Talk:Office of Foreign Assets Control

Untitled

Anybody know the background of the "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" designation? TIA.

LDH 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad link

The "specially designated nationals list" link links back to the same article. I wouldn't like to remove it as I'd like to see a full article, but I don't know anything about it (which is in a sense why I'd like to see the article!)

Unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.106.90.9 (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

References

This seems like an important fact to include:

• "11/09/2009: OFAC has released its Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines as a final rule." http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/actions/20091109.shtml

Pnm (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Dear @Pnm:Dead link. But see the book. Geraldshields11 (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional Information

I think it’s important to show the financial industry several places to get a compliance certificate or simple OFAC search. --EditUniv1 (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

POV

A minor point, but I don't know if the history of the office should speak of retaliation for "the harassment of American sailors" - I know that's taken from the official website, but I don't think a US government entity could be considered NPOV with regards to the war of 1812. I imagine others (eg. British) might dispute claims of harassment, or even claims that they were American sailors, not to mention the reasons for the sanctions. - Matthew238 (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but UK govt website would also be NPOV issues. Geraldshields11 (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Numbers

The numbers may not reflect the fact that the list contains an entry for every alias, meaning some people or companies have a dozen or more entries. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: THANKS! In response to your comment, I re-examined the list, and while I found your comment without merit, I did find a serious mistake in my original count which overstated the number by a factor of 2! Regarding your comment, please examine the list, and verify to your satisfaction that the list does NOT contain an entry for every alias. Rather, each entry is in the format: Name (aka list), addresses, sanctions details. The version of the list that I viewed was in text format, and in that file, a blank line served as the delimiter between entries, and the tail of the file included a few lines of notes. The error that I did make was that I counted the delimiters (ie. the blank lines) and the notes also as entries. So, I guess in the end your comment DID have plenty of merit in that it led me to find my error. I'll update the number (reduce the figure to 15,220).

—Boruch Baum (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Good work!

Here is an example of alias listing, from near the top:

ABAROA PRECIADO, Aristoteles (a.k.a. ABAROA PRECIADO, Aristoteles
Alejandro), La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico; DOB 29 Sep 1981;
POB La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico; nationality Mexico;
citizen Mexico; C.U.R.P. AAPA810929HBSBRR19 (Mexico) (individual)
[SDNTK].

ABAROA PRECIADO, Aristoteles Alejandro (a.k.a. ABAROA PRECIADO,
Aristoteles), La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico; DOB 29 Sep 1981;
POB La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico; nationality Mexico;
citizen Mexico; C.U.R.P. AAPA810929HBSBRR19 (Mexico) (individual)
[SDNTK].

Unfortunately this file is not trivial to process (though not very hard either).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Hmmm. At this point, would that level of processing already fall into the category of "original research"? For now, I'll remove the clearly inaccurate number.

—Boruch Baum (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Counting seems within the rules. I don't think the aircraft and vessels have multiple entries, I make it 178 of the former and 575 of the latter. These include a fair number of Airbuses and at least one bulk oil tanker! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

I did some more analysis, and there are possible errors (well at least one) in the data.

• ABU ZUBEYR, Muktar Abdirahman (a.k.a. ABUZUBAIR, Muktar Abdulrahim; a.k.a. AW MOHAMMED, Ahmed Abdi; a.k.a. AW-MOHAMED, Ahmed Abdi; a.k.a. AW-MOHAMUD, Ahmed Abdi; a.k.a. "GODANE"; a.k.a. "GODANI"; a.k.a. "MUKHTAR, Shaykh"; a.k.a. "ZUBEYR, Abu"); DOB 10 Jul 1977; POB Hargeysa, Somalia; nationality Somalia (individual) [SOMALIA].
• ABUZUBAIR, Muktar Abdulrahim (a.k.a. AW MOHAMMED, Ahmed Abdi; a.k.a. AW-MOHAMED, Ahmed Abdi; a.k.a. "ABU ZUBEYR"; a.k.a. "GODANE"; a.k.a. "GODANI"; a.k.a. "SHAYKH MUKHTAR"); DOB 10 Jul 1977; POB Hargeysa, Somalia; nationality Somalia (individual) [SDGT].

