamic Repub. of Iran Terrorism Litig., 659 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009). “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Exec. Order No.”
Ministry of Def. & Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Repub. of Iran v. Cubic Def. Sys., Inc., 495 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2007). “Particularly relevant here is 31 C.F.R. § 535.201 , which blocked the transfer of goods to Iran: No property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or which is in the possession of or control of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in which on or…”
Hausler v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 740 F. Supp. 2d 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “201 (Iraq); 31 C.F.R. § 535.201 (Iran); 31 C.F.R. § 537.”
Itek Corp. v. The First Nat'l Bank of Boston, Bank Melli Iran, Itek Corp. v. The First Nat'l Bank of Boston, 704 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983). “The Secretary of the Treasury had responded by issuing the Iranian Asset Control Regulations (Regulations), 31 C.F.R. § 535.201 et seq., prohibiting the unauthorized transfer of property in which Iran had an interest.”
Gholam Reza Pasban Dowlatshahi v. Motorola, Inc., 970 F.2d 289 (7th Cir. 1992). “The court held that the United States Treasury Regulation, 31 C.F.R. § 535.201 (1989) (“§ 535.201”) prohibits Motorola from transferring funds, either directly to the Bank, or to Dowlatshahi in the form of indemnification payments.”
Est. of Heiser v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 885 F. Supp. 2d 429 (D.D.C. 2012). “31 C.F.R. § 535.201 (emphasis added). While this language is broad, OFAC regulations go one step further by defining “interest” as “any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect.”
Weinstein v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 299 F. Supp. 2d 63 (E.D.N.Y 2004). “31 C.F.R. § 535.201 . According to the DOJ, approximately $12 billion in Iranian government bank deposits, gold, and other property were blocked pursuant to EO 12170.”
Behring Int'l, Inc. v. Miller, 504 F. Supp. 552 (D.N.J. 1980). “31 C.F.R. § 535.201 . The terms and conditions of the subject settlement agreement indicate that Iran had an interest in the funds and continues to have an “interest” therein.”
Flatow v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 76 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 1999). “And, unlike the Second Account, the United States does not contend that this account contains any funds that were initially held in Iranian diplomatic accounts.”
Rubin v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 408 F. Supp. 2d 549 (N.D. Ill. 2005). “Government filed a brief with the District Court for the District of Columbia on August 16, 2000, arguing that the Bank of America accounts were exempt from attachment because: (1) the accounts were blocked or frozen pursuant to Executive Order 12170 and its implementing…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.