Banking

Owned by the Export Development Bank of Iran.

--

"[Iran and Venezuela] also established in Caracas the Banco Internacional de Desarrollo, which together with its main Iranian shareholder, Bank Saderat, is accused by the U.S. of being a vehicle for the Ahmadinejad government’s funding of the Middle Eastern terrorist group Hezbollah." (Bloomberg, "Iran Influence in Latin America Waning, U.S. Reports," 06/26/13) 

"United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), a lobbying group led by former US ambassador to the United Nations Mark Wallace, claims the tycoon was involved in the formation of a strategic alliance between FBB and Iran’s Ministry of Petroleum. The allegations, which Restis has refuted, stem from a letter in which Greek businessman Dimitris Cambis, who recently landed on the US Treasury Department’s blacklist, asked Restis and FBB CEO Christos Kazantzis to back an Iranian investment scheme. TradeWinds obtained copies of two documents, including one dated 25 April 2012 and signed by Cambis on the letterhead of Athene Consulting House in which he requests a meeting aimed at 'initiating and concluding a strategic agreement' with FBB... 'Their own monthly transactions which shall be directed to FBB are a few billions and they have vast resources to support the strategic plan that you might agree on,' Cambis continued before outlining a proposed agenda for a meeting that would correspond with the ministry’s visit. The second letter, which was addressed to Restis and also dated 25 April 2012 but not signed, suggests that FBB hired Concept Consulting of Cyprus to advise on a transaction with representatives of the Iranian government. Its unclear if a meeting between Iran’s oil ministry and FBB ever took place but today Greek operator Enterprises Shipping & Trading released a statement on behalf of Restis in which the executive denied UANI’s accusations... The war of words erupted a day after the National Bank of Greece announced plans to absorb what it called the 'healthy assets' of FBB, in which affiliates of the Restis family controlled a 64% stake prior to what some have likened to a bailout." (TradeWinds, "Restis Fires Back," 5/14/2013) 

--

"The advocacy group’s chief executive Mark Wallace late on Monday wrote to Mr Restis as non-executive chairman of First Business Bank, an already-defunct capacity after the bank was absorbed by the National Bank of Greece over the weekend and effectively ceased to exist. UANI cited a letter of more than one year ago from Dimitris Cambis, a Greek shipping executive whose companies have recently been blacklisted by the US Department of the Treasury, addressed primarily to the then-chief executive of FB Bank, Christos Kazantzis. The letter, which has been seen by Lloyd’s List, appears to have been written ahead of a visit to Athens by representatives of the Iranian Ministry of Oil, outlining a scheme to 'initiate and conclude a strategic agreement with FBB'. According to the letter, which is entitled ‘Introduction of Strategic Investor — Business Proposal’, Mr Cambis’ Athene Consulting House was proposing FB Bank as a partner of the Iranians because 'we trust Prof Kazantzis' and because Mr Restis was seen as 'an eminent international businessman' who might derive synergies from such a deal... FB Bank was taken over by the National Bank of Greece after failing to raise E 168m to recapitalise itself, a fact that by itself raises questions over the veracity of suggestions it had secret access to Iranian oil funds." (Lloyd's List, "Restis dismisses claim of Iran link to former bank," 5/14/2013) 

"When President Obama announced last month that he was barring a Baghdad bank from any dealings with the American banking system, it was a rare acknowledgment of a delicate problem facing the administration in a country that American troops just left: for months, Iraq has been helping Iran skirt economic sanctions imposed on Tehran because of its nuclear program. The little-known bank singled out by the United States, the Elaf Islamic Bank, is only part of a network of financial institutions and oil-smuggling operations that, according to current and former American and Iraqi government officials and experts on the Iraqi banking sector, has provided Iran with a crucial flow of dollars at a time when sanctions are squeezing its economy . . . In announcing that he was 'cutting off' Elaf Islamic Bank, Mr. Obama said it had 'facilitated transactions worth millions of dollars on behalf of Iranian banks that are subject to sanctions for their links to Iran’s illicit proliferation activities.' But the treatment the bank has received in Baghdad since it was named by Mr. Obama suggests that the Iraqi government is not only allowing companies and individuals to circumvent the sanctions but also not enforcing penalties for noncompliance.Iraqi banking experts said last week that the bank was still allowed to participate in the Iraq Central Bank’s daily auction at which commercial banks can sell Iraqi dinars and buy United States dollars. These auctions are a crucial pathway for Iranian access to the international financial system. Western officials say that Iran seeks to bolster its reserves of dollars to stabilize its exchange rates and pay for imports . . . Mudher Salih, the central bank governor, said in an interview that Elaf Islamic Bank was being allowed back into the auction because Elaf officials had denied any wrongdoing. 'Elaf Bank is attending the auctions, and they are telling us that they didn’t violate the law, and saying that they didn’t deal with any Iranian institutes,' Mr. Salih said." (New York Times, "U.S. Says Iraqis Are Helping Iran to Skirt Sanctions," 8/18/12)

