Financial Services

"Two of India's largest shipping companies which carry crude from Iran haven't yet been able to find suitable insurance cover, a situation which could hurt the flow of oil from the sanctions-hit Middle Eastern country.  . . . India, which has decreased but not stopped crude purchases from Iran, has been trying to make its own arrangements to bring in the oil. Last month, state run insurer United India Insurance Co. Ltd. offered cover to Indian shippers, while General Insurance Corp. offered to reinsure. Mr. Hajara had said then that the shipper may agree to the covers -- about a hundredth of what Europe's so-called Protection and Indemnity or P&I Clubs offer -- but he now appears to have changed his mind. The Indian insurer has offered $50 million for protection and indemnity -- or third-party insurance -- and an additional, similar amount for hull and machinery cover. But these are not enough, said Mr. Hajara." (Wall Street Journal, "Shipping Corp: Insurance Cover for Iran Crude Not Adequate," 8/8/12)

--

"India, the third-biggest buyer of Iranian oil, will offer state-backed insurance to tankers, helping the nation’s biggest sea carrier to resume cargoes from the Persian Gulf nation hit by international trade sanctions.

Shipping Corp. of India will soon start services to Iran as Indian insurers have agreed to give as much as $100 million of cover per voyage, Chairman Sabyasachi Hajara said without specifying a timeframe. Prior to the sanctions, European companies provided unlimited protection against risks including oil spills and collisions, he said…Hajara said insurers including United India Insurance Co. and General Insurance Corp. of India are offering a lower cover for Iranian shipments compared with their European counterparts because the sanctions blocked their access to reinsurance.

The Indian insurers are offering $50 million of hull and machinery cover and $50 million of protection and indemnity per voyage, he said…Shipping Corp. is going ahead with the plan as its studies have shown that carriers in the Iran-India route haven’t sought any claims from insurance companies in the past 10 years, he said. Still, potential liabilities may run into “billions of dollars,” Hajara said." (Bloomberg, "Iran Oil Shipping To Resume As Insurers Step In," 8/2/12)

--

"India has given state-run insurers approval to provide limited cover to its ships transporting Iran's oil. . . Domestic insurance firms are allowed to provide ship owners carrying Iranian oil $50 million in cover against pollution and personal injury claims, also known as protection and indemnity (P&I) insurance, Devli said. They will also provide hull and machinery cover of $50 million, to protect ships against physical damage. General Insurance Corp of India will be the re-insurer and cover will be extended by any of four state-run non-life insurance firms: United India Insurance, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 'We have received a letter from the shipping ministry ... saying General Insurance Corp has provisionally been allowed to arrange cover,' said a source at a state-run refiner." (Reuters, "India insures Iran oil imports to safeguard flow -sources," 7/10/12)

--

"United India Insurance Co. has agreed to provide protection and indemnity cover to Indian tankers carrying oil from Iran with General Insurance Corp. offering reinsurance, two people with knowledge of the matter said Tuesday. The offer bring some relief to Indian shipping companies that aren't getting covers from European insurers since July 1 for carrying shipments from Iran, which is facing sanctions from the U.S. and European Union for its decision to continue with an alleged nuclear weapons program. . . While United India Insurance executives weren't available to comment, an executive from General Insurance Corp. said there will be a $50 million P&I cover and a separate amount for hull and machinery. 'The cover is for all Indian shipowners,' the executive said." (Wall Street Journal, "India Insurer to Cover Ships Carrying Iran Oil," 7/10/12)

--

"Indian shipping firms will continue to transport Iranian crude even if limited insurance coverage due to tightening Western sanctions leaves them financially exposed to a spill or accident, a top executive and industry sources said... Shipping Corp of India, which is the country's largest shipping firm, Great Eastern and other Indian tanker firms have asked state insurers to step in and provide up to $50 million in third-party liability coverage per tanker voyage. The amount is a fraction of the typical $1 billion coverage that a supertanker carrying around 2 million barrels of crude would have from reinsurers against personal injury and pollution claims. India's shipping companies would run the risk of shipping the crude even though they would be liable for any claims above $50 million in the case of an incident, industry sources said... The shipping firms have sent their request to state insurers United India Insurance, General Insurance Company, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., said a shipping source. The shipping and finance ministries were also looking at the proposal." (Chicago Tribune, "Indian firms to carry Iran crude despite reduced insurance," 4/24/12)

