CMA CGM (America), a Norfolk, Va.-based subsidiary of the French container carrier, has paid $374,400 to settle allegations of violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, Iranian Transactions Regulations, and the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations that occurred about December 2004 to April 2008.
OFAC alleged the U.S. subsidiary facilitated the export of goods from foreign ports to Sudan on at least two occasions and, in 28 separate transactions, accepted payments for shipping services provided by its foreign parent company, CMA CGM, or its foreign affiliates, in connection with shipments between third countries and Cuba, Iran or Sudan.
![]() |
It said the base penalty amount for the alleged violations totaled $640,000 and that the lower settlement amount reflected several factors:
' The alleged violations appeared to result from a pattern of conduct over a period of about three years.
' The company had not been a subject of OFAC penalties for the past five years.
' Given the size of the company’s international business, it appeared to have lacked an adequate compliance program to avoid U.S. sanctions violations.
' Some goods exported from third countries to Cuba and Iran may have qualified as agricultural/medical products and been eligible for a license.
' The company has taken remediation steps to ensure violations do not recur.
' The company cooperated with OFAC, requesting the cooperation of CMA CGM and its foreign affiliates in gathering relevant transaction data, and by agreeing to toll the statute of limitations.
![]() |
The company acted as a paying agent for a foreign entity, to pay port charges incurred at an Iranian port in the amount of $14,936. OFAC determined Norton did not voluntarily self-disclose the violation to OFAC and that the violation constituted a non-egregious case.
The base penalty amount for the violation was $25,000 and OFAC said that the reduced penalty reflected the fact that while the company had had knowledge or reason to know that the conduct, activity, or transaction giving rise to the violation involved port charges with respect to a ship calling in Iran and did not have a compliance program in place at the time of the violation, it has since instituted remedial measures, cooperated with OFAC, and had not been subject to an OFAC enforcement in the five years preceding the violation.

