{"id":66667,"date":"2026-06-11T06:21:39","date_gmt":"2026-06-11T13:21:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:11110\/practice-areas\/suing-ofac\/"},"modified":"2026-07-23T14:59:58","modified_gmt":"2026-07-23T21:59:58","slug":"economic-sanctions","status":"publish","type":"practice_area","link":"https:\/\/seidenlaw.com\/ar\/practice-areas\/economic-sanctions\/","title":{"rendered":"\u0627\u0644\u0639\u0642\u0648\u0628\u0627\u062a \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0642\u062a\u0635\u0627\u062f\u064a\u0629"},"content":{"rendered":"

When the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) delays unreasonably, denies a removal petition<\/strong><\/a> without meaningful explanation, refuses to process a license application<\/strong><\/a>, or designates a party on grounds that cannot hold up in court, litigation in federal court is often the only effective path forward. OFAC operates at the intersection of national security, foreign policy, and a complex sanctions framework, and its decisions can effectively cut a person, company, or entire industry off from the U.S. financial system. When administrative engagement stalls or fails, federal court review often determines whether the client recovers access to banking, contracts, and commercial life.<\/p>\n

Seiden Law represents U.S. and foreign individuals, companies, financial institutions, and high-net-worth clients in litigation against OFAC. The firm handles challenges to designations on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List, the Global Magnitsky List, and related sanctions lists; actions to compel OFAC to respond when administrative processes stall; constitutional challenges; and litigation arising from OFAC penalty determinations. The firm\u2019s litigators combine substantive familiarity with OFAC with the trial-first posture that defines its commercial litigation practice, ensuring suits against the agency are pleaded, briefed, and tried with the same discipline brought to any high-stakes federal court matter.<\/p>\n

How OFAC Litigation Actually Develops<\/h2>\n

Most OFAC litigation begins not with a designation but with delay. OFAC\u2019s processes for issuing licenses, responding to removal petitions, and addressing requests for reconsideration are not bound by clear statutory deadlines, and applicants routinely wait many months, or longer, for an agency response. For clients whose business depends on the outcome, the strategic question is when to keep pressing administratively and when to bring the agency into court. That question turns on the substance of the petition, OFAC\u2019s posture at the moment, and the practical value of forcing agency action through a federal complaint.<\/p>\n

Other matters begin with an adverse decision, a denial issued without meaningful explanation, a refusal to process an application, or a civil penalty whose factual or legal basis the client disputes. Where the evidence behind OFAC\u2019s decision doesn\u2019t support it, or where the agency followed flawed procedures or violated constitutional protections, federal court review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and related authorities provides the means to challenge it. A smaller subset of matters involves constitutional challenges to the designation framework itself, brought under the Due Process Clause, the Fourth Amendment, and the First Amendment. These are demanding cases that succeed only when the record supports them, but among the most consequential when they do.<\/p>\n

What Makes Seiden Law Distinct in OFAC Litigation<\/h2>\n