Feds fine Exxon $2M for violating Russia sanctions while Tillerson was CEO

[RoosGirl]

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]

Sounds like Exxon has a case. 

[Suppressed]

Sounds like Exxon has a case.

Yeah, a pretty good one. [opinion of a layman]

[unite for individuality]

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.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

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?

[Joe Wooten]

Another front in the Deep State attack on Trump.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

[Oceander]

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. 

[Smokin Joe]

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?