F

Calculator Type

Reset

Results

Edit transaction details...
PENALTY STATUTE
Voluntary Self-Disclosure
 Egregious
No Yes
Yes $0
$0
No $0
$0
$0
Use OverRuled Predictor to Estimate Actual Penalties

OverRuled Predictor is a state-of-the-art module that uses machine learning to predict outcomes of sanctions enforcement cases with nearly 90% accuracy based on prior case trials!

OverRuled Predictor will walk you through five sets of questions to gather information about the person or entity that is the subject of the potential enforcement action (“Subject”) and your particular scenario. Predictor also refers to the “Apparent Violations,” which is the term used in the OFAC Enforcement Guidelines to refer to the underlying transactions and conduct that form the basis for the violations.

Based on your answers to these questions, OverRuled Predictor uses machine learning algorithms to classify whether an violation will be deemed “egregious” or “non-egregious” and also predicts a monetary penalty range. For more information regarding the accuracy of OverRuled’s predictions, click here.

Start Now

Use OverRuled Predictor if you have a set of facts that constitute one or more apparent violation(s) of OFAC sanctions laws, and you want to predict whether would deem your facts egregious and/or the potential monetary penalty that would result. Many of the terms used herein are taken from the Enforcement Guidelines and are undefined. We suggest taking your best guess regarding how would determine each factor based on the facts. We invite you to return to this page to toggle factors or, if you are unsure, please contact help@overruled.com and the OverRuled team can refer to you a member of the Akin sanctions team to assist.

OverRuled Predictor currently only predicts penalty ranges and determines egregiousness based on violations of the following statutes: IEEPA, TWEA, and FNKDA.

Please tell OverRuled Predictor about the Subject
Is the Subject commercially sophisticated and/or experienced?
Are the Subject’s size of operations relatively small?
Is the Subject’s overall financial condition such that the Subject has faced significant financial difficulties warranting additional penalty mitigation?
Does the Subject have any prior enforcement history from the last five years predating the Apparent Violations?
For example, this includes 's issuance of prior penalties, findings of violations, or cautionary, warning or evaluative letters.
Does the Subject have a compliance program that generally includes internal controls, policies, and procedures, in order to identify, interdict, escalate, report (as appropriate), and keep records pertaining to activity that is prohibited by the sanctions programs administered by ?
Is the Subject a U.S. person?
For Iran or Cuba sanctions issues, non-U.S. subsidiaries of U.S. companies may consider responding "Yes" to this question. For other sanctions programs, non-U.S. subsidiaries may consider responding "No."
Next, describe the conduct that led to the Apparent Violations
Do the Apparent Violations constitute violations of multiple OFAC sanctions programs?
Do the Apparent Violations constitute a small proportion of the Subject’s total volume of transactions undertaken annually?
Were the Apparent Violations in support of humanitarian activities?
Has the Subject adopted new and more effective internal controls and procedures that suggest the Apparent Violations have a low likelihood of recurrence?
Did the Apparent Violations constitute or result from a pattern or practice of conduct (as opposed to one or more isolated occurrence(s))?
Did the Apparent Violations result in other illegal conduct, such as through other/parallel enforcement actions taken by federal, state or local agencies for the Apparent Violations or similar conduct?
Was there management involvement in the conduct leading up to the Apparent Violations?
Was there concealment in the Apparent Violations (e.g., an effort to hide or purposely obfuscate the conduct in order to mislead regulators)?
Did the Apparent Violations result from conduct for which license eligibility was likely? In other words, had the Subject applied for an OFAC license before the conduct, was OFAC likely to issue a license authorizing the conduct under existing licensing policy?
Did the Apparent Violations take place immediately after recent changes in the sanctions program regulations or the addition of a new name to OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List)?
Considering the totality of the circumstances leading to the Apparent Violations, are there other factors that suggest OFAC would, on a case-by-case basis, deem it appropriate to mitigate the potential penalty?
In any enforcement action, OFAC scrutinizes the level of knowledge that the Subject had regarding the Apparent Violations. Please answer the following questions to help assess this
Did the Subject (select all that apply):
Have actual knowledge of the conduct giving rise to the Apparent Violation(s)?
For example, respond “Yes” if the conduct was part of a business process designed or implemented with the intent to prevent a person from having actual knowledge.
Have a reason to know about the conduct leading to the Apparent Violations based on all readily available information and with the exercise of reasonable due diligence?
Engage in conduct at issue that was willful? In other words, did the conduct result from a decision to take action with the knowledge that such action would constitute a violation of U.S. law?
Engage in conduct at issue that was reckless? In other words, did the conduct demonstrate reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements or otherwise fail to exercise a minimal degree of caution or care in avoiding the conduct.
Was senior management aware of the conduct leading to the Apparent Violations, whether explicitly or implicitly?
Did the Subject have prior notice that the conduct at issue or similar conduct constituted a violation of U.S. law?
We’re almost done! OFAC will also look at the effects of the Apparent Violations and the effects associated with how OFAC responds
Did the Subject confer or attempt to confer an economic or other benefit to any sanctioned individual, entity, or country as a result of the Apparent Violation(s)?
Consider the number, size, and impact of the transactions constituting the Apparent Violation(s), the length of time over which they occurred, and the nature of the economic or other benefit conferred.
Did the Apparent Violations or related conduct result in harm to U.S. national security or foreign policy objectives?
Would OFAC’s pursuit of an enforcement action against the Subject have a future compliance/deterrent effect, such as by promoting future compliance with U.S. economic sanctions by the Subject and similar persons, particularly those in the same industry sector?
Finally, OFAC will scrutinize the Subject’s response. Tell us about your response to the conduct leading to the Apparent Violations
Did the Subject enhance its compliance program upon learning about the Apparent Violations?
Did the Subject take other remedial response steps upon learning of the apparent violation, such as immediately stopping the offending conduct, following processes to resolve issues related to the Apparent Violations, and conduct a thorough review to identify other possible violations?
Will the Subject show cooperation with OFAC’s investigation, such as through the provision of relevant information regarding to the conduct, and cooperation and prompt response to any OFAC requests for information?
Did the Subject enter into a statute of limitations tolling agreement requested by OFAC?

OverRuled Predictor Projects:

would deem your case to be ;

If the Subject does file a voluntary self-disclosure and decides to pursue a civil monetary penalty, estimated penalties would range from

If the Subject does not file a voluntary self-disclosure and decides to pursue a civil monetary penalty, estimated penalties would range from

The above predictions depend on the accuracy of the answers that you provided to the five sets of questions presented in the questionnaire on the previous pages. The OverRuled Predictor algorithm assumes that the answers provided are accurate, and moreover that would concur with these answers, when calculating its predictions. Even under these assumptions, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. For more information regarding OverRuled Predictor’s accuracy, click here.

This tool is an estimator and is provided for informational purposes only. This information is not promised or guaranteed to be correct, complete or up-to-date. The information on this website is provided ‘as is’ without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The data and information upon which this site relies is maintained by outside parties, and is not independently verified. Links to third party sites or information are not intended as, and should not be interpreted by you as constituting or implying our endorsement of the third party site or the information found there. We do not maintain or control third party sites and accordingly make no guarantee concerning the accuracy, reliability or currency of the information found there. The site does not provide legal advice and information on this site, including any estimates or predictions, should not be construed as legal advice. Your use or interpretation of any information contained on this website is solely at your own risk.

Any assessment or analysis by the service is based on the public information used by the service and the information entered by you and does not consider any other facts or information that may be relevant to your specific circumstances. It does not constitute a recommendation or a guarantee. The materials on the service may not reflect all current updates to the law or applicable interpretive guidance and Akin Gump Solutions LLC (“AGS”) disclaims any obligation to continuously update the service in real time. AGS strongly urges you to contact a reputable attorney in your jurisdiction for any questions or concerns that you may have about your situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Changes in policy positions and priorities, legal authority, and other factors may affect how OFAC adjudicates matters in the future. Prior practice does not always predict future results.

Under the rules of certain jurisdictions, this service or certain portions of the information herein may be considered attorney advertising.

You should not and are not authorized to rely on the service as a source of legal, regulatory or tax advice. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the service without seeking the appropriate legal or professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.

The OverRuled Predictor algorithm has been developed and tested with data from publicly available enforcement releases. Based on multiple rounds of testing, the OverRuled team calculated the following accuracy rates:
Egregiousness Classification
The model’s average accuracy for determining whether a violation would be deemed egregious or non-egregious is 90 percent, with a 4 percent margin of error (+/-).
Range of Monetary Penalties
The final penalty amount fell within the range provided by the algorithm 88 percent of the time, with a 5.2 percent margin of error (+/-).
The OverRuled algorithms have been trained with select publicly available enforcement releases through December 31, 2023. The OverRuled team updates the release data and retrains the algorithm at its discretion. Changes in policy positions and priorities, legal authority, and other factors may affect how adjudicates matters in the future. Prior practice does not always predict future results.