OFAC Denies It Acted Arbitrarily in Sanctioning Ex-Afghan Officials

The Office of Foreign Assets Control urged a federal court late last month to dismiss the sole remaining claim in a lawsuit challenging the agency’s sanctioning of two former Afghan government officials for corruption.

OFAC said the plaintiffs’ claim that the agency's sanctions were “arbitrary and capricious” is contradicted by the extensive evidence OFAC compiled to back up its decisions. This includes a 20-page evidentiary memorandum and 63 accompanying exhibits for designating the plaintiffs and two of their companies. It also includes a 41-page evidentiary memorandum supported by 131 exhibits for designating 39 additional entities, and a four-page evidentiary memorandum with 14 exhibits for designating three more entities.

“The full administrative record, spanning nearly 2,000 pages, confirms that OFAC’s designations are amply supported by substantial evidence, and that plaintiffs’ sole remaining claim thus necessarily fails,” OFAC wrote in a 57-page court filing. “OFAC’s press release announcing the sanctions -- which is only one part of the administrative record -- provided both a comprehensive overview of the unclassified evidence supporting the designations of plaintiffs and unclassified summaries of the classified evidence also supporting the designations.”

The plaintiffs, by contrast, have used only “conclusory, self-serving, and immaterial arguments and evidence” to attack the sanctions, OFAC said. They have “relied almost entirely on their word that the corruption allegations are false.”

OFAC also argued that it is entitled to “considerable deference” in the national security and foreign affairs arena. “As the Supreme Court has recognized, such heightened deference is warranted because of the executive branch’s expertise on national security and foreign affairs issues,” the agency wrote. “Cases involving [property] blocking orders are no exception.”

OFAC sanctioned Mir Rahmani, his son Ajmal Rahmani and 44 of their companies under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act in December for leading a "complex procurement corruption scheme" meant to steal millions from U.S. government-funded contracts for Afghan security forces (see 2312110026). The Rahmanis filed a lawsuit the following month challenging the sanctions.

In April, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed two counts in the lawsuit, saying OFAC and the State Department acted within their statutory authority to list the parties (see 2404230056). The court also said the Rahmanis and the businesses lacked standing for two other claims since the court can't grant the desired remedy, and that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their claim that OFAC acted arbitrarily in listing them.