--

"US President Barack Obama on Tuesday imposed new economic sanctions on Iran's oil export sector and on a pair of Chinese and Iraqi banks accused of doing business with Tehran. Obama said the new measures underlined the United States' determination to force Tehran "to meet its international obligations" in nuclear negotiations, according to a statement released by the White House. The US president accused the Bank of Kunlun and the Elaf Islamic Bank in Iraq of arranging transactions worth millions of dollars with Iranian banks already under sanctions because of alleged links to Tehran's weapons programme." (AFP, "China hits back at new US sanctions over Iran," 8/1/12)

"Alfa-Bank is not considering entry on the Iran’s market or joint projects with Iranian companies, Chief Executive Officer of the Russian private bank Andrei Sokolov said on Monday. "The Iranian market is not of interest for us," Sokolov said. The bank is not viewing mutual settlements with Iranian credit institutions, he said." (Tass, "Russia's Alfa-Bank not considering entry on Iran's market - CEO," 7/18/2016).

--

"Russian oligarch Mikhail Fridman, 47 — who runs Alfa Bank, his nation’s largest private finance house — teamed up with developer Jack Rosen of Rosen Partners in December to invest $1 billion in US real estate from New York to Miami... 'He told me that Alfa never directly funded nuclear projects.' Fridman’s Alfa Bank provided financing throughout the 2000s to Atomstroyexport, the state-owned Russian nuclear vendor that installed the reactors at Bushehr, according to reports... Fridman, a self-made tycoon whose Alfa Group specializes in oil, banking and telecommunications, was ranked No. 57 on Forbes’ billionaires list. The Sunday Times of London in 2007 called his Alfa Group 'one of the most controversial business empires on the planet.'" (New York Daily News, "NY Jewish leader’s biz partner has ‘Iran tie$’," 4/9/2012)

 In 2020, the U.S. state of Mississippi listed Bank of Kunlun on its state lists of Companies Doing Business with the Iranian Petroleum/Natural Gas, Nuclear and Military Sectors, rendering Bank of Kunlun ineligible for investment and/or state contracting.

--

On March 7, 2018, Bank of Kunlun Co Ltd was added to the Florida State Board of Administration List of Prohibited Investments (Scrutinized Companies) due to its involvement in Iran. As of March 9, 2021, Bank of Kunlun Co Ltd remains on the SBA list of prohibited investments. 

--

"A member of Iran’s Chamber of Commerce has said that China’s Kunlun Bank is refusing to deal with Iran, as warnings from the international watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) regarding banking ties with the Islamic Republic have become tougher this year." (Radio Farda, "Chinese, Russian Banks Refuse Transactions With Iran," 8/6/2020). 

--

Last week, an official from Iran’s communications ministry received an email from a Chinese supplier informing them that Bank of Kunlun, the state-owned bank at the heart of China-Iran bilateral trade, is weighing whether to cease processing Iran-related payments. The email warned that after an April 9 deadline, “Kunlun may stop handling payment [sic] from Iran. For the exact situation then, we can only wait for further notice from the bank.” (Bourse & Bazaar, "Concern in Iran Over China Commerce as Trump Gets Trade Deal" 1/29/2020).

--

"But CNPC officials have said the company struggled to find banking channels to transfer funds to Iran due to U.S. pressure. CNPC’s own bank, Bank of Kunlun, which is the main conduit for China’s Iran trades, has told customers it no longer accepts trades with the Islamic Republic, though it has said publicly it intends to keep its business with Tehran." (Wall Street Journal, "China Pulls Out of Giant Iranian Gas Project, 10/6/2019). 

--

Bank of Kunlun is listed on the June 4, 2019 and July 12, 2019 Florida State Board of Administration list of prohibited investments (Scrutinized companies) for Iran related business.

--

Bank of Kunlun is listed on the June 2019 Alaska Retirement Management Board, Companies Doing Material Business with Iran list.

--

"China’s Bank of Kunlun started its activity in Iran, Vice Chairman of Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries, Mines and Agriculture (ICCIMA) Pedram Soltani announced on Thursday. In his twitter account, he wrote, “China’s Bank of Kunlun has announced that it will continue its banking transactions with the Islamic Republic of Iran by the end of the current year only using Chinese currency yuan and with full observation of the U.S. sanctions with regard to the goods, real and legal entities, transport companies and banks”, Mehr news agency reported. China’s Bank of Kunlun is the only Chinese bank that cooperates with the Islamic Republic of Iran, he added." (Tehran Times, "Bank Kunlun starts operations in Iran," 6/7/2019).

