Academic Research

• Office of Foreign Assets Control Regulations: Making attorneys choose between compliance and the attorney-client relationship, Troxel, J. M. (2005). Rev. Litig., 24, 637. Troxels paper assesses the influence that OFAC had over attorney-client relationships in the period preceding the attacks of September 11, 2001. She concludes that there is perceptible discrepancy between OFACs claimed control over attorney-client relationships and the actual authority it was permitted to exert over such relationships by the judiciary. 
• How to Approach a New Office of Foreign Assets Control Sanctions Program, Hoffman, W. B. (1997). Stetson L. Rev., 27, 1413. The author explains the procedure to approach a new Office of Foreign Assets Control to discuss the scope of a sanctions program, and the legal and practical mechanisms involved in such an approach. A sanctions program can pose a serious threat to the wellbeing of a business by affecting existing trade contracts, financial transactions, intellectual property and insurance undertakings.
• Office of Foreign Assets Control Compliance: Recent Developments, Lee, J. A., & Doody, J. (2011). Banking LJ, 128, 954. This paper scrutinizes two major economic events of the 21st century, along with their repercussions - The economic sanctions imposed on Syria greatly affected its foreign trade relations and rendered the country ineligible to receive U.S. military aid or procure weapons from the U.S. These sanctions highlighted the predictive risk analysis capability of OFAC. The JPMorgan Chase bank settlement resulting from violations of numerous OFAC regulations. This brings to the fore the crisis management capabilities of OFAC.
• Freezing Terrorist Finance in Its Tracks: The Fourth Amendment, Due Process, and the Office of Foreign Assets Control after Kindhearts v. Geithner, Davenport, J. N. (2010). Syracuse L. Rev., 61, 173. This study scrutinizes OFACs authority to freeze terrorist assets, and provides a detailed analysis of constitutional challenges that have crept up both before and under the Patriot Act. The author contends that there exists a perpetual struggle between assuring security on one side and protecting liberty on the other.
• Combating the financing of terrorism: A history and assessment of the control of 'threat finance', Levi, M. (2010). The British Journal of Criminology, 50(4), 650-669. This paper analyzes international efforts to curb the flow of capital to terrorist organizations. It asserts that despite enthusiastic endeavors of several governments and financial institutions to thwart terrorist activities, including enlisting the assistance of financial intelligence agencies, terror financing mostly continues unabated. The paper concludes that there are three possible causes for agency failure to contain riky capital: Failure in measurement, Failure in speculation, and Failure in implementation.
• Of Course This Will Hurt Business: Foreign Standing under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act of 1999 and America's War on Drugs, Duncan, D. T. (2005). Geo. Wash. Int'L L. Rev., 37, 969. This paper scrutinizes Americas war on narcotics and its impact on its international reputation. The author discusses in detail individual incidents of legal action being initiated by the U.S.government against its own citizens for patronizing foreign establishments that it has blacklisted for drug trafficking. Such punitive action has immobilized blacklisted businesses. 
• The executive protection: Freezing the financial assets of alleged terrorists, the constitution, and foreign participation in US financial markets, Selden, R. C. (2003). Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L., 8, 491. The United States has formulated several laws and signed numerous international treaties so as to try and freeze assets of foreign individuals and groups that it deems a threat to national security. The Executive Branch headed by the U.S. President has been confiscating properties of U.S. citizens that have patronized blacklisted establishments. The author deems such an act not constitutionally pure. 
• Foreign Affairs and First Amendment Rights: Office of Foreign Assets Control Prohibits ABC's Pan American Games Broadcast, Sanford, A. (1991). Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L., 21, 177. This paper studies in detail the events that led to the prohibition of ABC's Pan American Games broadcast in the United States by the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC). OFAC had promulgated the Cuban Assets Control Regulations as a countermeasure against Cuban efforts to destabilize Latin American governments. The Regulations explicitly prohibited any undertakings with the Cuban government or Cuban nationals. This prohibition directly affected ABCs broadcast of the Pan American Games in 1991.
• Criminal prosecution in sheep's clothing: The punitive effects of OFAC freezing sanctions, Ortblad, V. (2008). The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1439-1466. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, OFAC, was subjected to increasing pressure and bestowed upon with unprecedented jurisdiction to perform as an asset-freezing authority. This, naturally, led the agency to freeze assets of U.S. individuals and organizations even without substantial evidence. Its actions were decried as acts of utter impunity. Court appeals against OFACs high-handedness were deferred, leading the author to prescribe strengthened congressional oversight of the agency as a means to protect the civil liberties of individual and organizations.
• The Impact of US Control of Foreign Assets on Refugees and Expatriates, Malloy, M. P. (1982). Mich. YBI Legal Stud., 3, 399. Malloys paper assesses the effect of the U.S. Treasury Departments embargo controls on foreign nations and nationals. Embargo controls are emergency measures such as trade sanctions that the U.S. imposes for the purpose of blocking of assets. There are several ways in which an embargo imposed on nations can affects refugees or expatriates: Blocking U.S. assets of foreign nationals until they relocate residence from the blocked country. Indeterminate blocking of U.S. assets of organizations. Selective blocking of U.S. assets to which heirs or legatees can stake claim. Restricting usage of blocked assets of the country of origin (of refugees and expatriates) to settle claims against that country.