Diaz Reus International Law Firm

"There is no hierarchy of service," the Third District Court of Appeal ruled. "Service via email is one way among several in which a Florida plaintiff can serve an international defendant." January 23, 2026 at 02:26 PM By Annie Mayne Third District Court of Appeal in Miami, FL. Photo: Candace West Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal ruled this week that foreign defendants can be served via email without having to prove due diligence or meet Hague Convention requirements—a decision the plaintiff’s attorney said would expedite litigation with international parties and defendant's counsel claimed created a "problematic" disadvantage for defendants living abroad. The panel decision is the appellate court's interpretation of a 2024 Florida statute guiding email service in litigation. In the underlying case, plaintiff Diaz Reus & Targ alleged Wepard Corp. Ltd. LLC and Forsun Boats Ltd. failed to pay legal fees and breached a contract. The Malta-based defendants were all served via email, which they argued violated the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, and that the plaintiff had failed to meet due diligence typically required for electronic service. But Third DCA's ruling found that Florida law requires due diligence only of domestic defendants, not of those living abroad. "[T]he foreign service statute does not require a showing of due diligence prior to the granting of email service," the Wednesday opinion reads. "There is no hierarchy of service. Service via email is one way among several in which a Florida plaintiff can serve an international defendant." Moving forward, plaintiffs will only have to seek leave of court, show service has been calculated to reasonably provide notice and prove that the means of service is not prohibited by an international agreement to serve defendants via email. Prince-Alex Iwu, senior counsel at Diaz Reus representing the m, told the Daily Business Review that the "landmark decision" provides clarity and will cut time spent serving international parties, which can often span months or years. "The problem with the process of service under the Hague Convention is that it was tedious. It usually took anywhere between six months and two years. Parties often found themselves stopped in the middle of service that was very ine]cient," he said. "This decision clari\es that you can attempt service by email in the st instance in Florida without attempting service under the Hague Convention." Carlos E. Alvarez, counsel at The Legal Team for the appellants, said his client had been hopeful that the court would set the same standard of diligence granted to domestic defendants. "We were hoping that the Third DCA would see, for foreigners, there would be some type of diligence required or some type of showing before you can just switch off to email service on top of an international treaty," Alvarez said in a phone interview. "There is a diligence requirement for residents, but for nonresidents, there isn't. I d that to be somewhat problematic." Alvarez, whose client is considering an appeal, noted that he appreciated the detailed reasoning provided in the opinion, and added that he himself has struggled through the "very meticulous and, in sense, antiquated processes" to serve defendants overseas. "In this new digital age, it helps, in some ways," he said.  

U.S. Africa critical minerals strategy seeks to build supply chains beyond Beijing’s control by Thembelani Moyo January 26, 2026 THE UNITED States is ramping up investment in African mining after concluding that its dependence on China for critical minerals has become a national security risk. The shift has placed U.S. Africa critical minerals strategy at the centre of Washington’s foreign and industrial policy. What was once an industrial concern is now treated like oil in the 1970s. Control of supply is power. Loss of access is vulnerability. “The United States is increasing its focus on African mining because it has identified critical mineral supply chains as a national security vulnerability,” Prince-Alex Iwu, senior counsel at international law firm Diaz Reus, told ZiMining. For decades, China built dominance not in mines, but in what comes after them. It controls the refining and processing stages that turn raw ore into usable material. China holds about 85% of global rare earth processing capacity and dominates battery-grade refining for cobalt, lithium and graphite. That grip gives Beijing leverage even when minerals are mined elsewhere. The scale of that power became visible after China imposed export restrictions on gallium, germanium, antimony and rare earths following U.S. curbs on semiconductor technology. Those moves sent a clear signal that supply chains could be switched off. “Recent Chinese export curbs have vividly illustrated how dependence on a single dominant supplier can be leveraged geopolitically,” the Miami-based trade lawyer said. Critical minerals underpin modern industry. They feed electric vehicles, renewable energy storage, advanced semiconductors and defence systems. Without them, factories cease and technologies fail. The U.S. is fully import-reliant for many of these materials and that threatens production, raises costs and weakens technological and military capacity. Washington’s response now runs through a collection of government agencies and partnerships. The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), the government’s development bank, has signed major infrastructure commitments in Africa’s transport corridors that will benefit mining exports. This includes its $553 million financing agreement to upgrade Angola’s Benguela rail line, known as the Lobito Atlantic Railway. Once complete, it will expand capacity and cut mineral transport costs to ports tenfold, improving logistics for copper and cobalt exports. The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) ties its financing to long-term contracts that secure supply chains for American buyers, ensuring that critical minerals financed abroad benefit U.S. manufacturing and defence needs. Alongside these institutions, the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP), a coalition of countries aimed at diversifying supply chains, promotes high environmental, social and governance standards with African partners and encourages transparent mining accords. The aim is to build alternative processing capacity, upgrade transport links and secure materials outside Chinese control. “The U.S. is attempting to break the single-point-of-failure model in global mineral supply chains,” Iwu said. Projects stretch from graphite in Mozambique to rare earth processing in Angola. The Lobito Corridor is being rebuilt to link the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia and Angola, easing exports of copper, cobalt and other minerals. The strategy is not only about extraction, but it also targets refining plants, energy systems and logistics; it seeks to move African producers up the value chain. U.S. backed projects emphasise transparency, environmental standards and local participation. They are framed as partnerships rather than loans tied to opaque terms. For African producers, the shift carries promise. Greater local processing could keep more value onshore. It could create skilled jobs and support industrial growth beyond raw exports. “African nations stand to gain significantly through increased local value addition via midstream processing,” the mining and trade specialist said. Infrastructure matters too. Corridors like Lobito can reshape regional trade, cut transport costs and reduce dependence on single export routes. They can bind landlocked states into wider markets. The change is political as well as economic. Africa now sits inside a strategic contest between major powers. Minerals are no longer just exports but instruments of statecraft. However, the risks loom large. African governments must guard against unsustainable debt, environmental harm and elite capture. They must avoid repeating extractive models that deliver revenue without development. “They must also guard against repeating extractive models that deliver revenue without development.” China will not disappear. Its scale and technical depth in processing remain unmatched. Eroding that position will require years of policy commitment, private capital and African leverage. “It will, at a minimum, likely be a multi-decade process rather than a rapid shift,” he added. What has changed is leverage. For the first time in years, African states face competing courtship for their minerals. They can negotiate terms. They can demand processing, skills and infrastructure. Whether that leverage becomes industry, jobs and influence depends less on Washington or Beijing than on decisions taken in African capitals.  

Sipa US / Alamy Alejandro Andrade fue Tesorero Nacional de Venezuela entre 2007 y 2010. Alejandro Andrade vivía en una mansión valorada en más de US$8 millones, coleccionaba caballos de competencia, relojes de marca y autos de lujo.  En noviembre de 2018, Andrade fue condenado en Estados Unidos a 10 años de prisión por lavado de dinero y se convirtió en la figura más emblemática de las numerosas denuncias de malos manejos de fondos públicos que durante años han surgido en la Venezuela chavista. Este teniente retirado fue guardaespaldas y secretario privado del fallecido mandatario Hugo Chávez, quien lo nombró como Tesorero Nacional de Venezuela entre 2007 y 2010. En ese lapso, Andrade se enriqueció dando acceso a ciertos empresarios privilegiados a miles de millones de dólares que él manejaba gracias al sistema de control de cambios instaurado en ese país. Durante el juicio reconoció haber cobrado sobornos por US$1.000 millones y se comprometió a entregar a las autoridades estadounidenses un monto equivalente. Así fue como le fueron decomisadas cinco propiedades, diez vehículos de lujo, 17 caballos de competencia, 35 relojes de marca, así como el dinero depositado en nueve cuentas bancarias en EE.UU. y Suiza. Nunca antes se había recuperado en un juicio criminal en Florida tanto dinero procedente de la corrupción en un país extranjero. "Es el caso más grande en la historia de Florida bajo la Ley de Prácticas Corruptas en el Extranjero", dice a BBC Mundo el abogado Michael Díaz, director principal del bufete Diaz Reus & Targ, quien representó a dos personas implicadas en el juicio de Andrade. Pero este no es el único proceso de corrupción en Venezuela que se investiga en Estados Unidos, donde hasta febrero de 2021 había 38 casos que involucraban a 164 personas y numerosas empresas, de acuerdo con la ONG Transparencia Venezuela, una filial de Transparencia Internacional. El pasado 21 de abril, un tribunal de Florida condenó a Edoardo Orsoni, un exrepresentante legal de la estatal PDVSA, por haber aceptado sobornos de empresarios a cambio de la concesión de contratos con la petrolera venezolana. Orsoni se comprometió a devolver US$4,5 millones, incluyendo la entrega de dos propiedades en un condominio de lujo en el cotizado barrio de Brickell, en Miami. Entre los montos recuperados en los juicios de Andrade y Orsoni hay una diferencia enorme, pero en ambos casos se trata de cantidades importantes para una Venezuela que está inmersa en una profunda crisis económica. De cualquier modo, no será fácil que esos fondos regresen a su país de origen. Pero, ¿de cuánto dinero estamos hablando? El destino desconocido de US$300.000 millones Venezuela vivió una bonanza petrolera durante la primera década de este siglo que, con algún altibajo, se extendió hasta 2014. Se estima que en ese periodo obtuvo ingresos por US$1 billón, es decir, un millón de millones de dólares. De esos fondos, de acuerdo con denuncias hechas en 2016 por Jorge Giordani, quien fue miembro del gabinete de manera casi ininterrumpida durante 14 años (primero con Chávez y luego con Nicolás Maduro), se habían perdido unos US$300.000 millones, cuyo uso no aparecía bien respaldado en las cuentas públicas. Transparencia Venezuela ha ubicado alrededor del mundo 236 casos relacionados con corrupción en Venezuela, de los cuales sólo se conoce la cantidad de dineros públicos comprometida en 114 casos: US$52.000 millones. Pero ¿cuánto de este dinero se ha recuperado en Estados Unidos? No hay una respuesta exacta hasta ahora. "El Departamento de Justicia sabe cuánto ha decomisado en cada caso. El gobierno tiene esas cifras, pero no están disponibles para el público de una forma sistemática y organizada, por lo que para saber esta información hay que ir juntando datos sueltos en notas de prensa y resoluciones judiciales", dice a BBC Mundo Nate Sibley, investigador de la Iniciativa contra la Cleptocracia del Instituto Hudson. El Departamento de Justicia de EE.UU. declinó participar en este reportaje, mientras que el Departamento del Tesoro no respondió a las consultas de BBC Mundo sobre este tema. Cifras manejadas por la Iniciativa para la Recuperación de Activos de Venezuela (Inrav), una ONG formada por ciudadanos venezolano-estadounidenses, valoranen unos US$1.500 millones el monto de los bienes decomisados hasta ahora en el contexto de estos juicios por corrupción en Estados Unidos. Aunque no hay una cifra oficial acerca de cuánto de ese dinero se encuentra disponible de forma inmediata, varias fuentes conocedoras del tema coincidieron al decir a BBC Mundo que hay unos US$500 millones. El resto corresponde a bienes decomisados que no han sido vendidos aún o están relacionados con procesos judiciales aún inconclusos. Para poner estas cifras en contexto, cabe destacar que el monto total decomisado equivale a casi una cuarta parte de las reservas internacionales del Banco Central de Venezuela (unos US$6.269 millones), mientras que el dinero que toda la comunidad internacional ha dedicado durante los últimos cuatro años a atender la crisis migratoria de Venezuela suma unos US$580 millones. Aunque el de Andrade es el mayor caso resuelto de recuperación de bienes robados por la corrupción en Venezuela, no es el proceso más grande que se conozca. En Andorra están siendo juzgados varios exfuncionarios de PDVSA acusados de cobrar US$2.300 millones en sobornos. La gran diferencia es que en Estados Unidos ya hay varios juicios concluidos y que muchas de las personas que han sido investigadas en ese país han colaborado activamente con la justicia, optando por declararse culpables y por facilitar las investigaciones. En la práctica, eso ha derivado en una mayor recuperación de bienes y, también, en unas condenas atenuadas o, incluso, inexistentes. El abogado Michael Díaz afirma que las dos personas a las que representó en el caso Andrade (un familiar y un exsocio del extesorero chavista) nunca fueron imputadas ni sufrieron alguna sanción como la revocatoria de la visa estadounidense. Eso sí, colaboraron con las investigaciones y entregaron bienes equivalentes a unos US$300 millones. En el caso de Orsoni, otro cliente de Díaz, pese a su admisión de culpa le sentenciaron a cumplir solamente tres años en libertad condicional. Esta pena atenuada fue solicitada por la propia Fiscalía, que señaló en un documento que el acusado había provisto una "asistencia sustancial que favoreció la investigación del gobierno y el enjuiciamiento de otras personas que han cometido delitos contra Estados Unidos". ¿De quién es el dinero?  Pero ¿qué pasa con esos recursos una vez que son decomisados al terminar los juicios? "Legalmente la propiedad de los bienes decomisados se transfiere a Estados Unidos", responde Nate Sibley, del Instituto Hudson, un centro de estudios con sede en Washington. Una vez concluidos estos procesos penales este dinero es depositado en un fondo del gobierno estadounidense en el que se acumulan los recursos procedentes de todos estos juicios por corrupción en distintos países del mundo. Esos recursos pueden ser usados para cubrir los gastos asociados con la investigación y con el decomiso y gestión de los bienes recuperados, así como para retribuir a las agencias del gobierno que participaron en el caso y para responder a las reclamaciones de los acreedores o de las víctimas. "No suele ser un proceso particularmente transparente, es algo que ocurre tras bastidores entre las agencias gubernamentales", apunta Sibley. Díaz explica que el Departamento de Justicia decide cuáles de sus agencias compartirán esos fondos. Señala que en el caso de Andrade la instrucción que recibieron sus clientes por parte del Departamento de Justicia fue entregar la mitad de los recursos al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional y la otra parte, al Cuerpo de Alguaciles de Estados Unidos. "Todo eso se hizo con la aprobación del Departamento del Tesoro e incluso del Ejecutivo, del presidente de Estados Unidos", asegura. Sibley afirma que aunque no haya mucha transparencia y pese a que efectivamente en el corto plazo el gobierno estadounidense puede usar esos recursos para financiar otras operaciones anticorrupción, el objetivo final es devolverlos a sus países de origen. "Ellos no toman simplemente el dinero y se olvidan. Saben que ese dinero fue robado", afirma. Pero, entonces, ¿es posible que Venezuela recupere ese dinero? Es complicado… Fondos a Venezuela "El retorno de activos recuperados de la corrupción se hace constantemente cuando es de Estado a Estado", dice a BBC Mundo María Alejandra Márquez, presidenta de la Inrav(Iniciativa para la Recuperación de Activos de Venezuela). Advierte, sin embargo, que en el caso de Venezuela la situación es más difícil que en otros lugares. Explica que una forma en la que los países recuperan ese dinero es peleando caso por caso en los tribunales, donde deben argumentar que el dinero debe regresar al país que fue victimizado, pero que esto suele ser un proceso lento y complicado. "Es una tarea titánica. La verdad es que Venezuela no tiene ni la situación ni la capacidad institucional para llevar eso a cabo en este momento", señala. Los países de donde fueron sustraídos los fondos también pueden acceder a esos recursos cuando sus autoridades judiciales cooperan activamente en la investigación, por lo que al concluir el proceso pueden compartir los recursos recuperados con el país de destino. Una última fórmula se basa en acuerdos entre Estados. Márquez señala que en las circunstancias actuales no luce viable la aplicación de estos mecanismos en el caso de Venezuela, pues el gobierno de Nicolás Maduro no es reconocido por más de 50 países (incluyendo Estados Unidos) y "no cuenta con tres poderes separados y funcionales". "El drama de Venezuela es que es un Estado que es a la vez víctima y victimario, porque sus instituciones son las que causan el daño que termina afectando a la gente y al propio país", explica. Nate Sibley coincide. "No hay posibilidad de que ese dinero sea entregado a Maduro. Obviamente, Estados Unidos no va a devolver el dinero a países en los que va a volver a ser robado y ese es el caso de Venezuela en este momento", opina. El gobierno de Maduro, por su parte, afirma que Washington quiere asfixiarle económicamente para forzar un cambio de gobierno en Venezuela. El mandatario y otros portavoces de su gabinete han acusado a Estados Unidos de "apropiarse ilegalmente" de los recursos congelados en ese país, incluyendo cuentas bancarias y la refinería Citgo. En cuanto a la posibilidad de que el dinero recuperado en los juicios por corrupción sea entregado al gobierno interino encabezado por el opositor Juan Guaidó, reconocido por Washington, Sibley también encuentra limitaciones. "El principio que guía la política de EE.UU. es que se debe devolver el dinero de una manera que beneficie al pueblo venezolano. En este momento, Guaidó es considerado como presidente legítimo en Washington pero él no controla las palancas del poder que le permitirían distribuir ese dinero directamente en Venezuela de una forma que pueda favorecer a la gente como, por ejemplo, con la distribución de ayuda humanitaria", asegura. Lo intentos de Guaidó Pese a ello, el gobierno de Guaidó ha intentado por varias vías acceder a esos fondos. Carlos Vecchio, a quien Washington considera como embajador en Estados Unidos del gobierno interino, dice a BBC Mundo que desde 2019 han intentado recuperar el uso de esos recursos en favor de Venezuela. "Cuando me tocó asumir esta responsabilidad, lo primero que hicimos fue activar todas estas líneas con el gobierno de EE.UU. Hablamos con ellos sobre la necesidad de crear un fondo que se alimente de los bienes que ellos han recuperado de la corrupción", afirma Vecchio. Según la prensa estadounidense, las negociaciones con el gobierno del entonces presidente Donald Trump para compartir ese dinero no dieron resultado, lo que obligó a los representantes del gobierno de Guaidó a acudir a los tribunales, donde no corrieron con mejor suerte. En un juicio realizado en 2020, un tribunal de Florida rechazó los intentos de los abogados contratados por el gobierno interino para obtener una restitución de fondos por un caso de corrupción en PDVSA. De acuerdo con la Fiscalía, la petrolera venezolana no solamente no puede ser considerada como víctima -por ser una institución completamente controlada por un estado soberano-, sino que además fue "cómplice" en los esquemas de soborno y de lavado de dinero que estaban siendo juzgados. Michael Nadler, quien fue fiscal asistente en el distrito sur de Florida y participó en varios de estos procesos, incluyendo el de Andrade, explicó a BBC Mundo que Venezuela también tenía dificultades para demostrar que había sufrido pérdidas pues en muchos casos los contratos por los que se habían pagado sobornos habían sido cumplidos cabalmente. Vecchio afirma que en 2019 le plantearon al Departamento de Justicia la necesidad de cambiar la definición de víctima que estaban aplicando, argumentando que el pueblo venezolano necesitaba ser resarcido. Al mismo tiempo, intentaron convencer al gobierno de Trump de crear un fondo para repartir los recursos recuperados en estos juicios por corrupción. Ambos esfuerzos resultaron infructuosos. La ventana de la Ley Verdad Pero mientras las negociaciones con el Ejecutivo no terminaban de avanzar, en el Congreso se trabajaba en la "Venezuela Emergency Relief, Democracy Assistance, and Development Act of 2019", mejor conocida como Ley Verdad, una norma aprobada en diciembre de 2019 con apoyo bipartidista que contempla la posibilidad de crear un fondo para recoger los recursos recuperados de la corrupción para devolverlos a un futuro nuevo gobierno en Venezuela.   Pero esa norma dejaba la creación del fondo en manos de la Casa Blanca, que no lo concretó. Entonces, según afirma Vecchio, estuvo trabajando con varios senadores de ambos partidos, incluyendo a Bob Menéndez, Marco Rubio, Tim Kaine y Ted Cruz, para crear por ley este fondo con recursos recuperados de la corrupción en Venezuela. "Creo que hay una oportunidad de que estos recursos puedan utilizarse, siendo manejados por el gobierno de EE.UU. bajo una mínima coordinación con nosotros (el gobierno de Guaidó). Estaría controlado y supervisado por ellos y se podría usar para la ayuda humanitaria, para la compra de vacunas", señala Vecchio. Esta iniciativa avanzó el 29 de abril, cuando los senadores Marco Rubio y Ted Cruz introdujeron en el Congreso un proyecto de la Ley de Preservación de la Responsabilidad por los Activos Nacionales (PANA, por sus siglas en inglés) que contempla la creación del fondo con el dinero recuperado en los juicios de corrupción vinculados con Venezuela. Según la propuesta legislativa, esos recursos serían manejados por el Departamento de Estado para "el desarrollo de la democracia y de la sociedad civil" en Venezuela. María Alejandra Márquez, de Inrav, señala que disponer del fondo permitiría proteger esos recursos recuperados y agilizar el proceso de devolución pues cada vez que concluyera un juicio, el juez podría ordenar enviar directamente ese dinero al fondo. Considera que las normas sobre el uso del fondo deberían contemplar cómo, cuándo y a quién se le va a entregar ese dinero. "La situación de Venezuela es tan irregular que si no se toman decisiones creativas para proteger este dinero, es indudable que no va a volver a Venezuela. Se va a perder en el tiempo en la burocracia estadounidense a la espera de que Venezuela algún día arregle su situación y venga a reclamarlo", concluye.  

Michael Diaz, Jr. has been appointed to serve as a member of the Board of the International Trade Consortium (ITC) of the  Miami-Dade Beacon Council. His appointment will strengthen the ITC’s mission and align with the County’s international and industrial trade priorities. Key qualifications include: • International Litigation & Trade Expertise: Recognized by Legal500, Chambers, Best Lawyers, Latinvex, and Global Investigations Review among the leading lawyers in international arbitration, white-collar defense, and compliance. His work spans complex arbitration, financial fraud, FCPA and OFAC compliance, international asset recovery, and anti-money laundering. • Business & Legal Leadership: Global Managing Partner of a leading Miami-based international law firm, advising clients on corporate strategy, cross-border finance, and regulatory investigations, with a record of multimillion-dollar recoveries for U.S. receivers, financial institutions, and fraud victims. Mr. Diaz’s distinguished career and international recognition will bring valued expertise to the ITC, furthering Miami-Dade’s role as a global hub for trade, investment, and commerce. As the official economic development organization for Miami-Dade County, The Miami-Dade Beacon Council supports businesses looking to relocate or expand to Greater Miami with comprehensive support and guidance. It is the County’s official economic development partnership, focused on driving a more sustainable, inclusive, and competitive economy for Greater Miami. Since 1985, The Beacon Council has attracted more than 160,000 new jobs and $8.4 billion in investments to the region.  

By Carolina Bolado Law360 (January 21, 2026, 9:19 PM EST) -- A Florida federal judge on Wednesday declined to sanction a director of a Venezuelan state-owned oil company, finding no conflict of interest by his attorneys at Diaz Reus LLP in a now-dismissed suit accusing the director and others of engaging in a campaign to smear Venezuelan civic leaders. U.S. Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein denied a request by the plaintiffs — three Venezuelan dissidents in exile — to sanction and disqualify Diaz Reus over an alleged conflict of interest because of a meeting the firm had with one of the plaintiffs, Jorge Alejandro Rodriguez, over a separate lawsuit. The judge concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish that Rodriguez was ever a client of Diaz Reus, formerly Diaz Reus & Targ LLP. They had one video call in October 2023 and never spoke again, and Rodriguez never signed an engagement letter with Diaz Reus, according to the order. The judge, who held an evidentiary hearing on the issue, found that the plaintiffs have failed to show that the law firm gleaned any information it could use against Rodriguez during the video meeting. The call was related to Venezuelan workers at the state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela SA, who were deprived of proper compensation, according to the order. Judge Elfenbein denied each of the five sanctions motions filed by the plaintiffs and criticized their approach to the litigation, calling it "often formalistic to the point of nit-picking." She pointed to the fifth sanctions motion, which accused Diaz Reus attorney Marta Colomar of failing in her duty of candor to the court when she asserted that plaintiff Miguel Enrique Otero did not speak English, despite holding several degrees from Cambridge University. The judge said Otero has not spoken in English in any of the court proceedings, so she did not fault Colomar for her assumption about his linguistic skills. "While the court acknowledges that some of the lawyers' statements may in fact have been incomplete or even inaccurate, the fifth sanctions motion is a good example of why it has taken the court more than fifty pages to resolve only a handful of actual legal issues," the judge said. "That is its own version of wasting judicial resources, if not vexatious multiplication of the litigation." Judge Elfenbein also denied Diaz Reus' request for sanctions in response to the fourth and fifth motions for sanctions but warned the plaintiffs that if they continue to file repeated motions that continue to be denied, "the court will give serious consideration to defendants' next request for a pre-filing injunction." Ivan Freites, who lives in Miami, filed the lawsuit in January 2025, accusing Horacio Medina, who is the president of the ad hoc board of directors of PDVSA that controls the company's U.S. assets, and others, including a former Venezuelan ambassador, a professor and a film director, of orchestrating a campaign to defame them as a result of their lawsuit in Delaware alleging PDVSA workers were denied compensation. Rodriguez and Otero, both of whom live in Switzerland, joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs two months later. They accused the defendants of orchestrating a "coordinated and malicious campaign [of] defamation, intimidation, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and racketeering" as a result of the plaintiffs' lawsuit against PDVSA and its U.S. subsidiary, Citgo, in Delaware claiming they were wrongfully terminated from their jobs at PDVSA in 2002 and 2003. Citgo's motion to dismiss that lawsuit is pending. Specifically, the plaintiffs accuse the defendants of portraying them as "traitors, frauds, and corrupt opportunists" who, among other allegations, received illicit funds from former Venezuelan officials. But in May, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom tossed the lawsuit after finding that the complaint "constitutes a classic shotgun pleading." She also said the claims are prohibited by the single action rule, which precludes a plaintiff from asserting multiple causes of action when they arise from the same allegedly defamatory publication. The judge said the plaintiffs failed to allege valid predicate acts required to establish racketeering activity and could not plead wire fraud based on a defamation scheme. Judge Bloom also said allegations that the defendants improperly disclosed some sealed materials in another suit filed by the plaintiffs in Delaware is not racketeering but bad faith litigation tactics that should be handled by the judge in Delaware. The appeal of Judge Bloom's order is pending in the Eleventh Circuit. Javier Coronado of Diaz Reus praised Judge Elfenbein's decision Wednesday. "We stand by the court's well-reasoned order, which recognized that the accusations at issue were unsupported and that the plaintiff making them is 'an unreliable historian with an imprecise memory,'" Coronado said. "We also hope plaintiffs follow the court's final warning and refrain from filing further improper motions." The plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment. The plaintiffs are representing themselves. Horacio Medina is represented by Gabor Gazso von Klingspor, Javier Coronado Diaz, Marta Colomar Garcia and Michael Diaz Jr. of Diaz Reus & Targ LLP. The other defendants are represented by Carlos E. Sardi of Sardi Law PLLC. The case is Freites C. et al. v. Medina et al., case number 1:25-cv-20465, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  

The Financial & International Business Association (FIBA) is pleased to announce its 2026 Board of Directors, a distinguished group of leaders representing the full range of the international financial ecosystem—including banks, law firms, advisory and compliance firms, fintech and cross-border payment providers, and digital asset and crypto-related businesses. FIBA serves as a premier hub for the global finance community, bringing together decision-makers and practitioners to address the most pressing issues facing the industry. Through year-round programming, FIBA plays an essential role in supporting the professional development of finance and compliance professionals in the United States and around the world. FIBA’s Education Academy is a provider of globally recognized certifications offered in partnership with Florida International University (FIU). “FIBA’s strength comes from the diversity and expertise of the community we bring together,” said David Schwartz, President and CEO of FIBA. “Our Board of Directors reflects the highest level of industry leadership and reinforces our commitment to delivering exceptional education, meaningful networking opportunities, and industry-leading events. These include the FIBA Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Conference, one of the Association’s flagship events, which brings together the industry’s most respected voices for professionals navigating today’s evolving financial landscape.” Looking ahead to 2026, FIBA will continue expanding its global impact through its premier programming. With a community of more than 110 member organizations and over 10,800 certified professionals worldwide, FIBA remains committed to delivering world-class education, meaningful industry collaboration, and high-quality events that support the evolving needs of the international financial and compliance community. “As Chair, I am honored to work alongside an outstanding group of professionals who share a deep commitment to excellence and collaboration,” said Pablo Vallejo, Chair of the 2026 FIBA Board of Directors and General Manager of Banco Pichincha Miami Agency. “FIBA has become a trusted platform for the financial community to learn, connect, and lead—and we will continue elevating the quality of the Association’s education, membership experience, and global industry offerings.” Meet the 2026 FIBA Board Leadership Pablo Vallejo (Banco Pichincha) — Chair Monica Vazquez — Immediate Past Chair Luis Navas (Insigneo Securities, LLC) — Chair-Elect Susana Sierra (BH Compliance) — Vice Chair Guillermo Benites (UDT) — Vice Chair Harry Cupp (Sunwest Bank) — Vice Chair Marina Olman (Greenberg Traurig) — Vice Chair Wayne Shah (Wells Fargo) — Treasurer Peter Rahaghi (Shutts & Bowen) — General Counsel Teresa Foxx — Past Chair Representative New 2026 Board of Directors Amerant — Shalako Weiner Athena Bitcoin — Carlos Carreño BANESCO — Norma Sabo Banco Azteca — Alberto Bringas Banco de Bogotá — Alfonso Garcia Banco Popular Dominicano — Edward Baldera Banco Santander International — Alfredo Aguila Bradesco — Dulce Galindo Diaz Reus — Javier Coronado Facebank — Bernardo Velutini Helm Bank — Mark Crisp Holland & Knight — Andy Fernandez Itaú — Erico Narchi JPMorgan — Vinicius Furtado Kaufman Rossin — Heidy Duarte Republic Bank — Kimberly Erriah-Ali SunState Bank — Fabricio Macastropa TD Bank — Alexis Flores Terrabank — Antonio Uribe Truist — Luis Arango U.S. Century Bank — Maricarmen Logrono Winston & Strawn — Carl Fornaris About FIBA The Financial & International Business Association (FIBA) is a not-for-profit trade association serving the international financial community through globally recognized training and certification programs, industry-leading conferences, and a premier membership network supporting excellence across global banking, payments, compliance, and financial services. For more information, visit www.fiba.net.  

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An international bank based in Puerto Rico has been sued for fraud over an alleged scheme that attorneys say led to the loss of more than $90 million in deposits, affecting hundreds of clients in the U.S., Venezuela and elsewhere. One of the owners of Nodus International Bank, Juan Francisco Ramírez, was notified this week of the lawsuit filed Feb. 6 in a federal court in South Florida. Attorneys said Tuesday that they expect to notify the other co-owner, Tomás Niembro Concha, in upcoming days.   “You have depositors who have their life savings there, and depositors who have money for dialysis, and they cannot afford it because the money is gone,” said Marta Colomar García, an attorney with Miami-based Diaz Reus international law firm that filed the lawsuit on behalf of Driven, the Puerto Rico-based trustee overseeing the bank’s liquidation. Attorneys for Ramírez and Niembro, who is believed to be living in Spain, could not be immediately reached for comment. Niembro, of Venezuela, owned 60% of Nodus International Bank and served as its president, while Ramírez owned 40% and served as its board chairman, according to the lawsuit. Their wives are among the accused defendants. “They treated depositor funds at Nodus as their own personal piggy bank,” the lawsuit states of the two owners. In 2009, the bank obtained a license to start operating in Puerto Rico and began doing business a year later.   By February 2012, the island’s Office of the Commissioner of Final Institutions began investigating the bank and found violations to anti-money laundering regulations, among other things, according to the lawsuit. By October 2017, the office found “serious financial and managerial deficiencies,” and in March 2023, it presented Nodus with voluntary liquidation alternatives after receiving “multiple claims from depositors related to Nodus’ refusal to complete fund transfers requested by them in amounts totaling millions of dollars,” the lawsuit stated. In October 2023, Puerto Rico’s Office of the Commissioner of Final Institutions appointed a receiver and revoked the bank’s license. Driven, the trustee, has found that Nodus owes clients some $92 million and that more than 95% of its loan portfolio has no collateral. The lawsuit filed by attorneys for Driven focuses on $28.5 million of the roughly $92 million shortfall lost through two alleged schemes. In one of the alleged schemes, the two owners “grant themselves millions of dollars in personal loans,” according to the lawsuit. The average loan was about $14,000, with a borrower base of about 500 clients, the lawsuit stated, adding that while the supposed loans were repaid, $2.3 million remains outstanding for Ramírez and $341,000 for Niembro.   The lawsuit seeks a jury trial.

Law360(August 13, 2025, 6:47 PM EDT) -- In Mireya Cambero's lawsuit against her ex-husband Jose Fernando De Matos, her attorneys at Miami-based Diaz Reus LLP had to prove fraudulent transfers but avoid confusing a jury with voluminous, uninteresting business filings. The best way to do it, they decided, was to organize their evidence in an easily digestible flowchart. Cambero's suit, which was filed in 2015, alleged years of abuse by De Matos, and was amended several times to include claims that De Matos transferred property and commercial assets held in his and Cambero's names to family, friends and other corporate entities, some of which were in South America. After a seven-day trial and roughly three hours of deliberation on July 15, the jury awarded Cambero $14.5 million in punitive and compensatory damages. Gary Davidson of Diaz Reus, representing Cambero, entered the case in 2022 and obtained paperwork showing that a commercial property in Coral Gables had been transferred to an individual not connected to his client. Co-counsel Evan Stroman and Ibrahim Amir, also with Diaz Reus, got involved in the case in 2025 and 2024, respectively. The arduous process of tracing the transferred assets produced a large collection of what Cambero's attorneys described as dull business records, such as quitclaim deeds and corporate filings. Their flowchart stitched them all together in an easy-to-follow format. "In every piece of litigation, there's a general challenge of how much detail you provide to the jury, and you always want to restrain yourself from providing too much," Davidson told Law360. "But from an evidentiary and appellate perspective, you got to have your record solid when it goes up to the court of appeal. Particularly in a fraudulent transfer case that spans many, many years, you've got to get it all in, and there's no easy way to do that, unfortunately." In the late 1980s, Cambero worked at a laundromat and sold purses for about a decade before buying a butcher shop in Venezuela, according to Stroman. Cambero met De Matos in 1996, and together they spent much of their time in Venezuela and Colombia, slowly growing a business empire. The couple moved to the U.S. in 2009 and began buying real estate during the Great Recession, acquiring at least 35 properties. It was "a modern-day effort that you wouldn't have seen 50 years ago in Venezuela," Stroman told Law360. At the height of their business operations, Davidson said, the couple had staffing, a separate distribution company for their butcher shop and significant income. Cambero had 50% ownership on paper and was also involved in the day-to-day operations, according to Davidson. The couple's relationship was marked with horrific instances of domestic violence, including a 2011 rape, according to the suit. In 2013, the couple divorced. Running up against the statute of limitations on claims of assault and battery, Cambero filed her lawsuit against De Matos in Miami-Dade County state civil court in 2015, according to her attorneys. Later that year, according to Stroman, De Matos began the process of transferring commercial assets and properties held in his and his ex-wife's names to business associates and his daughter from a previous marriage. The divestiture of assets accelerated after a state court judge granted Cambero permission to seek punitive damages against De Matos in 2016, giving her legal team the ability to obtain financial data such as tax returns for the purposes of proving her case, according to Stroman. When Davidson, Stroman and Amir became involved in Cambero's lawsuit, they learned more about the corporate structure of the assets through a set of questions served on her ex-husband. Maria De Matos, his daughter from a previous marriage, had created a separate business entity in Florida that she used to transfer ownership of the assets, Amir told Law360. To avoid confusing a jury with the complex web of asset transfers, Cambero's legal team devised a visual aid in the form of a flowchart. Davidson arranged the corporate information, while Amir organized the flowchart's data to show ownership of the assets at the time Cambero's lawsuit was filed, when they were transferred and their monetary value. "You confuse, you lose," Stroman said. One of the more powerful moments at trial, Stroman said, was when De Matos clarified some aspects of a corporate chart presented to him on the stand, effectively admitting that he transferred assets to a business associate based in South America. Stroman described it as a "reverse Perry Mason moment" in that it was the defendant who presented evidence to the jury in an unexpected and dramatic way, rather than the attorney. In showing why Cambero didn't divorce De Matos earlier despite years of abuse, Davidson said his team presented evidence of "trauma bonding," or the idea that the more frequently abuse occurs in a domestic relationship, the harder it is to leave. Photographic evidence of the 2011 rape, medical records and testimony of the responding police officer helped sway the jury in favor of Cambero, Davidson said. "The jury had to make a choice early on who they would believe," Davidson said. "It was clear to the jury that one side was telling a story that could not exist with the other side. There's no gray area there." According to court records, Maria De Matos and nine other defendants filed oppositions to the final judgment in late July. In their filings, the defendants argued that Cambero's counsel ignored a request to meet and confer before the final judgment was filed, and that Florida law doesn't allow prejudgment interest on unliquidated claims, as well as arguing that Maria De Matos was "completely exonerated by the jury" and shouldn't be included in the final judgment. Cambero's attorneys told Law360 on Wednesday that their client believes the post-trial motions lack merit and her responses will be filed shortly with the court. Counsel for the defendants did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment on Tuesday. Cambero is represented by Evan Stroman, Gary Davidson and Ibrahim Amir of Diaz Reus LLP. De Matos is represented by Gustavo J. García-Montes of Gustavo J. García-Montes PA. Maria Fernanda De Matos, Proyecto La Puerta CA, Mundo Carne Inc., Colonnade 101 SE Inc., Colonnade 115 SW Inc., Colonnade 116 SE Inc., Colonnade 110 SW Inc., Colonnade 318 SW Inc., Alejandro Akle and 12755 SW LLC are represented by Manuel Arthur Mesa of Mesa LLP. The case is Mireya Cristina Cambero Cordero v. Jose Fernando De Matos Rebolledo, case number 2015-005641-CA-01, in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida.  

Díaz Reus Bolsters Its Brazil Practice with the Addition of Martha Hager September 16, 2025 Diaz Reus International Law Firm is delighted to announce that Martha Araujo Hager, an international lawyer licensed to practice in Florida, New York and Brazil, has joined its headquarters as Of Counsel. Ms. Araujo Hager comments: "I am proud to join a leading international law firm with a reputation for excellence in providing the best solutions to clients worldwide. The firm has an incredible team of attorneys and staff with expertise in various areas of the law. I will be contributing to the white collar, sanctions and international law practice of the firm, building on my previous experience as a former Brazilian prosecutor and for handling cases of fraud, corruption and money laundering in global organizations." "Martha’s 30 years of experience in white collar, fraud and corruption, in Brazil as a civil and criminal state prosecutor and in the US at the United Nations; the World Bank Group; and the International Monetary Fund, are a great fit for the firm and offer a significant benefit to our clients as we help them navigate thorny cross-border challenges. She is a key part of our growth strategy, as we are currently seeing many sanctions and money laundering cases between Brazil and the USA, said Michael Diaz Jr., Diaz Reus Global Managing Partner. In Brazil, Martha successfully tried over 30 cases before the jury in addition to trying civil and criminal cases through the traditional Brazilian system of bench trials. In the U.S., Martha’s practice focuses on white collar cases often involving multiple international jurisdictions and advises clients in parallel U.S. and Brazilian proceedings. Her law firm experience in the U.S. includes international arbitration and litigation; applications for assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants under 28 U.S. Code § 1782; conducting legal research, drafting Answers, Complaints, motions and memoranda, discovery requests and responses. She has deep experience handling evidentiary hearings, meditations, arbitrations, including debriefings and negotiations with government officials including, the Department of Justice and its various agencies (FBI, Secret Service, etc.). Diaz Reus International Law Firm operates on five continents, across 40 offices in key business centers, offering a global practice centered around national and international parallel proceedings and business transactions. The firm, its founders, and key partners are world-renowned board-certified experts in International Law, International Litigation & Arbitration, and Immigration & Nationality Law. We are recognized as a Top 100 global law firm by Global Investigations Review (GIR) in sensitive criminal matters involving government and foreign corruption investigations, including money laundering, OFAC & trade sanctions, Foreign Sovereign Immunity (FSIA) disputes, and global asset recovery matters. The firm is also globally recognized by Legal500, Chambers & Partners, Leaders League, Law360, Latinvex and many more. diazreus.com  

Law360(September 15, 2025, 7:03 PM EDT) -- The wife of a former Puerto Rican bank CEO asked a Florida federal judge Friday to dismiss the bank receiver's $7 million conspiracy claim against her, arguing that simply signing a loan note is not proof that she knowingly joined any scheme to defraud the bank. Morella Rincon de Niembro, who is married to ex-Nodus International Bank Inc. CEO Tomas Niembro, said receiver Driven PSC only alleges that she signed a promissory note, but does not provide any evidence showing she knew about or participated in the purported conspiracy. "Signing a promissory note and taking out a loan with her husband is not a wrongful or conspiratorial act," she said. "Without more, Driven's allegation of the only overt act by Mrs. Rincon — purportedly signing a promissory note — is simply insufficient to state an actionable conspiracy claim against her." Rincon is accused of participating in what Driven, which is acting as receiver in the liquidation of Nodus International, calls the "Our Microlending" scheme, in which Niembro agreed with Our Microlending LLC to transfer $7 million from Nodus Bank in exchange for Our Microlending issuing two investment certificates to Nodus Bank, one for $3 million and another for $4 million, according to the motion. Driven says that after Our Microlending issued the two investment certificates, Rincon and Niembro borrowed $3.7 million from Our Microlending through a promissory note signed in their individual capacities. The receiver says she knew or should have known that Niembro owed a fiduciary duty of loyalty to Nodus Bank, that the cash used to fund the loan came from Nodus Bank and that she and her husband had no right to use the bank funds for themselves. But all the receiver has is a promissory note that she signed, she said. "This is the only action Mrs. Rincon is alleged to have taken," Rincon said. "Every other act that allegedly occurred, both before and after Mrs. Rincon purportedly signed the promissory note, involves only Mr. Niembro, Mr. [Juan Francisco] Ramirez and Our Microlending." In the suit, Driven says Niembro and Ramirez, who were both former officers and directors of Nodus International, "treated depositor funds at Nodus as their own personal piggy bank" through self-dealing transactions. Driven says these schemes cost Nodus International $92 million in depositor funds. The civil lawsuit concerns $28.4 million of those losses based on two alleged schemes. In the first, Niembro and Ramirez sent millions of dollars' worth of depositor funds to Our Microlending in the form of investment certificates. Those funds were then turned into personal loans for Niembro and Ramirez, leaving Nodus International with a $2.7 million net loss, according to the suit. In the second alleged scheme, Niembro and Ramirez — who knew that Nodus International would soon be placed in liquidation — had the bank purchase a portfolio of uncollateralized loans from their own company Nodus Finance for $26 million. The Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico later removed Niembro and Ramirez from Nodus International, appointed Driven as receiver and ordered the bank's liquidation. Niembro, a Venezuelan who lives in Spain, owned 60% of Nodus Finance, while Ramirez, whose last known residence is in Miami, owned 40% of the company. Driven's suit, filed in February, names Niembro, Ramirez and both of their wives, Rincon and Maria Gabriela Vazquez de Ramirez, as defendants, as well as Nodus Finance LLC, a Miami-based company partly owned by Niembro. Both men were also hit with a criminal complaint in March with similar allegations. Brant Hadaway, who represents Driven, said he "will address Mrs. Rincon de Niembro's motion in due course." An attorney for Rincon declined to comment. Driven PSC is represented by Brant Hadaway, Evan Stroman, Marta Colomar Garcia and Zhen Pan of Diaz Reus & Targ LLP. Niembro, Rincon de Niembro and Nodus Finance are represented by Christina Ceballos-Levy, Jorge Mestre, Andres Rivero and Daniela Tenjido-Eljaiek of Rivero Mestre LLP. Ramirez is represented by Adrian Carlington Delancy of Markowitz Ringel Trusty & Hartog PA and Carlos A. Infante and Stephanie M. Vilella Alonso of Estrella LLC. Vazquez de Ramirez is represented by Cary Alan Lubetsky of Krinzman Huss Lubetsky and John B. Rosenquest IV of Rosenquest Law Firm PA. Suarez is represented by Anthony M. Diblasi, Charles Brumby, Jose Antonio Ortiz and Sabrina Serber of Homer Bonner Jacobs Ortiz PA. The case is Driven PSC, as Liquidation Receiver for Nodus International Bank Inc. v. Niembro Concha et al., case number 1:25-cv-20550, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  

By Nate Beck · 2025-10-02 13:10:29 -0400 ·  Listen to article Nixon Peabody LLP, Greenberg Traurig LLP and Diaz Reus LLP advised the $108.4 million sale of a recently completed luxury apartment complex along the Miami River. Florida developer and investment firm Mast Capital, along with Boston-based AEW, announced the sale of the property at 999 NW 7th St. to Valeris Capital in a press release Wednesday. Mast Capital and AEW wrapped up work on the 342-unit apartment complex, called Remi on the River, last year. The site boasts 400 feet of Miami River frontage. Completion of the project came after AEW and Mast Capital finished an initial riverfront development in 2020: an eight-story, 346-unit complex at 1001 NW 7th St. Property records for the sale recorded Tuesday show Northwestern Mutual provided a $72.3 million loan maturing in 2030 to Valeris for the purchase. CBRE's Robert Given, Troy Ballard and Michael Mulkern advised on the sale, according to a press release. "The sale of Remi on the River underscores the property's exceptional lease-up performance, the quality of its design and amenities, and the growing appeal of the Miami River District as a premier destination for waterfront living," said Camilo Miguel Jr., CEO and founder of Mast Capital in a statement. "This project reflects our commitment to investing in the continued revitalization of this vibrant neighborhood." The sellers were represented by Nixon Peabody LLP and Greenberg Traurig LLP. The buyer was represented by Diaz Reus LLP.  

The Office of Foreign Assets Control, a vital arm of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, has broad authority to enforce economic sanctions that restrict commercial activities with targeted individuals, entities and countries. For instance, on February 23, 2024, following the death of Aleksei Navalny and marking the second anniversary of Russia's further invasion of Ukraine, OFAC designated almost 300 individuals and entities pursuant to its Russia-related sanctions authorities. Sanctions affect arbitrators, counsel and arbitration centers. Furthermore, they may have an impact on arbitral jurisdiction, arbitrability and award enforcement. This commentary focuses on one implication of OFAC sanctions on arbitration proceedings: U.S. persons' inability to provide arbitration services to blocked parties. Because the violation of sanctions may carry substantial civil and criminal penalties, sanctions deter the participation of U.S. persons in disputes involving blocked parties. However, in practice, these parties may find arbitration services outside the U.S. For example, earlier this year it was reported that Power Machines, a Russian company under OFAC Sanctions since 2018, had secured a multimillion-dollar victory in an arbitration seated at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. While OFAC allows representation of blocked parties in U.S. court proceedings related to arbitration agreements and awards, it generally does not authorize representation in arbitration proceedings outside U.S. courts. Thus, the provision of legal services in such cases requires specific OFAC licensing. OFAC should amend its regulations to allow the provision of legal services in connection with all U.S-based arbitration. Such an amendment would not only be in line with the U.S. federal policy favoring arbitration of commercial disputes, but might also allow for more streamlined OFAC licensing review. OFAC Regulations Regarding Arbitration Services to Blocked Parties Arbitration Services by Authorized OFAC Regulations Generally, sanctions prohibit the provision of arbitration services to blocked parties unless specifically authorized by OFAC. Representation of blocked parties in arbitration proceedings before any U.S. federal, state or local court or agency is often authorized by OFAC regulations. However, there is no publicly available OFAC guidance or other legal authority confirming the type of arbitration proceedings that are covered by OFAC authorizations. Accordingly, attorneys and law firms typically seek OFAC's specific license before (1) serving as arbitrators if arbitration participants are blocked parties, (2) participating in an arbitration with the arbitral seat in a sanctioned country, or (3) representing a blocked party in an arbitration outside the U.S. Indeed, OFAC may issue a specific license for a particular transaction otherwise prohibited by sanctions, if the activity is determined by OFAC to be in the interest of U.S. foreign policy. OFAC Regulations Related to Iran: Unique Authorizations for the Provision of Arbitration Services Iran-related sanctions provide arbitration service authorizations beyond U.S. courts. These include domestic U.S. arbitration representation, and the initiation and conduct of arbitral proceedings involving Iran. The public record does not present OFAC's reasons for establishing such a framework. Perhaps the broad authorization for arbitration services related to Iran was established by OFAC for the purpose of removing obstacles to the implementation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, which is an arbitration forum for disputes between the governments of each country and the nationals of the other. Reasons for Amending OFAC Regulations Complexity of OFAC's Licensing Process OFAC's specific licensing process for arbitration-related services is complex and time- consuming. To obtain a specific license, the interested party must file with OFAC an application providing a detailed description of the proposed transaction, and explaining why that transaction is in the foreign policy interests of the U.S. Each application is reviewed by OFAC on a case-by-case basis. Following receipt of the application, OFAC may require additional information from the applicant, as well as consultation with other U.S. government agencies. Moreover, there is no defined time frame for processing specific licenses. In practice, OFAC may take months to rule on simple transactions. License applications covering more complex transactions may take up to a year or longer. OFAC's policy, as stated on its website, is that "[t]he length of time for determinations to be reached will vary depending on the complexity of the transactions under consideration, the scope and detail of interagency coordination, and the volume of similar applications awaiting consideration." U.S. Policy Favors OFAC's Authorization For the Provision of Arbitration-Related Services In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act to break the barriers that some U.S. courts had placed on arbitration, and declare a national policy favoring arbitration of disputes. Indeed, Section 2 of the act makes a written agreement to arbitrate "in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce ... valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." The Federal Arbitration Act also grants federal courts the authority to both stay litigation proceedings and compel arbitration in cases where the dispute falls within the purview of a valid arbitration agreement. Grounded in Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, the arbitration act not only provides a procedural framework for federal court proceedings but also mandates the application of federal substantive law on arbitration in both state and federal courts. Critically, the act prevents state law attempts to undermine the enforceability of arbitration agreements. As a result of this U.S. policy, arbitration agreements are everywhere today, from consumer agreements to employment contracts. Over 50,000 attorneys list arbitration as their practice area in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory. Blocked Parties May Receive Arbitration Services Outside The U.S. In practice, despite OFAC restrictions, blocked parties may receive arbitration services outside the U.S. The 2022 Russian Arbitration Association survey on the impact of sanctions on commercial arbitration is illustrative. The Russian Arbitration Association concluded that "the users of arbitration have been actively gathering and exchanging knowledge of sanctions-related practices in arbitration and have since adapted their preferences for arbitration rules, seats, and applicable laws." Critically, the survey anticipated a shift of Russia-related and sanctions-related arbitration cases to Asian-based arbitration centers. The regulations of the European Union on Russia also illustrate the access that blocked parties may have to arbitration services outside the U.S. Like the U.S., the EU has implemented economic sanctions targeting Russia since 2014, including the blocking of certain Russian entities. But unlike the U.S., the EU Council Regulations allow sanctioned entities to enter into "transactions which are strictly necessary to ensure access to judicial, administrative or arbitral proceedings in a Member State." Accordingly, law firms and lawyers subject to EU jurisdiction may represent blocked parties in arbitral proceedings in a member state of the EU. Downsides of Amending OFAC Regulations Risk of Sanctions Evasion and Financial Crimes Amending OFAC regulations to authorize any and all arbitration services may facilitate sanctions evasion and financial crimes, as bad actors could exploit arbitration's characteristics for illicit activities. While there is no publication documenting the abuse of arbitration to evade OFAC sanctions, blocked parties are known for recruiting professionals to create corporate structures that aid sanctioned persons' evasion efforts. For instance, on March 9, 2023, the Russia Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs Task Force, comprised of the EU, other G7 countries and Australia, released a global advisory noting that enablers of sanctions evasion may include lawyers, accountants, and trust and company services providers. Moreover, bad actors can use arbitration in furtherance of money laundering and other financial crimes. For instance, criminals may establish two or more companies to enter into a sham transaction with an arbitration clause, so one of the companies can commence arbitration proceedings and seek payment of damages. The parties in the arbitration pretend to engage in litigation, but ultimately the respondent does not defend the case. The arbitrators, who may or may not know about the illegal scheme, order the respondent to pay a sum of money, and the proceeds of criminal activity are laundered through the arbitration award. Bad actors may abuse arbitration proceedings due to the inherent characteristics that arbitration has. The flexibility, informality and confidentiality of arbitration, while often advantageous, can potentially create an environment where financial crime is facilitated. Challenges for U.S. Law Enforcement in International Investigations Granting broad arbitration authorizations could pose challenges for U.S. law enforcement, especially concerning international investigations where obtaining evidence from foreign countries is complex and time-consuming. To obtain information or evidence from a foreign country, the government may seek international cooperation under a mutual legal assistance treaty, or MLAT. In the absence of an MLAT, the government can request assistance in obtaining evidence located abroad by means of a letter rogatory, foreign domestic law mechanisms, or comity and reciprocity. However, these requests for international cooperation can take months, or even years, to execute. In fact, the information or evidence might be lost due to the passage of time while an MLAT request or other process is pending. As noted by the U.S. Department of Justice in its 2022 report, "How To Strengthen International Law Enforcement Cooperation For Detecting, Investigating, And Prosecuting Criminal Activity Related To Digital Assets," foreign countries often have "differing standards regarding records retention, data privacy, and AML/ CFT requirements that may limit the scope of evidence available for collection." The U.S. government may lack the ability to prevent disclosure of the information request to the investigation's targets, which could jeopardize law enforcement's capability to investigate and prosecute the criminal activity at issue. Moreover, bad actors can take advantage of foreign entities lacking beneficial ownership disclosure requirements to obscure illicit activity. Conclusion The risks of sanctions evasion, as well as the challenges U.S. law enforcement faces in conducting international investigations, can explain why OFAC regulations should continue to restrict the representation of blocked parties in foreign arbitrations. Balancing regulatory safeguards with legitimate arbitration facilitation is essential. However, the U.S. government is well-equipped to investigate and prosecute apparent violations of OFAC sanctions within U.S. territory. In the U.S., the government can seek documentary, electronic or testimonial evidence by, for example, using undercover operatives, employing undercover agents, using electronic surveillance, issuing subpoenas, and/or executing search warrants. Further, with the recent enactment of the Corporate Transparency Act, many companies in the U.S. are now required to disclose to the government their beneficial ownership information when they are formed — or for non-U.S. companies, when they register with a state to do business in the U.S. The new U.S. requirements for the disclosure of beneficial ownership information to the federal government, once fully implemented, are expected to help facilitate law enforcement investigations. Accordingly, and considering that the review and amendment of OFAC regulations regarding U.S. arbitration services is crucial to address evolving arbitration landscape demands, OFAC should consider amending regulations to allow U.S. arbitration services. This reform would align with broader U.S. policy on arbitration, promote efficiency, and effectively address geopolitical and regulatory challenges. Javier D. Coronado Diaz is a partner at Diaz Reus & Targ LLP. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. Author: Javier Coronado 

The Office of Foreign Assets Control, a vital arm of the U.S. Department of the Treasury,has broad authority to enforce economic sanctions that restrict commercial activities with targeted individuals, entities and countries. For instance, on February 23, 2024, following the death of Aleksei Navalny and marking the second anniversary of Russia's further invasion of Ukraine, OFAC designated almost 300 individuals and entities pursuant to its Russia-related sanctions authorities. Sanctions affect arbitrators, counsel and arbitration centers. Furthermore, they may have an impact on arbitral jurisdiction, arbitrability and award enforcement. This commentary focuses on one implication of OFAC sanctions on arbitration proceedings: U.S. persons' inability to provide arbitration services to blocked parties. Because the violation of sanctions may carry substantial civil and criminal penalties, sanctions deter the participation of U.S. persons in disputes involving blocked parties. However, in practice, these parties may find arbitration services outside the U.S. For example, earlier this year it was reported that Power Machines, a Russian company under OFAC Sanctions since 2018, had secured a multimillion-dollar victory in an arbitration seated at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. While OFAC allows representation of blocked parties in U.S. court proceedings related to arbitration agreements and awards, it generally does not authorize representation in arbitration proceedings outside U.S. courts. Thus, the provision of legal services in such cases requires specific OFAC licensing. OFAC should amend its regulations to allow the provision of legal services in connection with all U.S-based arbitration. Such an amendment would not only be in line with the U.S. federal policy favoring arbitration of commercial disputes, but might also allow for more streamlined OFAC licensing review. OFAC Regulations Regarding Arbitration Services to Blocked Parties Arbitration Services by Authorized OFAC Regulations Generally, sanctions prohibit the provision of arbitration services to blocked parties unless specifically authorized by OFAC. Representation of blocked parties in arbitration proceedings before any U.S. federal, state or local court or agency is often authorized by OFAC regulations. However, there is no publicly available OFAC guidance or other legal authority confirming the type of arbitration proceedings that are covered by OFAC authorizations. Accordingly, attorneys and law firms typically seek OFAC's specific license before (1) serving as arbitrators if arbitration participants are blocked parties, (2) participating in an arbitration with the arbitral seat in a sanctioned country, or (3) representing a blocked party in an arbitration outside the U.S. Indeed, OFAC may issue a specific license for a particular transaction otherwise prohibited by sanctions, if the activity is determined by OFAC to be in the interest of U.S. foreign policy. OFAC Regulations Related to Iran: Unique Authorizations for the Provision of Arbitration Services Iran-related sanctions provide arbitration service authorizations beyond U.S. courts. These include domestic U.S. arbitration representation, and the initiation and conduct of arbitral proceedings involving Iran. The public record does not present OFAC's reasons for establishing such a framework. Perhaps the broad authorization for arbitration services related to Iran was established by OFAC for the purpose of removing obstacles to the implementation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, which is an arbitration forum for disputes between the governments of each country and the nationals of the other. Reasons for Amending OFAC Regulations Complexity of OFAC's Licensing Process OFAC's specific licensing process for arbitration-related services is complex and time- consuming. To obtain a specific license, the interested party must file with OFAC an application providing a detailed description of the proposed transaction, and explaining why that transaction is in the foreign policy interests of the U.S. Each application is reviewed by OFAC on a case-by-case basis. Following receipt of the application, OFAC may require additional information from the applicant, as well as consultation with other U.S. government agencies. Moreover, there is no defined time frame for processing specific licenses. In practice, OFAC may take months to rule on simple transactions. License applications covering more complex transactions may take up to a year or longer. OFAC's policy, as stated on its website, is that "[t]he length of time for determinations to be reached will vary depending on the complexity of the transactions under consideration, the scope and detail of interagency coordination, and the volume of similar applications awaiting consideration." U.S. Policy Favors OFAC's Authorization For the Provision of Arbitration-Related Services In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act to break the barriers that some U.S. courts had placed on arbitration, and declare a national policy favoring arbitration of disputes. Indeed, Section 2 of the act makes a written agreement to arbitrate "in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce ... valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." The Federal Arbitration Act also grants federal courts the authority to both stay litigation proceedings and compel arbitration in cases where the dispute falls within the purview of a valid arbitration agreement. Grounded in Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, the arbitration act not only provides a procedural framework for federal court proceedings but also mandates the application of federal substantive law on arbitration in both state and federal courts. Critically, the act prevents state law attempts to undermine the enforceability of arbitration agreements. As a result of this U.S. policy, arbitration agreements are everywhere today, from consumer agreements to employment contracts. Over 50,000 attorneys list arbitration as their practice area in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory. Blocked Parties May Receive Arbitration Services Outside The U.S. In practice, despite OFAC restrictions, blocked parties may receive arbitration services outside the U.S. The 2022 Russian Arbitration Association survey on the impact of sanctions on commercial arbitration is illustrative. The Russian Arbitration Association concluded that "the users of arbitration have been actively gathering and exchanging knowledge of sanctions-related practices in arbitration and have since adapted their preferences for arbitration rules, seats, and applicable laws." Critically, the survey anticipated a shift of Russia-related and sanctions-related arbitration cases to Asian-based arbitration centers. The regulations of the European Union on Russia also illustrate the access that blocked parties may have to arbitration services outside the U.S. Like the U.S., the EU has implemented economic sanctions targeting Russia since 2014, including the blocking of certain Russian entities. But unlike the U.S., the EU Council Regulations allow sanctioned entities to enter into "transactions which are strictly necessary to ensure access to judicial, administrative or arbitral proceedings in a Member State." Accordingly, law firms and lawyers subject to EU jurisdiction may represent blocked parties in arbitral proceedings in a member state of the EU. Downsides of Amending OFAC Regulations Risk of Sanctions Evasion and Financial Crimes Amending OFAC regulations to authorize any and all arbitration services may facilitate sanctions evasion and financial crimes, as bad actors could exploit arbitration's characteristics for illicit activities. While there is no publication documenting the abuse of arbitration to evade OFAC sanctions, blocked parties are known for recruiting professionals to create corporate structures that aid sanctioned persons' evasion efforts. For instance, on March 9, 2023, the Russia Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs Task Force, comprised of the EU, other G7 countries and Australia, released a global advisory noting that enablers of sanctions evasion may include lawyers, accountants, and trust and company services providers. Moreover, bad actors can use arbitration in furtherance of money laundering and other financial crimes. For instance, criminals may establish two or more companies to enter into a sham transaction with an arbitration clause, so one of the companies can commence arbitration proceedings and seek payment of damages. The parties in the arbitration pretend to engage in litigation, but ultimately the respondent does not defend the case. The arbitrators, who may or may not know about the illegal scheme, order the respondent to pay a sum of money, and the proceeds of criminal activity are laundered through the arbitration award. Bad actors may abuse arbitration proceedings due to the inherent characteristics that arbitration has. The flexibility, informality and confidentiality of arbitration, while often advantageous, can potentially create an environment where financial crime is facilitated. Challenges for U.S. Law Enforcement in International Investigations Granting broad arbitration authorizations could pose challenges for U.S. law enforcement, especially concerning international investigations where obtaining evidence from foreign countries is complex and time-consuming. To obtain information or evidence from a foreign country, the government may seek international cooperation under a mutual legal assistance treaty, or MLAT. In the absence of an MLAT, the government can request assistance in obtaining evidence located abroad by means of a letter rogatory, foreign domestic law mechanisms, or comity and reciprocity. However, these requests for international cooperation can take months, or even years, to execute. In fact, the information or evidence might be lost due to the passage of time while an MLAT request or other process is pending. As noted by the U.S. Department of Justice in its 2022 report, "How To Strengthen International Law Enforcement Cooperation For Detecting, Investigating, And Prosecuting Criminal Activity Related To Digital Assets," foreign countries often have "differing standards regarding records retention, data privacy, and AML/ CFT requirements that may limit the scope of evidence available for collection." The U.S. government may lack the ability to prevent disclosure of the information request to the investigation's targets, which could jeopardize law enforcement's capability to investigate and prosecute the criminal activity at issue. Moreover, bad actors can take advantage of foreign entities lacking beneficial ownership disclosure requirements to obscure illicit activity. Conclusion The risks of sanctions evasion, as well as the challenges U.S. law enforcement faces in conducting international investigations, can explain why OFAC regulations should continue to restrict the representation of blocked parties in foreign arbitrations. Balancing regulatory safeguards with legitimate arbitration facilitation is essential. However, the U.S. government is well-equipped to investigate and prosecute apparent violations of OFAC sanctions within U.S. territory. In the U.S., the government can seek documentary, electronic or testimonial evidence by, for example, using undercover operatives, employing undercover agents, using electronic surveillance, issuing subpoenas, and/or executing search warrants. Further, with the recent enactment of the Corporate Transparency Act, many companies in the U.S. are now required to disclose to the government their beneficial ownership information when they are formed — or for non-U.S. companies, when they register with a state to do business in the U.S. The new U.S. requirements for the disclosure of beneficial ownership information to the federal government, once fully implemented, are expected to help facilitate law enforcement investigations. Accordingly, and considering that the review and amendment of OFAC regulations regarding U.S. arbitration services is crucial to address evolving arbitration landscape demands, OFAC should consider amending regulations to allow U.S. arbitration services. This reform would align with broader U.S. policy on arbitration, promote efficiency, and effectively address geopolitical and regulatory challenges. Author: Javier Coronado