• NateNate60@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    193
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    The legal grounds: The oil was shipped by a US company in violation of US law. American companies can’t do business with an organisation that the US government has designated as a terrorist organisation. Thus American authorities siezed the ship and its cargo.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yep. Anyone can do that, actually. I can declare you a terrorist. It’s totally my right to do so, but the question is–so what? What am I going to do about it?

        The US government has declared the Iranian organisation a terrorist organisation. What have they done about it?

        The amount of outrage on this thread is just ignorant people learning how international geopolitics and the concept of absolute state sovereignty work for the first time. Yes, it is the case that big countries get to stick their fingers into the business of little countries. Yes, it is unfair. But that’s how it is and that’s how it’s always gonna be for the foreseeable future. That’s how it always has been for all of human history. From Ur to Rome to Vienna to London to Washington. From Chang’an to Beijing to Nanjing to Tokyo and now back to Beijing. In the next century maybe it will be some other country kicking around everyone else instead of the US. But I can practically guarantee that there will be kicking and there will be people continuing to complain about how unfair it is, because it is and always has been.

        I’d like to say we should do better as a species, but in reality, what we have now is really fucking amazing compared to when Genghis Khan would come romping around town destroying your villages and murdering your people, or the Romans coming and demanding fifty talents of silver by sunset or else, or the Belgians planting rubber trees in your backyard.

        • solstice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          we should do better as a species, but in reality, what we have now is really fucking amazing

          I always say this when people say we should burn it all down. Sometimes they say it flippantly but some people actually think it’s a good idea to hit the reset button. Like it’s a good idea to go back to subsistence agriculture and hunter gatherer lifestyle. No, thanks, overall, things are actually going really well all things considered.

        • james1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Some states do use their own definitions of terrorism to explain why it’s bad when other people do it but OK when they do it, but that’s definitely not a uniform definition.

          the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

          - Britannica

          The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

          - American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

          the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.

          - Wiki

          (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal

          - Collins English Dictionary

          the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes… government or resistance to government by means of terror.

          - Webster’s

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If China sanctioned the US as a terrorist state and discovered a Chinese company was illegally selling oil to the US, would you be upset with the Chinese government bringing that company to court? And would you say it’s wrong that as part of the court proceedings, the company in violation agrees to ship the oil to a Chinese port, for the Chinese government to seize?

            If that sounds acceptable to you, you should really consider why you find it unacceptable and propaganda when the roles are switched.

            • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Im not disputing that, I was asking for the rational behind the worlds largest terrorist state (the US) trying to dictate who is and who isnt a terrorist.,

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          61
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes. And were fined. But that’s perfunctory so that they can make more money smuggling oil. The sanctions are solely enforced by the U.S., without consent of the UN.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            71
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes.

            Your own link argues against you:

            "But the Suez Rajan case was unique at the time of the transfer because it was owned by the Los Angeles-based private equity firm Oaktree Capital Management. "

            At the time the ship was being used for moving US sanctioned oil, it was own by a US company. That supports @NateNate60@lemmy.ml 's statements.

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              62
              ·
              1 year ago

              That is correct and why they could prosecute this case. But they have been seizing oil since 2019. And even if all those tankers were partially owned by US companies, it still doesn’t change the fact that this amounts to piracy. Defending international injustice with legalese doesn’t absolve what this is. When China seizes our tankers because the parts were made in China, will you defend them?

              • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                42
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                And even if all those tankers were partially owned by US companies,

                If the tankers or company is operating in the US, then they are bound by US laws no matter where they are in the world. A company can’t benefit from the protection of the US government and laws at home only to go abroad to commit US crimes.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  46
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Many countries can use that justification. Why are you defending an act that you’d condemn if it was done to America?

      • deft@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The contraband cargo is now the subject of a civil forfeiture action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The United States’ forfeiture complaint alleges that the oil aboard the vessel is subject to forfeiture based on U.S. terrorism and money laundering statutes.

        The complaint alleges a scheme involving multiple entities affiliated with Iran’s IRGC and the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to covertly sell and transport Iranian oil to a customer abroad. Participants in the scheme attempted to disguise the origin of the oil using ship-to-ship transfers, false automatic identification system reporting, falsified documents and other means. The complaint further alleges that the charterer of the vessel used the U.S. financial system to facilitate the transportation of Iranian oil

          • TheBlue22@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I could not give less of a fuck what a people like you think or believe. Your “arguments” are born out of propaganda. Hell, half of your fucking posts I’ve seem were “this is written by a website based in a country I don’t like”, too bad truth is not written by propaganda websites you love to browse.

