No one expects OFAC to provide a detailed basis for its decision to designate certain individuals and entities under its sanctions programs – certainly not in its press releases. But one does have an expectation that the facts that are communicated to the public are relevant to the designation criteria.

Not so much in the case of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, a wealthy Russian businessman whose true claim to fame is his long-time chairmanship of the World Chess Federation. Ilyumzhinov was designated for sanctions under Executive Order 13582 for “materially assisting and acting for or on behalf of the Government of Syria, the Central Bank of Syria, Adib Mayaleh [the CBoS’s Governor], and Batoul Rida [a CBoS official].”

In its press release announcing Ilyumzhinov’s designation, OFAC alleged three facts that ostensibly provide the factual basis for its decision to impose sanctions: (1) Ilyumzhinov is “linked to financial transactions involving [Mudalal] Khuri-associated companies as early as 1997 and owns or controls the Russian Financial Alliance Bank, along with Khuri,” (2) “an advisor to Ilyumzhinov…was convicted in Russia in 1999 for the murder of an opposition journalist who reportedly was investigating an offshore business registration mechanism in Kalmykia tied to Ilyumzhinov,” and (3) “Ilyumzhinov is a major shareholder of RFA Bank and former Chairman of the Board of Directors of RFA Bank.”

Each of these facts, though, look problematic to me. The most egregious issue is with the second factual allegation, which relates to Ilyumzhinov’s alleged activities in Russia more than two decade ago. Because the authority under which OFAC designated Ilyumzhinov was EO 13582, which targets the Government of Syria and those who act on its behalf, it is unclear how this allegation could possibly serve as the basis for the designation at issue here. While Ilyumzhinov might have engaged in reprehensible conduct while President of the Russian Republic of Kalmykia, that conduct has no obvious nexus to Syria or its Government and thus cannot serve as a basis for Ilyumzhinov’s designation in this case. The fact that OFAC included it in its press release regardless is curious, to say the least.

Moreover, the allegation that Ilyumzhinov is the “former Chairman of the Board of Directors of RFA Bank” is likewise confusing as to its relevance to the designation criteria. While it is true that EO 13582 does not forbid OFAC from designating individuals who have “materially assisted…acted or purported to act for or on behalf of…” any entity designated under the Order (of which RFA Bank if one), it is also the case that OFAC permits individuals to challenge their designation by arguing that there has been a “fundamental change in circumstances” negating the factual basis of a designation and warranting its rescission. Based on the fact as alleged in OFAC’s press release, Ilyumzhinov could argue that his role in RFA Bank is past and not present and thus should not serve as a basis for his continued designation.

Finally, it is tough to ignore the relevance of the fact that Ilyumzhinov has engaged in financial transactions with Mudalal Khuri-associated companies since at least 1999. While EO 13582 does not limit the time period under which OFAC can find material support for a designated individual of entity – meaning, that such support might have occurred prior to designation – one can question the weight that should be given to such evidence, particularly if the goal of EO 13582 is to limit the kinds of support currently being provided to the Syrian Government and those who act on behalf of it.

Following this, all that is left is that Ilyumzhinov is a major shareholder of a designated entity – RFA Bank – and, as such, exercises ownership or control over a sanctioned party. As such, Ilyumzhinov would certainly meet the criteria for designation under EO 13582. On the other hand, provided that this is the sole substantive basis for his designation, Ilyumzhinov would be well-situated to pose a challenge to his designation, including by withdrawing all support for RFA Bank and selling his shares in the financial institution. (Ilyumzhinov has already signaled his inclination to pose such a challenge to OFAC.)

While OFAC’s attempt to provide a larger universe of facts in its press release to support its designation of Ilyumzhinov is appreciated, let’s hope that next time those facts bear a bit more relevance to the designation criteria of the underlying sanctions authority.