"The easing of the insurance sanctions for ships has been expected by analysts to increase Iran's crude oil exports, although data from Tehran's largest customers - China, India, Japan and South Korea - has so far shown steady to lower shipments since the deal was signed in November. Uncertainty over post-July insurance payments, however, has made the suspension of sanctions on ship cover ‘of very limited, if any, value to shipowners,’ the group of shipping insurers said in a note this week. The International Group of P&I Clubs said it was uncertain if insurance claims that arose while sanctions are eased would be honoured if they remained unpaid after July 20.…P&I claims can take one or two years to settle, said a Japan P&I Club official. If claims cannot be settled within six months it would be similar to having no insurance, he said. He said owners of Japanese ships importing Iranian crude oil are staying with Tokyo's sovereign insurance scheme put in place in mid-2012 to keep the oil shipments flowing, and none have moved to get cover from the Japan P&I Club.”  (Reuters, “Insurers group sounds alarm over Iran ship insurance,” 1/30/14)

--

“Japan's main private ship insurer, the Japan P&I Club, said it has resumed normal coverage for tankers carrying Iranian oil, a step in easing imports in line with U.S. and EU moves as relations with Tehran thaw. Japan oil buyers were the hardest hit by the shipping insurance limits in Western sanctions because they chose to continue to use Japanese tankers for deliveries…The international P&I club, of which JPI is a member, resumed normal coverage of $7.6 billion per ship, including $1 billion for oil spills, on Monday as European Union reinsurance became available again for the first time since mid-2012, a JPI official said…'The resumption of cover is very much restricted to that which is expressly permitted under the implementing EU and U.S. measures,’ Andrew Bardot, executive officer of the International Group of P&I clubs, said separately. 'It does not fully open up the trade or the insurance of the trade. It is restricted to current importers based on their import quotas and it is for six months only’…Japan's sovereign scheme will stay in place for the time being, but will no longer be liable for insurance payments now that buyers can obtain JPI coverage, a government official said. The government is not ready to scrap the sovereign scheme just yet, as the sanctions relief is regarded as temporary, the official said. Japan's parliament would have to authorise any extension of the scheme past the fiscal year ending March 31.” (Reuters, “Japan resumes private insurance for Iran oil imports,” 1/21/14)

--

“Japanese crude buyers are set to switch back to private insurance providers for transportation of Iranian oil, after relief from some EU sanctions goes into effect next week, industry and government sources said. Under the interim deal reached between Tehran and six world powers in November, the European Union on Jan. 20 will suspend for six months a ban on insuring and transporting Iranian oil…If the revision in EU regulations is implemented, the Japan P&I Club (JPI), the country's main ship insurer against pollution and personal injury claims, would be able to resume the normal coverage of $7.6 billion for a tanker carrying Iranian oil, a JPI official said. The switch in insurance is expected to have no impact on Japan's Iranian oil lifting plans, the JPI official added. It remains unclear how soon the switch can occur, as some details need to be worked out. The government will keep the sovereign scheme in place for now, however, as the revision is regarded as temporary, a government official said.” (Reuters, “Japan oil buyers to move back to private insurance for Iran imports,” 1/16/14)

--

"The Japan Ship Owners’ Mutual P&I Association, the body that covers owners against the risk of oil spills and tanker collisions, is likely to lose access to Europe’s reinsurance market after the sanctions come into force July 1, according to the officials... Japan’s sovereign guarantees will replace the $7.6 billion in cover that the country’s P&I club currently buys from the International Group, according to one of the officials." (Bloomberg Businessweek, "Japan Said to Seek Sovereign Cover for Iran Tankers This Month," 5/17/2012)

--

"The Japan P&I club, the country's main ship insurer against pollution and personal injury claims, has also been forced to reduce its cover for a tanker carrying Iranian oil to $8 million from July 1 from the current $1 billion due to EU sanctions." (Reuters, "Japan to limit Iran oil voyages in Mideast Gulf," 4/12/2012)

"Key ship insurer the China P&I Club will halt indemnity coverage for tankers carrying Iranian oil from July amid tightening Western sanctions against OPEC's second largest producer, two club officials told Reuters on Thursday... The China P&I Club, whose members include major Chinese shipping firms Sinotrans and COSCO Group, is the first Chinese maritime insurer to confirm it will halt business with tankers operating in Iran, following similar action in Japan. 'Many ship owners want to join our club and want our club to cover this risk, but considering all these regulations from the United States and the EU, I know the China P&I club will not do that,' said a Hong Kong-based official with the insurer, which provides coverage to more than 1,000 vessels. 'The China P&I club will not take the risk. We have asked our members not to go there, if they go there, they take their own risk,' the official added... Asian ship owners will be further limited in their search for insurance to replace their European-based coverage as the China P&I Club was seen as one alternative. It was not clear if other Chinese ship insurers were also planning to reduce tanker coverage... China P&I Club is not a member of the Group of International P&I Clubs, an association of customer-owned ship insurers which cover 95 percent of the world's tankers against pollution and personal injury claims... An official with the China P&I club held out hope that the European Union would decide on a last-minute easing of the sanctions. 'As far as I've seen with these new published sanctions, it seems to us that there might be some room for compromise,' said a Beijing-based club official." (Reuters, "Key China insurer to stop covering tankers with Iran oil," 4/5/2012)

Lists an office in Tehran, Iran on its company website. 

