Amazon fined $135,000 in sanctions violations for letting blacklisted entities shop.

Amazon fined $135,000 in sanctions violations for letting blacklisted entities shop


Drug dealers and weapons of mass destruction manufacturers like to shop on Amazon as much as the next guy. But that doesn't mean they're allowed to.

On Wednesday, the Department of the Treasury announced it had reached a settlement with Amazon for trade sanctions violations. Amazon voluntarily disclosed to the government that between 2011 and 2018, its automatic screening processes had failed to stop blacklisted individuals as well as people residing in countries under trade sanctions such as Iran, Syria, and Crimea from buying goods and services on the site.

The maximum penalty for the violations is a bit over $1 billion. However, Amazon will be paying just under $135,000.

That amount might sound paltry, especially for a company worth around $1.5 trillion. However, to experts, the number checks out.

"It is low," said Richard Nephew, a Brookings Institute senior fellow and author of The Art of Sanctions, "but probably consistent with the cooperative approach taken by Amazon."

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which is in charge of levying sanctions violations, is intentionally moderate on some penalties as a way to encourage companies to self-report and fix their mistakes. One OFAC statute automatically cuts potential penalties in half if a company comes forward on its own (as Amazon did).

"OFAC is always trying to foster compliance with sanctions regulations and it uses its enforcement actions as a key part of its overall strategy to promote compliance," Perry S. Bechky, a partner at the law firm Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP, who specializes in international trade law, said via email.

Then, it's under OFAC's discretion to determine whether the violation was "egregious" or "non-egregious"; largely, if the violation was intentional or by mistake. Egregious violations get the hammer dropped on them, while non-egregious ones get more leniency. Since OFAC determined Amazon's violation was non-egregious, and they are fixing their systems, that provided further reason for leniency.

Thanks to these "mitigating factors," instead of paying up to $300,000 per transaction for at least hundreds, and potentially thousands, of transactions, OFAC is basing its fine on the total value of the transactions: The $135,000 number Amazon will pay is half of the total amount of the transactions made by sanctioned parties, roughly $269,000.

"OFAC has discretion to raise or lower a penalty from the baseline penalty where there are aggravating or mitigating factors, but in this case it seems to have concluded that the aggravating and mitigating factors offset each other," Bechky said. "I think that what was especially important for Amazon as a mitigating factor was its major commitment to improve its screening to minimize future violations."

So what were these sanctioned and "blacklisted" entities buying? With a few exceptions, mostly the same run of the mill junk as everyone else.

"The apparent violations consisted primarily of transactions involving low-value retail goods and services," the announcement reads. "Some of the apparent violations related to Amazon’s processing of orders for personal security products on behalf of persons located at the Iranian embassies in Tokyo, Japan, and in Brussels, Belgium."

In addition to the Iranian embassy shoppers, other parties implicated in the sanctions were shoppers "located in or employed by the foreign missions of" Crimea, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. OFAC also "blacklists" specific individuals from doing business with American companies, including known drug traffickers, WMD manufacturers, and organized crime leaders. Mob bosses apparently love an Amazon deal, too!

It's American companies' job to screen for individual names and shoppers by location, to make sure they can't do business with American companies. Amazon did not catch the names of the blacklisted individuals, even when they were spelled correctly. Its systems also failed to screen for locations of embassies located in other countries, and common misspellings of trade-sanctioned places (e.g., "Krimea").

OFAC's announcement says Amazon has made significant investments in improving its systems. Even so, it notes that "such large and sophisticated businesses should implement and employ compliance tools and programs that are commensurate with the speed and scale of their business operations."

Given Amazon's "speed and scale," that's a tall order. So if there's a next time when it comes to these violations, maybe OFAC won't be so nice.

Comments

  1. When doing it is more profitable than the consequences, what's to detour them. Petty fines are just the price of business and a tax right off at years end. Government and judicial system are more accomplices than anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. but it's not more profitable?

      Delete
  2. What that ratio for a normal person... Like a dollar? Looks under couch*

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought the word "blacklisted" is not ok to use and we have to say "banlisted" or "blocklisted" now. Mashable should keep up with the SJW dictionary and start using the politically correct terms before it gets in trouble for not keeping up with the new terms.
    lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what is the politically correct term for whitelisted though?

      Delete
  4. I'm tired of empty and vacuous symbolism do something real change the laws

    ReplyDelete
  5. Does that even come to one second's worth of profit to them?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ooh, wow, $135,000, what a big fine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it was 50% of the total amount of goods sold. They got a break because they self reported, and corrected the system that allowed it to Happen.
      Otherwise it would've got the 1 billion cap.

      Delete
  7. Tip of the iceberg

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is real news or fake news

    ReplyDelete
  9. covers the postage :-))

    ReplyDelete
  10. THAT’LL TEACH ‘EM!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think they had that in the snack drawer

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wait you can’t use “blacklisted” anymore it’s now called “deny list.”

    You fell over the trip wire.

    #cancelled

    ReplyDelete
  13. Whatever. Do you think Amazon cares about $135k?

    ReplyDelete
  14. compared to one trillion dollars it won’t even be noticed

    ReplyDelete
  15. Next should get them for allowing scammers to do business with no way to out them for it. Just search for Rose Seeds - a rose seed is NOT PREDICTABLE due to their weird genetics - same for apple seeds and by the time you find out it's long past the return date. Buyer beware.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh no, whatever will they do. Seriously, middle class families can have that kind of money, this kind of fine wouldn't make them blink. I'm sick of fines being the penalties for corporate crime, someone is making these decisions, why do they not face time? If all you do is fine the company, they just weigh the cost of the fine.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That’s like a $1.35 to the rest of us .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thinking the same. 135k, Amazon wouldn't even see it in their accounting lol.

      Delete
    2. In the time it took me to write this, Amazon made around $62,000

      NOT an exaggeration.

      Delete
  18. Seriously???
    The fine should be based on percentage of net worth.
    Let's say 10% of 200 billion.
    It would be 20 billion Which would concern Jeff little bit.

    ReplyDelete
  19. And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number.

    Very simple.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If only fines were a percentage of their net worth, then maybe they might be pressured to follow the law.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I've always wondered about this kind of stuff for the longest time - the countless number of US companies unknowingly aiding bad people. Like, what kind of computers is Iran using to run their nuclear weapons research labs? For instance, are they using Intel-based machines with Windows 10 on them to advance their weapons development?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Smh, $135000 is less than a penny to Amazon, not even a slap on the wrist

    ReplyDelete
  23. Potential worlds 1st trillionaire isn't worried. Useless fine! It needs to be a fine that actually hurts.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Looking at comments here I just wonder how many of people writing here report themselves to the police stations to be issued with speeding ticket - because that's what Amazon done. It was self-reporting of wrongdoings because of a faulty automatic screening.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The fine is more of a symbol than a punishment. Bezos is more concern on how soft his toilet paper is than how much is the fine. On a positive note the government has justified why they need to maintain incompetent employees and departments.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Stay informed!