            Go back to hexbear, grad, or whatever shithole you crawled out of, degenerate tankie scum

    • Lafuma300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      88
      ·
      1 year ago

      The legal grounds: it is ok when we do it. This is just old fashioned piracy, but of course you’ll try to justify it.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        71
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The ship was not intercepted by the Navy. They served a court order on the company and the company turned the ship back and its cargo was seized

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    So…will they seize the companies assets and arrest the CEO for violating the sanctions?

    Because that’s how you stop this shit.

    • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seizing over a hundred million of oil is a pretty big ouch to any business

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        For business sure. But what about consequences for the people who made the decisions?

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They get fired for losing the company 100 million? They get a bonus for implementing a better way of doing the same thing the next 50 times? Dunno, I’m not an oil smuggling expert.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not for the shipping company. It’s not their oil. The Iranians can ask the shipping company for compensation, which they could easily refuse and there isn’t much recourse that the Iranians would have. The Chinese could demand compensation but if the company again refuses or claims insolvency or whatever, it’s easier for the Chinese to just stiff the Iranians with payment instead.

    • Acters@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A dream that won’t come true, these people only see this as part of the risk of doing business and will try again in the same way, hoping to not get caught, or will find a legal loophole.

    • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      You want the United States to arrest someone in Greece for transporting oil from Iran to China? I don’t see how it’s any of our fucking business.

        • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. A LA based private equity company technically owned the boat at the time of transfer (they do not own it anymore, it’s been sold to the Greek company). That US based company is seemingly off Scott free in this situation and the Greek company is the one being fined and sanctioned.

          • deft@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER

            Watch as he desperately reaches for straws!!

            You literally said this yourself and then ignore that you did lmfao.

            US jurisdiction, just cause they tried musical chairs or whatever is just nonsense of them trying to pull some shit. Case closed sis.

      • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seeing how they pled guilty and paid a 2.5 Million dollar fine and 3 years probation, I guess it was our fucking business.

        • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          They plead guilty to violating the IEEPA, which is a law we passed that says if we declare an emergency we can regulate whatever international commerce we feel like. The US being being wealthy enough that companies choose to comply so they can still have our business doesn’t make it right.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The company is Greek.

        The ship was owned by a US company:

        "But the Suez Rajan case was unique at the time of the transfer because it was owned by the Los Angeles-based private equity firm Oaktree Capital Management. "

        source

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          42
          ·
          1 year ago

          Great. You got me on a technicality. So it’s okay for any country to steal oil from another if that tanker, or it’s propeller, was once owned by the thieving country?

              • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not piracy. Being held accountable to the laws in which there is proper jurisdiction.

                You’re making a strange nonsensical argument. Lets plug your argument into a similar theoretical situation:

                Lets say a US company owns a truck and is transporting cocaine in the United States from a South American drug cartel to their drug distribution networks in Vancouver, British Columbia. The police pull over the truck and find the drugs. Being illegal they seize the truck and the drugs. You’re arguing the South American drug cartel should be given their cocaine back because the cartel and the drug distribution network in Vancouver is outside of the United States. That makes your logic laughably naive, willfully ignorant, or maliciously in bad faith.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  13
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What gives the US proper jurisdiction? Iran did not agree to be sanctioned. Nor do they have to adhere to a law made in the United States, unless they agreed to it internationally. My argument is sound. Other countries don’t have to obey US law, unless they agreed to that law. This isn’t difficult.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            you got me on a technicality

            “I can declassify anything I want just by thinking about it”

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          34
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your justifying piracy. It’s okay when we do it. But not when they do. How magnanimous.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is the opposite of what magnanimous means.

            mag·nan·i·mous

            /maɡˈnanəməs/

            adjective

            generous or forgiving, especially toward a rival or less powerful person.

  • TheThirdAccount@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is a lot of misreporting and misunderstanding about this. OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) exists within Treasury and is responsible for enforcing sanctions usually created by executive order (“EO”), or very rarely, Congress. EOs and OFAC interpretation are very specific: some sanctions, such as the ones on the export of Iranian crude/products, are explicitly extraterritorial. Meaning, the US reserves the right to come after you no matter what country you are a citizen of or where you company is domiciled. It’s very rare for them to try this one anyone who doesn’t have US nexus since there is not much practically speaking they can do, but they could in theory. OFAC has, no pun intended, FAQs for all of this easily found at their site.