--

"Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance, Sompo Japan Insurance and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance are among those that have approached Japanese oil refiners to cut coverage for Iranian oil and petrochemical shipments by more than 50 percent, the Nikkei business daily said on Wednesday." (Reuters, "Japan insurers to cut Iran oil insurance coverage," 4/4/2012)

"Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance, Sompo Japan Insurance and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance are among those that have approached Japanese oil refiners to cut coverage for Iranian oil and petrochemical shipments by more than 50 percent, the Nikkei business daily said on Wednesday." (Reuters, "Japan insurers to cut Iran oil insurance coverage," 4/4/2012)

"Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance, Sompo Japan Insurance and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance are among those that have approached Japanese oil refiners to cut coverage for Iranian oil and petrochemical shipments by more than 50 percent, the Nikkei business daily said on Wednesday." (Reuters, "Japan insurers to cut Iran oil insurance coverage," 4/5/2012)

This is a German-Iranian insurance company. (IGIS Website, "Company Profile")

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication ("SWIFT") is “a member-owned cooperative through which the financial world conducts its business operations.” “More than 9,700 banking organisations, securities institutions and corporate customers in 209 countries” use SWIFT services “to exchange millions of standardised financial messages.” (SWIFT Website. “Company information”)

--

SWIFT provides services to Iranian banks sanctioned by the U.S., EU and UN. SWIFT has issued Business Identifier Codes (BIC) codes to sanctioned Iranian institutions, including major Iranian financial institutions designated by the United States.

--

"While the US is likely to try to slow down Iran's reintegration into Swift, Swift is a European based organization subject to European law, Senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, James M. Dorsey told Trend. The expert was commenting on the recent news on Iranian Tose-e Saderat (Exports Development) Bank's announcement, as it plans to start talks with EU to re-establish its connection with SWIFT, as soon as EU court upholds its initial ruling for the removal of sanctions against the Bank. 'Ultimately, the U.S. will have to comply. Individual banks will however retain the right not to do business with Iran as will their account holders,' Dorsey underscored. Managing-Director of Iran's Tose-e Saderat Bank, Bahman Vakili said on Sept. 16 that his bank will start talks with EU bank officials to reestablish the SWIFT link between the two sides. 'We will negotiate with them on the re-establishment of SWIFT (the financial messaging provider for more than 10,000 banking organizations, securities institutions and corporate customers) connections after the EU court issues its final verdict,' Vakili told reporters in Tehran. He said his Bank is now waiting for the EU court's final verdict after it ruled in favor of Tose-e Saderat Bank in its initial ruling and called on the European countries to provide it with strong evidence to substantiate their claim that the Bank has acted against the international laws and has helped Iran's peaceful nuclear program. He added that since the EU members seem to have no corroborative evidence to substantiate their claims against the Bank, the court's final verdict will certainly be issued in favor of the Tose-e Saderat Bank, similar to what happened to Iran's Bank Mellat earlier this year." (Trend, "U.S. likely to slow down Iran's re-integration into SWIFT," 9/18/13)

--

“The EU has blacklisted 14 of Iran's 30 banks for facilitating illicit activity, including terrorism. The U.S. has designated the 14 banks named by the EU as well as another six Iranian banks for supporting Iran's nuclear program and sponsorship of terrorism. Critically, the U.S. has also blacklisted all 30 Iranian banks for deficiencies present in the anti-money-laundering systems of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Swift, however, has barred only the 14 banks blacklisted by the EU, leaving the other Iranian banks free to work within the global financial system. This is a clear violation of Swift's own corporate rules, which state that services 'should not be used to facilitate illegal activities.' Moreover, given Swift's large physical presence in New York and its business dealings in the U.S., there are strong legal grounds to argue that it is subject to U.S. law, which would mean it is violating that as well. U.S. banking regulators and Treasury officials have an obligation to make Swift stop its dealings with Iranian banks or cease business operations in the United States.” (Wall Street Journal, "Despite Sanctions, Iran's Money Flow Continues," 6/24/13)