--

"Experts expect that China will continue to buy some Iranian oil, but many Chinese businesses are limiting their exposure to the country. Bank of Kunlun Co., a key conduit for Sino-Iranian trade, told clients on Monday that it will stop all transfers with Iran beginning May 1, said Mostafa Pakzad, a Tehran-based consultant who helps companies carry payments in and out of Iran. The bank, owned by state-run China National Petroleum Corp., had already interrupted such dealings last year but had restarted trade of humanitarian goods in the hope they could be exchanged for Iran oil." (Wall Street Journal, "Asian Companies Pull Back From Iran Amid U.S. Pressure," 4/24/2019).

--

Bank of Kunlun is listed on the March 2019 Alaska Retirement Management Board, Companies Doing Material Business with Iran list.

--

In 2017, the U.S. state of Mississippi listed Bank of Kunlun on its state lists of Companies Doing Business with the Iranian Petroleum/Natural Gas, Nuclear and Military Sectors, rendering Bank of Kunlun ineligible for investment and/or state contracting.

--

In September 2017 – “The official referred to Bank of Kunlun Co Ltd, a China National Petroleum Corp unit, as "one of the longstanding business partners of Iran" that continued to work with the country even under sanctions.”

--

"...[A] Western intelligence report reviewed by Reuters says Shenzhen Lanhao is one of several companies in China that receives money from Iran through a Chinese bank. Such transfers help to finance international operations of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps' elite Quds Force, the report said. The Quds provides arms, aid and training for pro-Iranian militant groups in the Middle East, such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Shi'ite Muslim militias in Iraq. They have also armed and trained government forces in Syria's civil war in violation of a U.N. arms embargo, U.S. and European officials say. Washington designated the Quds a supporter of terrorism in 2007. The European Union sanctioned them in 2011. The report said that the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) holds accounts with the Bank of Kunlun Co Ltd, a China National Petroleum Corp unit." (Reuters, "Exclusive: Iran uses China bank to transfer funds to Quds-linked companies – report," 11/17/14)

--

"Beijing reacted furiously Wednesday to new US sanctions imposed on a Chinese bank over transactions with Iran, urging Washington to revoke them and saying it would lodge an official protest. China's foreign ministry urged the United States to lift the sanctions on the Bank of Kunlun, which it said violated the 'norms of international relations' and damaged relations between Beijing and Washington. US President Barack Obama on Tuesday imposed new economic sanctions on Iran's oil export sector and on a pair of Chinese and Iraqi banks accused of doing business with Tehran . . . The US president accused the Bank of Kunlun and the Elaf Islamic Bank in Iraq of arranging transactions worth millions of dollars with Iranian banks already under sanctions because of alleged links to Tehran's weapons programme . . . Bank of Kunlun declined to comment on the announcement to impose sanctions." (AFP, "China hits back at new US sanctions over Iran," 8/1/12)

--

"Like Russia's First Czech-Russian Bank LLC and China's Bank of Kunlun Co. Ltd, they are typically small, obscure financial institutions often based in countries historically friendly to Iran... Bank of Kunlun didn't respond to requests for comment, and a representative at state-owned China National Petroleum Corp., which controls Bank of Kunlun, said he was unaware of the matter." (The Wall Street Journal, "Willing Banks Find Profits in Legal Trade With Iran," 4/8/2012) 

"Like Russia's First Czech-Russian Bank LLC and China's Bank of Kunlun Co. Ltd, they are typically small, obscure financial institutions often based in countries historically friendly to Iran... In February, some traders started flocking to First Czech-Russian Bank after word spread that it had started servicing Iran trade facilities, according to Iran trade professionals. In March, Roman Popov, the chairman and majority owner of the bank, was elected to lead the Russian-Iranian Business Council, promising to increase bilateral trade... A spokeswoman for First Czech-Russian Bank declined to discuss the group's Iran business." (The Wall Street Journal, "Willing Banks Find Profits in Legal Trade With Iran," 4/8/2012) 

"Top-tier financial institutions including Societe Generale SA GLE.FR -0.74% and Rabobank Group have stepped back from business with Iran in recent months, citing increased political risk and logistical hassles that attend even legal trade with the country... In response, Rabobank and Société Générale say they have stopped servicing Iran deals or curbed their trade finance." (The Wall Street Journal, "Willing Banks Find Profits in Legal Trade With Iran," 4/8/2012) 

