Jagdeo should seek advice before he mouths-off

Mar 08, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom… 

Kaieteur News- Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo should not be embarrassed to seek advice from his Attorney General in relation to the sanctions imposed on the Mohameds. Nor can there be any harm in asking the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for clarification.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Department of Treasury issued the following when it  sanctioned the Mohameds and their related companies: “As a result of the action, all property and interests in property of the designated persons described above that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. In addition, any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, 50% or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.

Unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC, or exempt, OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons.” “In addition, financial institutions and other persons that engage in certain transactions or activities with the sanctioned entities and individuals may expose themselves to sanctions or be subject to an enforcement action.

The prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods or services by, to, or for the benefit of any designated person, or the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods or services from any such person.” So let us break down these two paragraphs: The first paragraph relates to property and interests in property that are held in the United States or held by US persons.  Any such property that is in the US or held by US persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Also any property owned 50% or more, directly or indirectly, by these blocked persons is also automatically blocked. Then it goes on to state that U.S. persons and entities cannot engage in transactions that involve the property or interests of the designated persons unless specifically authorized. This includes transactions within the U.S. or those that transit through the U.S. financial system.

This first paragraph seems to be providing Jagdeo with difficulties in interpretation. Jagdeo seems to be confusing the transactions that transit through the US with persons known to the Mohameds that travel to and through the US. The second paragraph deals with secondary sanctions. These relate to financial institutions and other persons that engage in “certain transactions or activities” with the sanctioned individuals. Prohibited transactions include any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services to or from the designated persons.

The US has not clarified what are “certain transactions or activities” and it is the duty of the government to seek such clarification if it has doubts or questions. The language of the secondary sanctions outlined in the OFAC statement appears to apply primarily to U.S. financial institutions and U.S. persons, rather than to entities or individuals in Guyana. The reference to “financial institutions and other persons” engaging in transactions with sanctioned individuals suggests a focus on those within U.S. jurisdiction or those who rely on access to the U.S. financial system. Also, the prohibitions on providing or receiving funds, goods, or services from designated persons are standard restrictions under U.S. sanctions law, typically applying to U.S. persons or entities that have a connection to the United States.

There is no explicit indication in this provision that non-U.S. governments or businesses—such as the Government of Guyana and local businesses—are directly subject to these prohibitions unless they engage in transactions that involve U.S. persons, U.S. banks, or the U.S. financial system. There has been an attempt, by the PPPC government, to impute that the secondary sanctions apply to Guyanese, and also that persons associated with the Mohameds can be subject to sanctions.

However, the secondary sanctions appear to relate to US financial entities and persons in the US and not explicitly to Guyanese. It would be unconscionable if the US were to sanction Guyanese from any transactions at all with the Mohameds.  The U.S. is not yet an authoritarian state (it may be heading there) and there is no way that these secondary sanctions could mean that local persons associated with or providing services to the Mohameds in Guyana can be sanctioned. Or that local entities cannot provide goods and services to the Mohameds.

How will they eat, move around and exist?  Is the government trying to tell us that a gardener, domestic help or driver cannot provide services to the Mohameds? Is the government trying to say that no supermarket or petrol station can sell goods to the Mohameds? Nor can it be concluded that the government cannot do any business at all with the Mohameds. Is the government trying to say that the children of the family cannot be educated or be entitled to healthcare or can the family receive electricity or water or postal and police services? Are the adults in the family not entitled to government services in their own country?

Under U.S. sanctions laws, the term “persons” typically refers to individuals and entities rather than sovereign governments. If a foreign government were directly targeted, OFAC would usually use language like “the Government of Guyana to avoid ambiguity as was done in relation to Venezuela and Iran. The U.S. has NOT explicitly sanctioned the Government of Guyana in its designations against the Mohameds. This means that the government itself is not automatically restricted from dealing with the Mohameds unless the U.S. later determines such dealings to be part of secondary sanctions.

There are cases where U.S. sanctions explicitly prohibit foreign governments from dealing with sanctioned entities. However, in the case of the Mohameds in Guyana, there is no explicit provision stating that the Government of Guyana is directly restricted from engaging with them. However, the U.S. can take action if the government of Guyana engages in transactions with the Mohameds that involve U.S.-linked banks and US citizens and permanent residents. Those transactions could be blocked.

And if there is any doubt, to resolve this matter the government should seek legal clarifications from OFAC (the U.S. sanctions office) to determine whether specific local transactions would trigger penalties. That would seem to be the smart thing to do.

(Jagdeo should seek advice before he mouths-off)

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• Mohameds, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Peeping Tom, sanctions imposed, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo

---