Except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this part, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to May 7, 1995, the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran is prohibited, including the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply of any goods, technology, or services to a person in a third country undertaken with knowledge or reason to know that:
(a) Such goods, technology, or services are intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran; or
(b) Such goods, technology, or services are intended specifically for use in the production of, for commingling with, or for incorporation into goods, technology, or services to be directly or indirectly supplied, transshipped, or reexported exclusively or predominantly to Iran or the Government of Iran.
Notes of Decisions
Epsilon Elec., Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 857 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
· cites it 12× “See 31 C.F.R. § 560.204 . The agency has invoked that prohibition against appellant Epsilon Electronics, a California-based wholesaler of sound systems, video players, and other accessories for cars.”
Campuzano v. Alavi Found., 830 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2016).
· cites it 3× “31 C.F.R. §560.204 . The Government may ultimately prove these disputed issues of knowledge and intent at trial, but the question cannot be answered as a matter of law so as to support summary judgment on the Government’s claim that these Claimants committed a forfeitable…”
United States v. Banki, 685 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2011).
· cites it 4× “31 C.F.R. § 560.204 . Thus, unless “otherwise authorized” in part 560 of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, a United States person 2 or person located in the United States may not export a service to Iran.”
Kashani v. Tsann Kuen China Enter. Co., 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “tion, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person [deemed to be any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United…”
United States v. Randy Reyes, 270 F.3d 1158 (7th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “31 C.F.R. §§ 560.204 , 560.501. This prohibition includes the exportation of any goods “to any person in a third country undertaken with knowledge or reason to know that such goods .”
United States v. Quinn, 403 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2005).
· cites it 3× “§ 1705 (b), and the Iranian Transaction Regulations (“ITR”) promulgated thereunder, principally 31 C.F.R. § 560.204 (prohibiting the indirect exportation “from the United *60 States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran”…”
United States v. Atilla, 966 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2020).
“31 C.F.R. § 560.204 . The execution of bank transactions is a “service” under the ITSR.”
United States v. Quinn, 401 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D.D.C. 2005).
· cites it 2× “§ 1705 (b), the government must show for each count: (1) defendants knew or had reason to know that the products they intended to ship to the United Arab Emirates were intended for subsequent delivery to Iran, see 31 C.F.R. § 560.204 ; (2) defendants knew that such a chain of…”
United States v. Assa Co. Ltd., 934 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2019).
“, 31 C.F.R. § 560.204 . In November 2009, the Government amended its forfeiture complaint to add certain property interests of Alavi and 650 Fifth Ave.”
United States v. Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d 564 (3rd Cir. 2011).
“Subject to limited exemptions and to licenses issued by OFAC, the ITR prohibits, in part, the “exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to…”
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.