 "In the side lines of World Forum of Central Securities Depositories, Mohammad Reza Mohseni and Hossein Fahimi, Heads of Central Securities Depository of Iran's board, visited with Euroclear's delegates.
During the meeting with Bernald Felon, Euroclear's delegate, Central Securities depository of Iran's representatives voiced Iran's capital market and Central Securities Depository of Iran's enthusiasm concerning cooperation with Euroclear to open Custodian account, settle the cross-border deals, exchange knowledge and experiences, and it was welcomed by European side." (November 21, 2017) 

--

"The Senate and the House of Representatives are drafting bills that would seek to blacklist essentially every Iranian bank. The U.S. Treasury has blacklisted 18 Iranian banks, but lawmakers say Tehran is using more than 20 other banks to finance its nuclear program and its support for militant groups, such as Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Treasury Department officials said Wednesday that they have blacklisted 23 Iranian financial institutions in actions taken against banks and other firms. Congressional officials said the new legislation will also target communications, software and technology companies that continue to do business with Iranian banks. Possible targets include Deutsche Börse AG's Clearstream unit and Belgium-based Euroclear Group, which are believed to facilitate financial transactions for Iran's central bank... A spokesperson for Euroclear in Belgium said the company is complying with all current U.S. sanctions against Iran and that it has no dealings with Iran's central bank. 'To our knowledge, there is no other pending Iran sanctions legislation in the U.S. which would further affect Euroclear,' said the spokesperson." (The Wall Street Journal, "U.S. to Probe Iran's Commitment to Talk," 3/7/2012) 

Jan 2018 - Deutsche Borse said Friday the CBI had filed a complaint against Clearstream at a court in Luxembourg where the post-trade services provider is based. Deutsche Borse said Iran’s central bank wants Clearstream and Italian bank Banca UBAE SpA to return its assets plus interest in addition to damages worth the same amount. The assets sought reportedly include about $1.9 billion which Clearstream has turned over to the US to “compensate” around 1,000 Americans claiming damage from Iran over a 1983 bombing in Beirut and another attack in 1996 in Saudi Arabia. The CBI further seeks around $2 billion in customer assets which are held at Clearstream and are subject to similar appropriation in the US and Luxembourg.

--

“Deutsche Börse said on Wednesday that its Clearstream unit was the subject of a criminal investigation into potential violations of United States money laundering laws and sanctions against Iran. The German stock exchange said the unit was cooperating with an investigation by the office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York. ‘The investigation is in a very early stage and our U.S. counsels are currently analyzing the situation,’ Clearstream said in a statement on Wednesday. ‘Investigation is a search process in a criminal proceeding. It is not a prosecution. Clearstream is currently not subject to prosecution’…Clearstream, based in Luxembourg, provides post-trading and settlement services – namely delivering cash and securities between trading parties. It settles more than 250,000 transactions a day. On Wednesday, Clearstream said Mr. Bharara’s office had recently issued a grand jury subpoena seeking data on any property belonging to Iran or its central bank that was possibly being held by Clearstream, as well as services or acts undertaken by the unit for Iran’s benefit. Clearstream said it would comply with the laws of all relevant jurisdictions…In January, Clearstream agreed to pay $152 million to settle civil claims by the Treasury Department that its United States account was used as a conduit to hold about $2.8 billion in securities for Iran’s central bank between December 2007 and June 2008.” (New York Times, “Deutsche Börse Unit Is Subject of U.S. Criminal Investigation,” 4/2/14)

--

“A U.S. grand jury is probing whether Deutsche Boerse AG's Clearstream Banking SA unit took any steps to benefit Iran and its central bank, according to a court filing in a case that stems from the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. The grand jury subpoena issued in New York seeks documents related to any property held or any services rendered by Clearstream for the benefit of Iran or its central bank, Bank Markazi. The grand jury is looking at possible violations of money laundering and Iran sanctions laws, according to the subpoena. A spokesman for Luxembourg-based Clearstream said the bank was aware of the subpoena but had no further information on the investigation. The filing on Monday came as part of a lawsuit brought by family members of the victims of the Beirut bombing, who won a $2.7 billion judgment against Iran in 2007. The families have accused Iran of providing material support to Hezbollah, which carried out the attack, killing 241 U.S. servicemen. The lawsuit was filed in 2010 after the U.S. Treasury Department uncovered $1.8 billion in Iranian funds held at Citibank in New York, part of Citigroup Inc. The complaint named Iran and a number of banks, including Citi, Bank Markazi, Clearstream and Rome-based Banca UBAE, as defendants and sought to have the funds turned over to help satisfy the judgment. The other banks were alleged to have helped Iran hide its control of the accounts and transfer money out of the bank after it was ordered frozen…Citi did not oppose the plaintiffs' request to have the funds handed over, but Clearstream, Banca UBAE and Bank Markazi all moved to dismiss the lawsuit…In January, in a separate case, Clearstream agreed to pay $152 million to settle U.S. government claims that the banking unit held some $2.8 billion in securities in the United States for Bank Markazi. The bank said in January that the settlement ended the probe without a formal finding that Clearstream had violated U.S. sanctions laws prohibiting Iran's central bank from any financial dealings with the United States. The case is Peterson v Islamic Republic of Iran, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 10-4518.” (Reuters, “U.S. grand jury probing Deutsche Borse unit's ties to Iran bank,” 4/1/14)