    Now, this case was extra stupid. Oaktree is the single biggest PE investor in shipping, going in heavy starting a bit before the financial crash and going in really big with Eagle Bulk c. 2012 or so. Oaktree is, as stated, a US company, but that wasn’t the main reason: they did this transaction in USD. Which was stupid, but having met the bastards at Empire a few times, I can say they are not the brightest bunch (as as far as I understand they are doing most of this kind of work in EUR with some shady banks nowadays anyway). Anyway any transaction in USD goes through the SWIFT system (which is why kicking Russia out of it was such a massive deal). This means there was simply no way this was not going to get eventually scanned since banks have repurposed their AML programs into sanctions programs or subscribe to sanctions-specific services like PoleStar’s PupleTrac (what my company uses) or Windward or Lloyd’s, etc. Now the dirty secret is that the banks don’t really understand movement data that well, but Empires has done this (and Venezuela) so often for so long, someone at Treasury probably said, “OK, since we got Oaktree all up in this, let’s make an example of of these guys to scare others away from these trades.”

    [spoiler alert: it did not scare others away from these trades and most folks estimate there are about 1,000 large tankers that form a so called “Dark Fleet” trading in Iran, Venezuela, and now Russia since both crude and product have broken the price cap at all Russian export locations. You cam make about 40% more shipping such cargos than legal ones.]

    Anyway, I digress, The the point is that OFAC doesn’t care if you have US nexus; it just makes you easier to catch if you do. Source: I am the head of credit and compliance for a large oil company that works closely with the shipping industry.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      OFAC stole a wire transfer to my landlord. I assume it’s because he has a Middle Eastern-sounding name.

      They provided me a case number and I mailed in the forms I found online to dispute the seizure. They sent me a letter saying that they had no record of that case. I realized the futility of fighting the government over a couple of grand and switched to depositing money orders into his account and let it go. Created a lot of extra effort (not that it was difficult, just tedious) on my end.

      OFAC is a criminal organization.

    • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sorry man but when it comes to international topics I can’t trust some faceless user on the internet for a run down of what happened.

      Do you have any sources or directions you can point me in for more information about the inconsistencies in reporting?

      (Just had a thought, we should have meta news agencies that analyze news agencies (including each other meta news agency))

      • TheThirdAccount@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah my guy/gal non-binarny pal, I wouldn’t take some Random Internet Person’s word either (although I did mention where you could find it…)

        End of my workday and I’m tired and maybe could have found some better examples, but here’s the bit about going after foreign financial services: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-561/subpart-B

        I’m having trouble finding a clear example of the extraterritoriality of US sanctions against individuals, but it’s defined in nearly every EO.

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am the head of credit and compliance for a large oil company that works closely with the shipping industry.

      So, complicit in the destruction of the planet. Good job, Sparky!

  • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    They could at least give Iran back their oil. This is like when cops steal your jewelry and claim civil forfeiture.

    • deft@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The contraband cargo is now the subject of a civil forfeiture action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The United States’ forfeiture complaint alleges that the oil aboard the vessel is subject to forfeiture based on U.S. terrorism and money laundering statutes.

      The complaint alleges a scheme involving multiple entities affiliated with Iran’s IRGC and the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to covertly sell and transport Iranian oil to a customer abroad. Participants in the scheme attempted to disguise the origin of the oil using ship-to-ship transfers, false automatic identification system reporting, falsified documents and other means. The complaint further alleges that the charterer of the vessel used the U.S. financial system to facilitate the transportation of Iranian oil

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This entire story is about Iran. They are a sovereign country. It doesn’t matter what laws the US makes up and uses to justify piracy.

            • deft@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              US company, China, US money and multiple moves made to avoid US government from knowing.

              Sure kid

                • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The EU also has sanctions on Iran so a Greek company broke the sactions imposed by its country. They used the US banking system to transfer the money as well and the USA upheld the sanctions of another country.

                  I don’t know why nobody else pointed that out.

    • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the same bullshit with the US “pay us taxes no matter where you are” bullshit.

      It’s clear international overreach just like everything else.

      • jarfil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        All countries do that. Then all countries also want you to “pay us taxes where you live”. Double taxation is a problem for many people, even between countries with tax agreements like in the EU.

        • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The US is the only developed country in the world where your tax duty is based on citizenship rather than where you live or work

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can tell from the comments in this post that Americans are immune to propaganda.

    • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      In their view propaganda only comes from rouge nations, and their superior intellect safeguards them from the impact of foreign propaganda. Despite living in the worlds most propagandized country.

      • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I somehow don’t think the US is more propagandized than, say, North Korea. I want a source on this or I’m just going to assume you’re pulling it out of your ass.

        • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just from the sheer fact that Americans probably consume more media than North Koreans, you would expect Americans to be more propagandized than North Koreans.

