31 C.F.R. § 560.314
United States person; U.S. person
The term United Statesperson or U.S. person means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 2003–2017 · leading case: United States v. Banki, 685 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2011).
United States v. Banki, 685 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2011). “” 31 C.F.R. § 560.314 (emphasis added). . Banki requested the following instruction: *107 The export of money from the U.”
Kashani v. Tsann Kuen China Enter. Co., 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “19, 1997) § 4(c); 31 C.F.R. § 560.314 .) The express purposes of the agreement were to supply goods, technology, and services to Iran and even to sell products to the Government of Iran.”
In Re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Props., 777 F. Supp. 2d 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “” 31 C.F.R. § 560.314 . On August 19, 1997, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13059 which prohibited a series of economic transactions related to Iran and the Iranian government that largely tracked the provisions of the ITRs just described.”
United States v. Quinn, 401 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D.D.C. 2005). “The Court concludes that because Quinn and Holland are certainly “United States person[s]” within the meaning of the ITR, see 31 C.F.R. § 560.314 (defining a "United States person” for purposes of the ITR as "any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, .”
Kalantari v. Nitv, Inc., 352 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2003). “He is a “United States person,” 31 C.F.R. § 560.314 , who is subject to the Iranian trade embargo, see, e.”
United States v. Banki, 660 F.3d 665 (2d Cir. 2011). “” 31 C.F.R. § 560.314 (emphasis added). 3 .”
Shanehsaz v. Johnson, 259 F. Supp. 3d 894 (S.D. Ind. 2017). “31 C.F.R. § 560.314 provides: “The term United States person or U.”
United States v. Banki, 660 F.3d 665 (2d Cir. 2012). “" 31 C.F.R. § 560.314 (emphasis added). - 13 - arguing that executing money transfers to Iran on behalf of others does not violate the ITR unless performed for a fee and that, accordingly, the district court erred by failing to so instruct the jury.”
United States v. Banki, 660 F.3d 665 (2d Cir. 2012). “" 31 C.F.R. § 560.314 (emphasis added). - 13 - arguing that executing money transfers to Iran on behalf of others does not violate the ITR unless performed for a fee and that, accordingly, the district court erred by failing to so instruct the jury.”
United States v. Banki, 660 F.3d 665 (2d Cir. 2012). “" 31 C.F.R. § 560.314 (emphasis added). - 12 - district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that executing money transfers to Iran on behalf of others qualified as "services" under the ITR only if undertaken for a fee.”
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.