--

“A Deutsche Boerse unit agreed to pay $152 million to settle allegations that it held some $2.8 billion in securities in the United States for the central bank of Iran, the U.S. Treasury said on Thursday. The unit, Clearstream Banking of Luxembourg, had an account with a U.S. financial institution in New York from December 2007 to June 2008 through which Iran's central bank held interest in 26 corporate and sovereign bonds, the Treasury Department said. It did not name the U.S. financial institution involved. ‘Clearstream provided the government of Iran with substantial and unauthorized access to the U.S. financial system,’ Adam Szubin, who leads the Treasury office that enforces U.S. sanctions, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, said in a statement. Deutsche Boerse, which had already disclosed the settlement amount in November, said on Thursday the settlement closed the probe without a formal finding that Clearstream had violated U.S. sanctions laws…Clearstream met with U.S. officials about the account in 2007 and 2008, and decided to end its business with Iranian clients, Treasury said. According to the settlement, in February 2008 Clearstream transferred the rights to the Iranian central bank's securities to a custody account of a European commercial bank held by Clearstream. But Iran continued to own those securities, and the securities continued to sit in Clearstream's New York account, the Treasury Department said. Emails also showed that several Clearstream employees, including at least one supervisor and one senior executive, recognized that transferring the securities to a custody account still meant Iran's central bank owned them, according to the settlement. Clearstream neither admitted nor denied the Treasury Department's allegations. Clearstream eventually cooperated with OFAC and stopped dealing with Iran, according to the Treasury Department, which said it agreed to reduce the ultimate size of the fine. Under the settlement, Clearstream is required to maintain policies that ensure similar actions do not happen again.” (Reuters, “Deutsche Boerse to pay $152 million in U.S. sanctions probe,” 1/23/14)

--

“The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today announced a $152 million agreement with Clearstream Banking, S.A. (Clearstream), of Luxembourg, to settle its potential civil liability for apparent violations surrounding Clearstream’s use of its omnibus account with a U.S. financial institution as a conduit to hold securities on behalf of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI). ’Clearstream provided the Government of Iran with substantial and unauthorized access to the U.S. financial system,’ said OFAC Director Adam J. Szubin. ‘Today’s action should serve as a clear alert to firms operating in the securities industry that they need to be vigilant with respect to dealings with sanctioned parties, and that omnibus and custody accounts require scrutiny to ensure compliance with relevant sanctions laws.’ From at least December 2007 through June 2008, Clearstream held an account at a U.S. financial institution in New York through which the CBI maintained a beneficial ownership interest in 26 securities, with a nominal value of $2.813 billion, and exported certain associated securities-related services to the CBI.  Clearstream, as intermediary, served as the channel through which the CBI held interests in these securities and transferred those interests at a later date, thereby exporting custody and related services from the United States to the CBI in apparent violation of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR), 31 C.F.R. part 560.  Following meetings with OFAC officials in late 2007 and early 2008, in which Clearstream conveyed its decision to terminate its business with Iranian clients, Clearstream transferred the above-mentioned securities entitlements free-of-payment (FOP) from the CBI’s account at Clearstream to a European bank’s newly-opened custody account at Clearstream.   This new custody account allowed the CBI to continue holding its interests in the securities through Clearstream’s omnibus account in the United States.  Given the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding the transfers, Clearstream had reason to know that the CBI was retaining beneficial ownership of the securities following the FOP transfers.  As a result of the FOP transfers, the record ownership of the securities entitlements on Clearstream’s books changed, but the beneficial ownership did not, resulting in the CBI’s interest being buried one layer deeper in the custodial chain.  Clearstream’s exportation of services from the United States to the CBI then continued after the securities entitlements were moved to the European bank’s custody account…learstream’s strong remedial response to subsequently enhance its sanctions compliance policies and procedures was a major factor in OFAC’s mitigation of the size of the settlement amount.” (U.S. Department of Treasury, “Treasury Department Reaches Landmark $152 Million Settlement with Clearstream Banking, S.A.,” 1/23/14)  

--

"Deutsche Boerse agreed on Thursday to pay $152 million to settle allegations by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) that the company's Clearstream unit may have violated U.S. economic sanctions tied to Iran. The German exchange operator received an offer from the United States in October after OFAC closed the investigation." (Reuters, "Deutsche Boerse settles Iran suit with U.S.," 11/7/13)

--

"Deutsche Boerse AG (DB1) said the fine its Clearstream unit faces from U.S. government allegations that it violated sanctions against Iran may be half the previously disclosed amount. The penalty totals $169 million, or only $152 million if the Frankfurt-based company settles with the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, Deutsche Boerse said in a statement yesterday. In January, Deutsche Boerse said it might have to pay $340 million. The Treasury investigation, which Deutsche Boerse said has concluded, centered on securities transfers within the Clearstream system in 2008, following the company’s decision in 2007 to close Iranian customers’ accounts. The company started talks on a deal with the U.S. Treasury in 2008, the Frankfurt-based exchange said earlier this year…'A settlement with OFAC would not constitute a final determination that a violation has occurred,' Deutsche Boerse said in yesterday’s statement. The exchange operator will now decide whether to settle with U.S. regulators, it said. The fine will be included as a provision in the company’s third-quarter filing. Deutsche Boerse shares slid 1.83 euros, or 3.2 percent, to 55.57 euros at 9:22 a.m. in Frankfurt today, the biggest drop in 11 weeks." (Bloomberg, "Deutsche Boerse’s Iran Fine From U.S. Is Half Estimate," 10/29/13)

--

"Deutsche Boerse on Thursday said it would ask a U.S. court to dismiss claims against its Clearstream unit from relatives of a 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut. For a settlement to go through, Deutsche Boerse needed the approval of a certain amount of plaintiffs. 'The requisite number of signatures has been obtained,' Boerse said in a regulatory statement. Through its Clearstream unit, Deutsche Boerse has been embroiled in a legal dispute with U.S. plaintiffs seeking damages from Iran for Clearstream's alleged role in helping Hezbollah carry out the barracks attack during the civil war in Lebanon. As part of this action, U.S. plaintiffs sought in 2008 to freeze Iranian funds held in Luxembourg-based Clearstream's securities account. The U.S. amended a sanctions bill against Iran in August 2012 which opened the door to further damages claims against foreign lenders including Clearstream." (Reuters, "Deutsche Boerse to seek dismissal of Clearstream case in U.S.," 10/24/13)

--

"Deutsche Boerse AG said U.S. regulators may fine its Clearstream settlement unit as much as $340 million over possible violations of sanctions against Iran.  Clearstream has started talks on a deal with the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control related to securities transfers within its settlement system in 2008, the Frankfurt-based exchange said in a statement today. Deutsche Boerse shares rose 0.2 percent to 47.03 euros at the close of trading in Frankfurt. Standard Chartered Plc agreed to pay $327 million in fines last month, including $132 million to OFAC, after regulators said it violated U.S. sanctions with Iran. Britain's second- largest bank by market value was accused of helping Iran launder about $250 billion in violation of federal laws, keeping false records and handling wire transfers for Iranian clients." (Bloomberg, "Deutsche Boerse Faces $340 Million Fine Over Iran," 01/09/13)

--

"The Senate and the House of Representatives are drafting bills that would seek to blacklist essentially every Iranian bank. The U.S. Treasury has blacklisted 18 Iranian banks, but lawmakers say Tehran is using more than 20 other banks to finance its nuclear program and its support for militant groups, such as Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Treasury Department officials said Wednesday that they have blacklisted 23 Iranian financial institutions in actions taken against banks and other firms. Congressional officials said the new legislation will also target communications, software and technology companies that continue to do business with Iranian banks. Possible targets include Deutsche Börse AG's Clearstream unit and Belgium-based Euroclear Group, which are believed to facilitate financial transactions for Iran's central bank. Clearstream didn't respond to requests to comment." (The Wall Street Journal, "U.S. to Probe Iran's Commitment to Talk," 3/7/2012)

"IndusInd and UCO banks are telling exporters that you must complete all Iran business by August 6..." (5/31/2018)

--

“State-owned Indian banks like UCO Bank have also showed interest in setting up shop in Iran, which I hope to happen in the foreseeable future,” Kumar was also quoted as saying by IBENA." (October 12, 2017).
 

--

"Three foreign banks are opening up representative offices in Iran as the country seeks to boost investment after reaching an international sanctions deal last year, a central bank official said. Oman’s Bank Muscat SAOG, Woori Bank of South Korea and India’s UCO Bank Ltd. are all in the process of establishing a presence in Tehran, Central Bank Vice Governor Peyman Ghorbani said Tuesday in an interview." (Bloomberg News, "Three Foreign Banks to Open in Iran, Central Bank Official Says," 11/1/2016).

--

Press TV (Iran): "Indian media say the country's major oil companies have paid the first installment of outstanding oil dues to Iran. The payment of the installment at a total value of $700 million was made by Essar Oil, Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals (MRPL) and other Indian refiners on Wednesday. Essar Oil paid $335 million while MRPL paid about $300 million. The remainder of the payments was made by HPCL-Mittal Energy (HMEL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corp (HPCL)... According to what Iran and the P5+1 agreed in July, the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) would approve the banking mechanism for payment of $1.4 billion by Indian refiners in two equal installments to Tehran. The Indian media say the refiners had deposited the rupee equivalent of $700 million in Kolkata-based UCO Bank which transmitted the money to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The RBI will accordingly make arrangements for its onward remittance to Iran." (Press TV, "India pays first batch of Iran oil dues," 10/1/15)

--

"India has asked Iran to provide financial guarantees before Delhi continues to allow vessels with Iranian insurance cover to enter Indian waters, the latest sign of difficulties Iran is facing in exporting oil…India's latest request, however, shows the struggle OPEC member Iran still faces in maintaining steady oil shipments. International sanctions on Iran have made it difficult to insure refineries and ships involved in trade with Iran and forced India to settle 45 percent of oil payments in rupees through state-owned UCO Bank while refiners are withholding the remainder…India's Deputy Nautical Advisor, Deepak Kapoor, sent the letter to Iran's Economic Affairs and Finance Ministry on Dec. 10 ahead of a renewal of approval to the Iranian underwriters on Dec. 27. India imported 47 percent less oil from Tehran in October from a year ago, helping New Delhi get a six-month waiver from the U.S. sanctions in December. At the end of November Indian refiners owed about $2.2 billion for partial payments to Iran, while about $3 billion worth of rupees paid by refiners is lying in Tehran's account with UCO Bank. India has asked Iran to provide a bank guarantee for 23 billion rupees ($369.98 million) from its account with UCO Bank as 'a precautionary measure to cover any potential claims that may arise due to maritime incident in Indian waters'…An early submission of a bank guarantee would enable India's shipping ministry to consider further extension of conditional authorisation to Moallem Insurance Co and Kish P&I Club beyond Dec. 27 and promote bilateral trade, the letter said." (Reuters, "India seeks Iran's financial guarantees for ships -letter," 12/17/13) 

--

"An obscure Indian bank has been an unlikely beneficiary of Western sanctions against Iran, handling billions of dollars from frozen oil payments that boosted its interest margins, but is now having to prepare itself for life after the windfall. UCO Bank, a Kolkata-based state lender that had been among India's poorer performers, saw revenue and profits surge after it was picked in 2012 to hold rupees for oil payments to Iran, a pile that has grown to more than $3 billion. Late last month, Iran and six world powers reached an interim deal to curb Tehran's nuclear programme in exchange for limited sanctions relief. 'The Iran business was a shot in the arm for us,' UCO Chairman Arun Kaul told Reuters. 'Still, scope for improvement is very large. We had become a marginal player in the banking industry, we are coming back now'…India has cut back sharply on purchases of Iranian oil in order to qualify for a waiver from U.S. sanctions, but has remained a major importer under an arrangement in which Indian buyers pay for Iranian crude in part by depositing rupees at UCO Bank. The rupees are used to pay Indian exporters to Iran against letters of credit opened by Iranian private banks. UCO is able to take advantage of the time lag between imports and exports, and the fact that the oil dues greatly exceed the value of shipments of Indian goods to Iran. The funds are especially valuable because Indian banks do not pay interest on current account deposits but can lend them to other customers. UCO's cost of deposit, the interest that the bank pays on its overall deposits, at end-September was 6.09 percent - among the lowest in the industry, while it earned 10.04 percent on loans in the same period. In comparison, cost of deposit for rival Oriental Bank of Commerce (ORBC.NS) was 7.65 percent. UCO Bank posted a four-fold annual jump in September quarter earnings while net interest income grew 55 percent. Total assets increased 30 percent to 2.12 trillion rupees at end-September from 1.63 trillion rupees in March 2011. At around $3 billion, Iranian oil receipts account for roughly 12 percent of UCO's total deposits, according to Reuters calculation based on data on the bank's website." (Reuters, "UCO Bank looks to life after Iran sanctions windfall," 12/4/13)

--

“Iran will receive $4.2 billion from its oil sales to be transferred in instalments if it fulfils its commitments in a landmark nuclear deal struck between world powers and Tehran in Geneva. Here is a look at where Iranian oil payments are held in the countries in Asia that are still importing crude from the OPEC producer…

COUNTRY: India

BANK: UCO Bank

ESTIMATED AMOUNT: About $5.3 billion held up by the sanctions. Of the total, about $1.8 billion is with the oil companies that have bought crude from Iran and the remainder is held with state-run UCO Bank. In mid-October, the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) had asked Indian refiners to pay in euros via Turkey's state-owned Halkbank. (Reuters, “FACTBOX-Iran's oil fund stash in Asia,” 11/25/13)

--

"The move is aimed at fuller utilisation of the rupee payments accumulated in India’s UCO Bank for oil purchased from Iran... The payment mechanism allows payments for Iranian oil to be deposited in India’s UCO Bank in Indian rupees. The money is then used to make payments to Indian exporters thereby avoiding payments in dollars and through foreign banks." (The Hindu, "India allows re-export of importanted products to Iran," 6/10/2013) 

--

"State-run Hindustan Petroleum (HPCL) has made its first payment for Iranian oil in rupees to partially settle its bill for a cargo imported in May, company officials said on Friday, a move that will help New Delhi fix its trade imbalance with Tehran . . . India is Iran's second-largest oil buyer, but has struggled to find ways to pay for the oil as Western sanctions curb international financial payments destined for Tehran. The two countries agreed in January to settle 45 percent of the oil trade in rupees. The balance of HPCL's payment, made on Friday, was through Turkey's Halkbank and India's UCO Bank. 'This is the first payment we have made since the gate was opened...we have paid 45 percent in rupees and 55 percent through Halkbank,' B. Mukherjee, head of finance at HPCL, told Reuters. Since July 2011, refiners in India have been using Halkbank to pay their annual oil import bill of more than $10 billion, after a previous payment channel was blocked in December 2010 . . . HPCL has paid 2.75 billion Indian rupees ($49.25 million) to Iran through UCO Bank and $60 million through Halkbank, a company source privy to the matter said." (Reuters, "India HPCL begins rupee payment for Iran oil," 3/8/12)

--

"India, after much delay and uncertainty, is ready to move ahead with a rupee payment mechanism designed to bypass U.S sanctions on trade with Tehran, a senior industry executive said Wednesday.

Under the move, Indian oil companies that import crude oil from Iran will deposit the payments into rupee accounts held in UCO Bank, and these funds will be used by Iran to pay for agricultural products and medicines from India...Payments can be made now that the exemption has been signed into law, Mr. Ahmed said. He said a total of about $4.5 billion could eventually flow into the rupee account, although he didn't provide a time frame for this…Iran accounts for a significant share of India's crude imports, with the later arguing it needs Iranian oil to meet its growing energy demand.

Under U.S. pressure, New Delhi has cut back on purchases from Iran to about 9% of its total oil imports from 12% last year, pushing Iran to the fourth position as a supplier from the second position it held earlier.

Mr. Ahmed said Indian goods worth $500 million to $600 million would be shipped to Iran two to three months after the rupee payment mechanism is activated. 'Iran is a very promising market. The demand [from Iran] and supply from India is ready, so we had to make it happen,' he said.

Of this, 65% to 70% will be agricultural products and the rest pharmaceuticals, he said."  (Wall Street Journal, "India Clears Iran Payments Move," 6/20/2012)

--

"Indian refiners are waiting to make payments into the account at UCO Bank until New Delhi implements a planned exemption for them from a hefty local tax, which was announced in March and can take up to 60 days to be put into effect . . . Parsian's Tehrani said Iran had offered to deposit about 10 million euros ($12.5 million) in the bank's account with UCO bank to settle the dues of Indian exporters. 'Unfortunately they (New Delhi) did not accept our request,' he said. 'We have LCs worth 20 million rupees under negotiation with UCO Bank, but it's been over a month and we have not got a payment,' said Pankaj Bansal, a partner at engineering goods maker TMA International." (Reuters, "Iranian bank halts guarantees for India imports," 6/12/12)

--

"Iran's Parsian Bank has opened a credit window in India's UCO Bank Ltd. to facilitate payments for Indian exporters in rupees, Federation of Indian Export Organizations said Friday. 'The payment problem with Iran has been resolved (for exports from India) with the rupee payment mechanism through UCO Bank becoming operational,' M. Rafeeque Ahmed, FIEO's president, said in a statement." (Wall Street Journal, "UCO Bank to Facilitate Export Payments From Iran," 3/2/2012)