        • Lemminary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m gonna go with that it’s typically pulled out of their ass for some sweet dunking points

        • MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah I’m pretty sure if I were being propagandized I would have heard about it on the news. In North Korea they believe that Kim Jong Un doesn’t poop. And I know that’s true because I saw it on the news.

        • Blue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are two types of propaganda, the north Korean one which boils down to the party and leader who can do nothing wrong, and as a result there is only one truth, because the government controls it.

          The western method is to flood the person with a constant barrage of information, stimulus, and dopamine, it doesn’t matters the subject “the conservatives are sucking off and swallowing the loads of corporations again” “some trannny will ask you to call him she, and eat your children” in this case the truth doesn’t matter either, as truth has become another commodity to be bought as capital demands, you can buy your own truth, you can even get your own prophet, for the low price of 5 each month.

          • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The western method is to flood the person with a constant barrage of information, stimulus, and dopamine

            As depicted in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

            • Blue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I find it funny that the east (Russia, China, NK, Myanmar etc) follows the 1984 manual, the west yeah,

              As depicted in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Probably. Since it’s one with the least censorship, everyone needs to push more propaganda than the opposition…

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Guess it depends on what we call “censorship”. Is it state enacted censorship of personal opinions? Is it censorship of porn? Is it how many reporters get killed each year?

              At least the US has the 1st amendment; a lot of countries don’t, or circumvent free speech laws with censorship in one way or another (free speech for me, not for thee).

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-first-criminal-resolution-involving-illicit-sale-and-transport

        “In addition, pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) and a seizure warrant issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Empire Navigation, the operating company of the vessel carrying the contraband cargo, agreed to cooperate and transport the Iranian oil to the United States – an operation which has now concluded.”

        Link came from this CNN article. Would you say that ignoring the facts of a situation and using it to push an agenda would be, perhaps, propaganda?

        • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          transport the Iranian oil to the United States

          So everyone is cool with the US taking stuff that isnt theirs?

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You didn’t answer my other question – if China seized oil from an international shipping company, because China had sanctions against selling oil to the US after designated them a sponsor of terror, and a Chinese vessel was going to be used, would you be just as upset?

            Because I’m fine with the US seizing goods from a US ship if they’re violating US trade sanctions – just like I’m fine with China seizing goods from a Chinese ship if they’re violating Chinese trade sanctions. If the company didn’t want to have their cargo seized, they shouldn’t have used a US/Chinese ship to act against US/Chinese sanctions.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The US government seized nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian crude oil allegedly bound for China, according to newly unsealed court documents and a statement released by the Department of Justice on Friday.

    “This is the first-ever criminal resolution involving a company that violated sanctions by facilitating the illicit sale and transport of Iranian oil,” according to the DOJ.

    The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a US-designated foreign terrorist organization, allegedly shipped more than 980,000 barrels of oil, the press release stated.

    The DOJ claimed that “multiple entities affiliated with Iran’s IRGC and the IRGC-Qods Force” were involved in the scheme to “disguise the origin of the oil” and illegally sell it to China, according to court documents.

    The court filings also show allegations that “profits from oil sales support the IRGC’s full range of malign activities, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, support for terrorism and both domestic and international human rights abuses.”

    In April, the company operating the ship carrying the oil, Empire Navigation, pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.


    The original article contains 239 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 23%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This but unironically.

      The court filings also show allegations that “profits from oil sales support the IRGC’s full range of malign activities, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, support for terrorism and both domestic and international human rights abuses.”

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Remember Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction?

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes. Also that has no relevance here.

          Are you suggesting the Iranian government is not a hell state that deserves sanctions?

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Plenty of hell states deserve sanctions, including the US. Being a hell state isn’t a criterion for sanctions. You’re just parroting US propaganda which pretends human rights are why it applies sanctions when in reality that is the last thing on their mind.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m unaware of a pending invasion of Iran, and I think it’s about a year late for the kind of intervention I’d have liked to see.

              The Iranian government has no right to exist, and should absolutely be overthrown, though.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “In addition, pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) and a seizure warrant issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Empire Navigation, the operating company of the vessel carrying the contraband cargo, agreed to cooperate and transport the Iranian oil to the United States – an operation which has now concluded.”

      • DOJ Press Release

      Is playing fast and loose with the facts also okay when you do it?

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    US navy commiting piracy on the open seas because they’re the only substantial naval force that exists globally

    Seriously though, they do this to Argentina too lmao.

    So much for free trade

    • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The government served them a court order, they turned the ship around and handed it over. No US naval involvement, etc.