SanctionsLookup

Data last synced:

Halliburton Atlantic OFAC Settlement: $304.7K (2016)

Last updated:

Halliburton Atlantic Limited (HAL), on behalf of itself and its affiliate Halliburton Overseas Limited (HOL), settled potential civil liability for alleged violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 515, agreeing to pay $304,706 to resolve conduct involving dealings in property in which Cuba or a Cuban national had an interest in connection with oil and gas exploration and drilling activities in Angola.

Penalty Amount

$304,706.00

Enforcement Date

February 25, 2016

Rank in Top Penalties

#168

Case Details

Type:
Entity
Name:
Halliburton Atlantic Limited on behalf of itself and Halliburton Overseas Limited
Country:
πŸ‡°πŸ‡Ύ Cayman Islands
Industry:
Energy Services
Address:
Cayman Island
Penalty amount:
$304,706.00
Base civil monetary penalty:
$423,202.00
Max civil monetary penalty:
$1,235,000.00
Egregious case:
No
Voluntary self disclosure:
Yes
Case:
Settlement
Violation period:
February 15, 2011 to April 6, 2011
Program:
Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 515
Enforcement date:
February 25, 2016

Nature of the Apparent Violations

From on or about February 15, 2011, to on or about April 6, 2011, HAL and HOL appear to have violated Β§ 515.201(b) of the CACR by dealing in property in which Cuba or a Cuban national had an interest when they exported goods and services in support of oil and gas exploration and drilling activities within the Cabinda Onshore South Block oil concession (the "Concession") in Angola. Cuba Petroleo, a state-owned Cuban company also known as Cupet, held a five percent interest in an oil and gas production consortium (the "Consortium") and corresponding interests in the Concession and any oil or gas procured within the Concession. HAL and HOL knew or should have known they were dealing in property in which Cupet β€” and therefore Cuba β€” had an interest. HAL issued 19 invoices to the Consortium operator, a company with headquarters in Angola, related to these goods and services, and HOL primarily performed the services which were invoiced. The total amount invoiced by HAL was $1,189,752.

How OFAC Determined the Penalty

OFAC determined that the alleged violations were voluntarily self-disclosed and constituted a non-egregious case. The total transaction value of the alleged violations was $1,189,752. The statutory maximum civil monetary penalty was $1,235,000 and the base penalty amount was $423,202. The settlement amount of $304,706 reflects OFAC's consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors pursuant to the General Factors under OFAC's Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, 31 C.F.R. part 501, App. A.

Aggravating Factors

  • HAL and HOL acted with reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions by conducting transactions for the benefit of a Consortium without conducting reasonable due diligence to determine who belonged to the Consortium and had a corresponding interest in the Concession
  • HAL and HOL should have known that a Cuban entity belonged to the Consortium because the Consortium operator provided HAL with documents that showed that Cupet was a member, and there were other contemporaneous documents that stated Cupet held an interest in the Consortium, including a news article and a notice in an Angolan government registry
  • Halliburton and its affiliated companies are sophisticated entities that regularly deal in oilfield goods and services around the world
  • Halliburton's sanctions compliance program was inadequate because it did not include a procedure to screen all of the Consortium members

Mitigating Factors

  • HAL and HOL are eligible for up to 25 percent "first violation" mitigation because they have not been the subject of a penalty notice or Finding of Violation in the five years preceding the date of the earliest transaction giving rise to the apparent violations
  • Cupet's interest in the Concession was only five percent, thus reducing the extent of the economic benefit provided to a sanctioned country

Compliance Takeaways

The case illustrates sanctions exposure when providing goods and services to a multi-party consortium in which a sanctioned entity holds a minority interest. HAL and HOL's compliance program was found inadequate because it did not include a procedure to screen all Consortium members. The fact that the Consortium operator had provided HAL with documents showing Cupet's membership β€” and that contemporaneous sources including a news article and an Angolan government registry notice stated Cupet held an interest β€” established that HAL and HOL should have known of Cupet's participation. Conducting reasonable due diligence to identify all parties with interests in a concession or consortium, including minority stakeholders, is necessary to avoid dealing in property in which a sanctioned country or national has an interest.

Official Source Documents

This page summarizes an OFAC enforcement case based on the document archived below. SanctionsLookup assumes no liability for errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the original documents, this summary, or any changes made to the source documents at any time.

Provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or compliance advice. Always consult the source document directly rather than relying on this summary.

Archived on June 13, 2026

SHA-256: ad0150e31c89f5c56e28d93bc59f270e3eaf7a7095bf9d972a8c75f2cb020b23

More OFAC Cases