C.F.R. » Title 31 » CHAPTER V—OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY › PART 560—IRANIAN TRANSACTIONS AND SANCTIONS REGULATIONS › Subpart E—Licenses, Authorizations, and Statements of Licensing Policy

31 C.F.R. § 560.516

Transfers of funds involving Iran

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) United States depository institutions are authorized to process transfers of funds to or from Iran, or for the direct or indirect benefit of persons in Iran or the Government of Iran, if the transfer arises from, and is ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to, an underlying transaction that has been authorized by a specific or general license issued pursuant to, or set forth in, this part and does not involve debiting or crediting an Iranian account.

(b) United States registered brokers or dealers in securities are authorized to process transfers of funds to or from Iran, or for the direct or indirect benefit of persons in Iran or the Government of Iran, if the transfer arises from, and is ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to, an underlying transaction that has been authorized by a specific or general license issued pursuant to, or set forth in, this part and does not involve debiting or crediting an Iranian account.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case: United States v. Banki, 685 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Banki, 685 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “31 C.F.R. § 560.516 (emphasis added). 5 The parties disagree as to the meaning of the regulation.”
Rhonda Kemper v. Deutsche Bank AG, 911 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2018). “31 C.F.R. § 560.516 (1995), amended 73 Fed.”
Freeman v. HSBC Holdings PLC, 57 F.4th 66 (2d Cir. 2023). “See 31 C.F.R. § 560.516 (1995); see also Kemper v.”
United States v. Homa Int'l Trading Corp., Mazyar Gavidel, 387 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2004). “See 31 C.F.R. § 560.516 (a)(3). Certainly, if the provision of money transfers were not a service under the Embargo, as Gavidel argues, there would be no need for the exception.”
United States v. Banki, 733 F. Supp. 2d 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “” 31 C.F.R. § 560.516 (a)(2) (emphasis added); see United States v.”
United States v. Banki, 660 F.3d 665 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “, a family remittance not related to afamily-owned enterprise)____ 31 C.F.R. § 560.516 (emphasis added). 5 The parties disagree as to the meaning of the regulation.”
United States v. Banki, 660 F.3d 665 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “31 C.F.R. § 560.516 (emphasis added). 5 The parties disagree as to the meaning of the regulation.”
United States v. Banki, 660 F.3d 665 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “31 C.F.R. § 560.516 (emphasis added). 5 The parties disagree as to the meaning of the regulation.”
United States v. Banki, 660 F.3d 665 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “31 C.F.R. § 560.516 (emphasis added). 5 The parties disagree as to the meaning of the regulation.”
Rhonda Kemper v. Deutsche Bank AG (7th Cir. 2018). “31 C.F.R. § 560.516 (1995), amended 73 Fed.”
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.