These two are undoubtedly the same person (DOB, POB, nationality and 5 of 7/8 aliases) but are listed as two people, once as an SDGT and once under Somalia sanctions.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

Here is a list of tricky entries - each one matches an incomplete subset of another entry. One that only matches "ABDULLAH" is reasonably likely to be a new entry, one that matches 11 of 13 aliases is almost certainly a duplicate. Some, however, are less clear cut.

Saddam Hussein is still on the list.

It's wonderful what $30m p.a. will get..

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: It's nice to have someone with whom to collaborate with on a page. I appreciate your help. Thanks.

• I've been giving the issue of numbers some thought, and am tending to feel it would be proper to use the figure ">15,200", describing it as something like the "number of entries needed to be checked in order to comply with / not run afoul of US law." My reasoning is that, for all but the "real bad guys" (i.e. a quantitatively negligible number of Wikipedia readers), what is of practical significance to Wikipedia readers is some measure of the magnitude of the burden of compliance with the sanctions. For example, any financial institution anywhere in the world, if they have ANY kind of marginal connection to the USA, they can suffer the full wrath of US prosecution / persecution if they don't check against all the entries on the list, even those entries which are misspellings, alternate spellings, etc of the same "designee". The reasons for rounding down the "15,220" figure and then saying "greater than" is that the number is bound to change more often than a Wikipedian will notice (and, umm, you inadvertently caught another mistake of mine. see below). What do you think?
• You've already found a few difficulties in coming up with a number of "designees" as opposed to "entries". Another is that such a number loses much of its significance when its a mix of organizations and individuals, because an organization's scope, size, and number of members is so variable. The more useful figure would be four separate numbers: one each for individuals, organizations, ships, and aircraft.

Also, I don't know enough about law, but I thought vessels and aircraft were assets; its news to me that they are "legal subject"s upon whom its possible to levy sanctions. If they are legal subjects, then it makes sense to group them together with the other elements of the list. If not, not. In any case, if we go with the ">15,200" figure as a measure of burden of compliance, we can avoid that problem.

• You inadvertently caught another mistake of mine, although this one is quantitatively minor, amounting to an over-count of five entries. You did a much better job than me at analyzing the list. My eyes glazed over once I saw the size of the file; I sampled it, observed its format, and used emacs and the linux command line to pull the data. I totally missed that the file was divided into three lists, so I counted the embedded headers and notes as entries.
• It seems to me that, if one is willing to concede that the list should exist at all, it does makes sense to include dead people on the it, because an estate is a legal subject, can conduct business, and can own seize-able assets.
  • Did you notice that the USA is sanctioning a zoo in Honduras under narcotics kingpin sanctions (JOYA GRANDE)? When I saw that, it occurred to me that OFAC doesn't say how much of a connection or stake a target must have in an enterprise in order for that enterprise to also be on the list. What I mean is, my guess is that some narco bought an interest in the zoo, so OFAC put the zoo under sanctions, so what percent ownership is the cutoff? 50%? 5%? It also raises the question of how many (other) items are on the list because they are one degree of separation from a real target.
    • This seems to mean that if a national of say, Sweden, visits Honduran as a tourist, takes her kids to the zoo, paying by credit card, and then sets foot on US soil - zap, bang! OTOH, it might be that, because of the sanctions, her Swedish credit card issuer will refuse to authorize the transaction, because that Swedish financial institution does some incidental business with a US financial institution.
• Another measure might be to count entries for each sanctions program. That looks easy to write a script for, and has the advantage of giving a Wikipedia reader an indication of the compliance burden of any specific sanctions program. Note though, that because a single entry can be subject to sanctions under more than one program, this measure's grand total will be greater than the measure of total entries.
• I like the work you did on your list of tricky pages
  • What does "Partial matches across partitions: 53" mean?
  • What does "Duplicate records 5260" mean? It sounds high.
  • Does "Unique people: 2849" filter out organizations
  • Would you post your technique / script?

—Boruch Baum (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

My curiosity was piqued by reports of a "terror granny" described as "most wanted female terrorist" by the sensationalist press, and further by a statement that there are very few (implication was one) US citizens on the SDGT list. So breaking down the numbers by nationality and program is of interest.