--

"Republicans and Democrats are pressuring congressional negotiators to produce legislation imposing the severest penalties on Iran, targeting its energy sector and financial institutions as the United States seeks to weaken Tehran economically and derail its pursuit of nuclear weapons . . . The lawmakers also said any legislation should include sanctions on insurance companies that knowingly provide coverage to an entity that has already been penalized. They also are pressing for sanctions on the directors and shareholders of organizations like SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, unless they stop providing services to the Central Bank of Iran." (Fox News, "Lawmakers press for tough Iran sanctions bill," 7/27/12)

--

The SWIFT 2010 Annual Review reported that Iran’s 19 member banks and 25 connected institutions had sent 1.160 million FIN messages and received 1.105 FIN messages. Compared to 2009, this represented a 0.7% growth in FIN messages sent and received. (“SWIFT Annual Review 2010,” April 2011)

--

"The committee proposed that the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT, shut out Iran's central bank and other financial institutions from the system used to move money between banks around the world. Because of the bill, European regulators ordered SWIFT to disconnect designated Iranian financial companies from its messaging system, the first time the electronic payment system had expelled any banks... It extends sanctions originally aimed at SWIFT to all financial messaging service providers, and bans third-country entities from accessing electronic banking systems on Tehran's behalf, the aide said." (Reuters, "US Senate to consider new Iran sanctions Thursday," 5/17/2012)

--

“An organization that is central to the international banking system said it is working with U.S. and European governments to address their concerns that its financial services are being used by Iran to avoid sanctions and conduct illicit business. Current and former U.S. officials said that if the Belgium-based organization, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift, bans sanctioned Iranian entities from using its network, Tehran could find itself virtually incapable of conducting electronic financial transactions. 'This would be the knockout blow,' said Avi Jorisch, a former U.S. Treasury Department official who has worked on Swift... Swift's board of directors is comprised of executives from some of the world's most important banks. This week, activist group United Against Nuclear Iran wrote to board members arguing that they are acting outside U.S. law by allowing designated Iranian banks to use Swift's services. They argued that Swift's guidelines mandate that its cut ties to Iran.” (The Wall Street Journal. "Banking Hub Adds to Pressure on Iran," 2/4/12)

--

"The Senate Banking Committee unanimously approved a new regimen of anti-Iran sanctions on Thursday that would for the first time threaten to punish the global financial telecommunications network that nearly all banks rely on to conduct their daily business. The legislation's banking provision, aimed at forcing the telecommunications network to expel Iranian banks that have already been blacklisted, would be financially catastrophic for Iran if carried out fully, according to proponents and sanctions experts. Expulsion from the network - the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, known as Swift - would deny to Iran many billions of dollars in revenue from abroad that is routinely routed into its domestic banking system. 'The Senate Banking Committee has sent a strong message,' said Mark D. Wallace, the president of United Against Nuclear Iran, an advocacy group based in New York that has been pushing for such a provision. He has argued that Swift, which based in Belgium, is already in violation of other sanctions against Iran as well as its own rules. "Swift must end its business in Iran," he said. The legislation does not specify what action would be taken against Swift if it did not comply. There was no immediate comment by Swift on the legislation. But officials of the network, mindful of pressure from Mr. Wallace's group and others that have increasingly advocated stricter sanctions against Iran, denied it was acting illegally, in a statement posted earlier Thursday on the network's Web site." (The New York Times. "Senate Panel Approves Potentially Toughest Penalty Yet Against Iran’s Wallet," 2/3/12)

--

"In a sign that the sanctions could tighten further, United Against Nuclear Iran, a New York-based advocacy group that has successfully promoted other economic penalties against Iran, said it had started a campaign to publicize Iran’s dependence on the global financial telecommunication network that nearly every financial institution uses to conduct business. On Monday the group sent a letter to the network, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, known as Swift, warning it to end all relations with Iran’s central bank and 'deny access to all Iranian banks.' The letter asserted that Iran’s membership in the network already violated American and European financial sanctions as well as Swift’s own rules. There was no immediate comment to the letter from either Iran or Swift, which is headquartered in Belgium. Mark D. Wallace, president of United Against Nuclear Iran, said in a telephone interview that the group might seek Congressional hearings on Iran’s Swift membership, which he described as crucial to the country’s economic survival. 'This campaign has the potential to force action,' Mr. Wallace said. 'In some ways it’s a silver bullet. If the Iranians don’t have access to Swift, they can’t get access to revenue.'" (The New York Times. "Iran Praises Nuclear Talks With Team From U.N.," 2/1/12)

In November 2017, Iran discussed bilateral cooperation in the field of air industries with Antonov company CEO. Iran and Antonov company have been cooperating in the production and operation of aircrafts for two decades.

