Author Topic: Feds fine Exxon $2M for violating Russia sanctions while Tillerson was CEO  (Read 910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,759
The Treasury Department on Thursday fined Exxon Mobil Corp. $2 million for violating sanctions against Russia while now-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was CEO of the company.

According to an enforcement filing from Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), Exxon in 2014 signed “eight legal documents related to oil and gas projects in Russia” with Igor Sechin, the president of Rosneft, a Moscow-owned oil company. Sechin was the subject of U.S. sanctions on Russia following its incursion into Crimea.

Exxon is challenging the fine in court, saying previous government statements about the Russia sanctions implied they would be able to to work with Rosneft.

Former President Barack Obama signed an executive order establishing sanctions on Russia on March 16, 2014. The Treasury Department added Sechin to the list of people subject to those sanctions that April.

But, according to Treasury, "despite these prohibitions and ExxonMobil's global market and sophistication, ExxonMobil moved forward with signing the legal documents with designated person Igor Sechin between on or about May 14, 2014 and on or about May 23, 2014.”

Exxon called the decision “fundamentally unfair,” and pointed to public comments and fact sheets from the Obama White House that said the sanctions applied only to the personal business interests of people covered by them.

Continued:  http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/342911-feds-fine-exxon-2m-for-violating-russia-sanctions-while-tillerson

Oceander

  • Guest
Sounds like Exxon has a case. 

Offline Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,921
  • Gender: Male
    • Avatar
Sounds like Exxon has a case.

Yeah, a pretty good one. [opinion of a layman]
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline unite for individuality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 930
  • Gender: Male
  • I think, therefore I am... a misfit!
The Treasury Department on Thursday fined Exxon Mobil Corp. $2 million for violating sanctions against Russia while now-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was CEO of the company.

According to an enforcement filing from Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), Exxon in 2014 signed “eight legal documents related to oil and gas projects in Russia” with Igor Sechin, the president of Rosneft, a Moscow-owned oil company. Sechin was the subject of U.S. sanctions on Russia following its incursion into Crimea.

Exxon is challenging the fine in court, saying previous government statements about the Russia sanctions implied they would be able to to work with Rosneft.

Former President Barack Obama signed an executive order establishing sanctions on Russia on March 16, 2014. The Treasury Department added Sechin to the list of people subject to those sanctions that April.

But, according to Treasury, "despite these prohibitions and ExxonMobil's global market and sophistication, ExxonMobil moved forward with signing the legal documents with designated person Igor Sechin between on or about May 14, 2014 and on or about May 23, 2014.”

Exxon called the decision “fundamentally unfair,” and pointed to public comments and fact sheets from the Obama White House that said the sanctions applied only to the personal business interests of people covered by them.

Continued:  http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/342911-feds-fine-exxon-2m-for-violating-russia-sanctions-while-tillerson

1.  The government is fining Exxon for doing what the government said would be okay for Exxon to do.

2.  Does a president have the authority to sanction a country via an Executive Order?
     Seems to me that it requires an act of Congress to do that.
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion,
mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
   -- John Stuart Mill

Here are the 10 RINOs who voted to impeach Trump on Jan. 13, 2021 - NEVER forget!
WY  Liz Cheney      SC 7  Tom Rice             WA 4  Dan Newhouse    IL 16  Adam Kinzinger    OH 16  Anthony Gonzalez
MI 6  Fred Upton    WA 3  Jaime Herrera Beutler    MI 3  Peter Meijer       NY 24  John Katko       CA 21  David Valadao

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 60,555
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
1.  The government is fining Exxon for doing what the government said would be okay for Exxon to do.

2.  Does a president have the authority to sanction a country via an Executive Order?
     Seems to me that it requires an act of Congress to do that.
Oh, no, you misunderstand. They weren't sanctioning a country, they were sanctioning an oil company. Look what they did with the DAPL, the 'War on Fracking', methane emissions rules, flaring rules, rail transport rules, etc. This is just part of the overall picture of attacking "Big Oil", and XOM is the biggest.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,127
There's got to be more to this, right?  I mean, an oil company (excuse me, Big Oil) fighting the government over $2 million?  If XOM simply paid, or told them to stick it, either way it's got to be cheaper for both sides than spending huge bank on lawyers?

Does paying set a precedent or make subsequent actions illegal/invalid, or what?

My avatar shows the national debt in stacks of $100 bills.  If you look very closely under the crane you can see the Statue of Liberty.

Offline Joe Wooten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,455
  • Gender: Male
Another front in the Deep State attack on Trump.

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,327
There's got to be more to this, right?  I mean, an oil company (excuse me, Big Oil) fighting the government over $2 million?  If XOM simply paid, or told them to stick it, either way it's got to be cheaper for both sides than spending huge bank on lawyers?

Does paying set a precedent or make subsequent actions illegal/invalid, or what?
You do not know Exxon, who I used to work for.

They bring a score of lawyers to fight, on principle alone.

they are my favorite 100% American company, and are not to be messed with if they deem themselves right.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Oceander

  • Guest
There's got to be more to this, right?  I mean, an oil company (excuse me, Big Oil) fighting the government over $2 million?  If XOM simply paid, or told them to stick it, either way it's got to be cheaper for both sides than spending huge bank on lawyers?

Does paying set a precedent or make subsequent actions illegal/invalid, or what?



Paying can set a precedent, and in this case I think it's something that deserves fighting because not fighting it sanctions Treasury's unjustified view that dealing with a company is tantamount to dealing with an individual who represents or works for the company in some way, so that if it's illegal to deal with the individual it's automatically illegal to deal with the company, even if Congress never made it illegal to deal with the company. 

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 60,555
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Paying can set a precedent, and in this case I think it's something that deserves fighting because not fighting it sanctions Treasury's unjustified view that dealing with a company is tantamount to dealing with an individual who represents or works for the company in some way, so that if it's illegal to deal with the individual it's automatically illegal to deal with the company, even if Congress never made it illegal to deal with the company.
Companies are people, objects are 'deemed' guilty of participating in a crime and seized but have no rights to a fair trial because they are objects, and 'probable cause' has been stretched so thin it is closer to being a monomolecular membrane than graphene--and yet tougher to shred. Penalties (insisted by their authors that they were penalties from their inception) are ruled taxes, despite reams and hours of testimony by the architects of the legislation to the contrary.

Knowing your profession, I'm one person short of suggesting the Shakespearean solution, but what is the answer to that sort of convolution in what should have been a straightforward legal system based on Law, precedent, and logic?
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis