Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager (CRCM) — Question 207

First National Bank, a U.S. bank, is contacted by Manufacturing Company, Inc., a U.S. company, to finance its transaction with Country Z, a boycotting country.
Payment will be made through a letter of credit in favor of Manufacturing Company at its U.S. address. First National Bank knows that the letter of credit will contain restrictive boycott conditions that would prevent the bank from implementing it. First National Bank suggests to Manufacturing Company, Inc., that it set up a shell corporation in Country Y, a nonboycotting country, and have the shell corporation be the beneficiary of the letter of credit. Does First National Bank have any problem with this transaction?

Answer options

• A. No. The transaction is now not subject to Department of Commerce regulations because the beneficiary is not a U.S. company.
• B. Yes. The transaction is set up to evade the regulation and First National Bank is liable.
• C. No. The transaction is set up to evade the regulation, but First National Bank is not liable because Manufacturing Company, Inc., actually effected the transaction.
• D. No. First National should have Manufacturing Company, Inc., sign a statement accepting full responsibility for the establishment of the shell corporation.

Correct answer: B

Explanation

The correct answer is B because First National Bank's involvement in facilitating a transaction that is structured to evade regulations places it in a position of liability. Options A and C incorrectly suggest that liability does not apply due to the involvement of a non-U.S. beneficiary, which is not true in this context. Option D fails to absolve First National Bank of responsibility, as simply having Manufacturing Company, Inc. sign a statement does not negate the legal implications of aiding in an evasion of regulations.