--

"The Persian Gulf country will buy two Ukrainian-made Antonov-158s, after a test flight of the aircraft earlier this month, Mohammad-Ali Sirati, managing director of the Iranian aircraft company, was cited as saying by the official Islamic Republic News Agency. The countries then will start to jointly build the aircraft next year, Sirati, whose company will be in charge of the project, said in Tehran yesterday. Some 30 percent of each plane will be made in Iran, state-run media reported." (Business Week, "Iran Says Antonov-158 Built With Ukraine May Fly in 2013," 10/6/2011)

--

Antonov lists on its website that their AN-24 turboprop aircraft is serially produced at HESA plant in Isfahan, Iran. (Antonov website)

"Americans taken hostage in the 1979 siege of the U.S. embassy in Iran sued JPMorgan Chase & Co. over David Rockefeller’s role in persuading the U.S. to allow the deposed Iranian leader into the country." (Bloomberg, "Iran Embassy Hostages Sue JPMorgan Over Rockefeller Role," 3/19/2020). 

--

"Despite the changes to the US, EU and UN sanctions on Iran under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) in January 2016, JPMC is still not permitted either by law or JPMC policy to engage in any activities with or involving Iran, the Iranian government or any Iranian financial institutions. JPMC may consider, on a case-by-case basis, certain activities and transactions that are exempt or licensed by OFAC." (Compliance with Iran Sanctions)

--

During the first quarter of 2017, a foreign-incorporated subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. processed a payment in the amount of EUR 1,466 for its client, a non-U.S. international organization, where the payment originated from entities owned or controlled by the Government of Iran. The payment, which was received into the client’s account, was for the purchase of informational materials and was therefore an exempt transaction pursuant to 31 C.F.R. 560.210(c). JPMorgan Chase & Co. charged a fee of EUR 2.50 for this transaction. JPMorgan Chase & Co. may in the future engage in similar transactions for its clients to the extent permitted by U.S. law.

--

According to its Annual Report filed for fiscal year 2015: "During 2015, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. processed one payment from Iran Airtours on behalf of a U.S. client into such client’s account at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Iran Airtours is a subsidiary of Iran Air, which, at the time of the payment, was designated pursuant to Executive Order 13382. This transaction was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a license from the Treasury Department’s OFAC. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. charged a fee of U.S. dollar $4.25 for this transaction. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. may in the future engage in similar transactions for its clients to the extent permitted by U.S. law."

--

According to its Annual Report filed for fiscal year 2014: "In addition, during 2014, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. processed one payment from Iran Air on behalf of a U.S. client into such client’s account at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Iran Air is designated pursuant to Executive Order 13382. This transaction was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a license from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. charged a fee of US$ 3.50 for this transaction. Iran Air overpaid such U.S. client when it made the initial payment to the client. Therefore, upon its U.S. client’s request, the Firm transferred the overpayment back to Iran Air in the fourth quarter of 2014 and charged a fee of US$ 5.50 for the transfer. As with the initial transaction, the transfer of the overpayment to Iran Air was authorized by and conducted pursuant to an OFAC license. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has no current intention to continue such activities but may in the future engage in similar transactions for its clients to the extent permitted by U.S. law."

--

"U.S. regulators are expected to order JPMorgan Chase & Co to correct lapses in how it polices suspect money  flows, two people familiar with the situation said, in the latest move by officials to force banks to tighten their anti money-laundering systems. The action against JPMorgan, which is expected as soon as Friday, would be in the form of a cease-and-desist order, which regulators use to force banks to improve compliance weaknesses, the sources said. JPMorgan will probably not have to pay a monetary penalty, one of the sources said... A JPMorgan spokeswoman declined to comment... The inquiry on JPMorgan, the biggest U.S. bank, dates back several months, the sources said. The first public signs that JPMorgan had issues with its transaction monitoring systems emerged in August 2011. At that time JPMorgan agreed to pay $88.3 million to settle Treasury Department allegations that it engaged in prohibited transactions linked to Cuba and Iran. A source familiar with the expected order said JPMorgan did not adequately fix dozens of anti-money laundering issues cited previously by regulators, forcing them to take formal action. Under the order, JPMorgan is expected to be required to bolster systems it uses to monitor risk and transactions, the sources said." (Reuters, "Exclusive: JPMorgan faces action on laundering controls," 1/11/13)

--

"This license was so heavily redacted by OFAC at the request of JPMorgan Chase that it is impossible to say exactly what was authorized other than the fact that it involved a letter of credit that somehow ran afoul of the sanctions against Iran." (New York Times, "Licenses Granted to U.S. Companies Run the Gamut," 12/24/10)