On the list itself, as the article remarks it is being used as a policy lever, and a revenue raiser: The Federal courts have warned about the unconstitutionality of the way it has been used. It is part of the raft of poorly-thought out legislation implemented post 9-11, which, however has its uses.

As to the processing, the non-orgs are tagged "(vessel)" and so on, so I first split into 4 files. Then I created a list of aliases, line by line. For each line which has "n" aliases either there are zero matches, n matches or somewhere between. If the original database is perfect, and no-one shares an alias we should either be looking at a new person (0 matches) or someone we have already processed (n matches). That is the lines grouped by person should form a partition (mathematics) of the set. Anyone in between needs investigation. (Note the algorithm isn't perfect, if all of someone's aliases are shared across several other people, then they will seem OK. I think we can ignore that, but I may recode.)

I'll email you the current code when I get in this evening.

• • What does "Partial matches across partitions: 53" mean? That's the matches that are imperfect.
  • What does "Duplicate records 5260" mean? It sounds high. It's not really, given the number of aliases it's surprisingly low, and possibly even wrong.
  • Does "Unique people: 2849" filter out organizations ? Yes see discussion above. So there should be somewhere between 2849 and 2849+53 people on the list.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: OK, so we agree its desirable to present numbers for each nationality and each program.

• Programs are easy in that each is explicitly listed. I don't see how we do nationalities, though, because at least some entries only have mailing addresses.

Examples from the file:

ABBES, Moustafa, Via Padova, 82, Milan, Italy; DOB 05 Feb 1962; POB Osniers, Algeria (individual) [SDGT].

ABBES, Youcef (a.k.a. "GIUSEPPE"), Via Padova 82, Milan, Italy; Via Manzoni, 33, Cinisello Balsamo, Milan, Italy; DOB 05 Jan 1965; POB Bab El Aoued, Algeria (individual) [SDGT].

• Did you run the alias check also on the list of vessels?
• This break-out of the data can get very big very quickly. We so far have an interest in listing for each of the 28 programs, separate numbers for each nationality (up to 155) for each of four categories (individuals, organizations, vessels, aircraft). That max'es out at 17,360 different numbers (double that figure if you want both "number of entries" and "number of actual targets") to present, and to keep updated at least a few times a year. The work could be automated, but we would have to expect OFAC to tweak the file format at some point. I think it would make for a very cool and very popular Wikipedia page, but it might not be what Wikipedia wants Wikipedia to be.
  • My bottom-line - I'm on-board IFF we get the idea pre-approved, so we don't do all the work and get it shot down for WP:NOR or other reasons. (My frank, honest opinion is that it certainly is original research. I'm kind of surprised I haven't heard of some researcher already having crunched the numbers this way).
• Have you given any thought to my proposal and reasoning for using the metric of "number of entries" (burden of compliance) v. "number of actual targets"? I'm going ahead and will put a "number of entries" (burden of compliance) into the article. If you object to how its written or to it being there, just revert it. I'd like some accurate number there now, so if we get stuck in the weeds in presenting a large table of statistics, a basic figure is out there in the interim.

Regards. —Boruch Baum (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: Oops. My argument about "number of entries" (burden of compliance) is totally and embarrassingly wrong: 1) the list is sorted alphabetically; 2) there's no burden in asking your computer to search for a character string. OTOH, from googling the subject, there seems to be big bucks to be made by lawyers and contractors offering services guaranteeing compliance with the sanctions. —Boruch Baum (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how that works: "What's your name?" "Abdullah." "Sorry can't do business with you."

But certainly instead of a 967 page document a 200 page indexed document might be better.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Office of Foreign Assets Control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101027081749/http://www.iaba.us/NewsDetails.aspx?id=117 to http://www.iaba.us/NewsDetails.aspx?id=117
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101027081749/http://www.iaba.us/NewsDetails.aspx?id=117 to http://www.iaba.us/NewsDetails.aspx?id=117

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

HYBRID spartan data set BIG C

I have this government office listed on my bank paper work if yet to receive anything I'm a clear gene match for about 20 years and I recieved beneficiary email 5 or more years ago. and made claims curious how long this process takes!? AKARKANDY123 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)