본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

미국 애국자법 제311조에 관한 연구:세컨더리 보이콧 조치에 대한 법적 대응방법을 중심으로

A study on the Article 311 of the US PATRIOT Act: centering around the legal countermeasures against the secondary boycott measures

김규진
은행법학회 (Korea Banking and Financial Law Association)|2019.05|은행법연구 (Korean Journal of Banking and Financial Law)|제12권 제1호|pp. 31-79|DOI 10.35274/kbfla.2019.12.1.002

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

경제제재economic sanctions기밀정보confidential informationsecondary boycott미국 애국자법 제311조세컨더리 보이콧미국 연방행정절차법 제706조Banco Delta AsiaBanca P. d'AndorraFBMEMootness 법리Article 311 of the USA PATRIOT ActArticle 706 of the U.S. Administrative Procedure Actdoctrine of Mootness
주제분류사회과학일반

초록

이 논문은 은행 등 금융기관이 미국 애국자법 제311조 상의 세컨더리 보이콧의 적용을 받게 되었거나 받게 될 가능성이 제기되었을 때 이러한 조치에 대하여 취할 수 있는 법적 대응방법에는 무엇이 있는지를 살펴보고, 그러한 대응을 어렵게 하는 요인에는 무엇이 있는지에 대하여 알아보는 데 그 목적이 있다. 애국자법 제311조에 따라 세컨더리 보이콧 조치의 표적으로 지정된 금융기관은 미국 금융시스템에 대한 접근이 어렵거나 불가능해지는 1차적 피해뿐만 아니라 뱅크런 사태, 세계 금융시스템으로부터의 배제, 영업허가 취소 및 해산 등의 조치에 따른 2차적 피해도 입을 수 있다. 이 같은 피해에 대한 법적 대응의 기본이 되는 법률은 미국의 연방행정절차법 제706조이다. 연방행정절차법 제706조는 세컨더리 보이콧의 표적이 된 금융기관으로 하여금 사법심사를 통해 위의 조치를 위법으로 선언받거나 취소시키도록 하는 법적 대응방법을 허용한다. 그러나 Banco Delta Asia 사례, Banca P. d'Andorra 사례, FBME 사례 등 기존의 사례를 살펴보았을 때, 애국자법 제311조 하의 세컨더리 보이콧 조치에 대한 성공적 법적 대응은 다음과 같은 이유로 매우 어렵다. 첫째로, 동 조치의 효과는 조치의 예고 발표만 있어도 즉각적으로 나타나기 때문에 이에 대한 효과적인 방어가 어렵다. 둘째로, 금융기관에게 허용되는 방어 및 구제수단이 제한적이며 실효적이지 않다. 셋째로, 동 조치는 기밀정보에 기초하여 취해질 수 있고, 이 조치에 대한 사법심사를 진행하는 경우에도 이러한 기밀성은 상당부분 유지되기 때문에 이 조치에 대한 효과적인 대응이 매우 어렵다. 결론적으로, 일단 애국자법 제311조 조치의 표적이 되면 해당 금융기관은 실효성 있는 법적 방어를 하거나 피해 구제를 받기가 어려우므로 경제제재에 대한 국제공동체와의 공조 노력을 통한 예방만이 최선의 방어수단임을 유념하여야 할 것이다.

Abstract

This paper examined the possible legal measures the foreign financial institutions may take with regard to the secondary boycott measures under the Article 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act and discussed possible difficulties the foreign financial institutions may face in utilizing such legal measures. Once a foreign financial institution is found to be the target of secondary boycott measure under the PATRIOT Act as the primary money laundering concern, it may be restricted in, or banned from, accessing the U.S. financial system. In addition to this direct consequences of the measure, the foreign financial institution may also suffer indirect consequences such as being precluded from the international financial system, getting the business license being revoked, or even the institution itself being dissolved. One of the legal measures allowed for the foreign financial institutions in such a situation can be found in Article 706 of the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act. However, court cases such as Banco Delta Asia case, Banca P. d’Andorra case and FBME case show us that the legal measures allowed under the article will not be effective enough for the protection of the institutions for the following reasons. First, the secondary boycott measures' effect is too immediate. Secondly, monetary damages cannot be claimed as a legal remedy. Thirdly, confidential information can be used by FinCEN when implementing the secondary boycott measures, and such confidentiality will be mostly protected even if the measures are legally challenged at court. In conclusion, the foreign financial institutions will face hard time protecting themselves from injuries arising out of secondary boycott measures once became a target. Therefore, cooperation with the international community about the economic sanctions will be the best way for the foreign financial institutions to get out of the threat of the secondary boycott measures.

참고문헌 (50)

  1. 변진석, "미국의 ‘국제자금세탁방지 및 반테러금융법’(International Money Laudering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001)과 북한 금융제재: 법적 기반과 한계", 은행법연구, 10(1), pp.159~183 (2017), 은행법학회[DOI]
  2. 이상경, "미국 연방대법원의 헌법재판권의 범위와 삼중 위헌심사 기준론에 관한 소고", 세계헌법연구, 13(2), pp.96~116 (2007), 세계헌법학회한국학회
  3. 전순신, "국제 테러자금의 조달에 대한 법적 규제", 법조, 55(8), pp.19~55 (2006), 법조협회
  4. 전일주, "Mootness Doctrine 에 관한 미국헌법판례연구", 법학논총, 16(0) (1990)
  5. 미국의 대외경제제재관련 법제연구, "최철영", 한국법제연구원, ~, pp.연구보고 2001-13 (2001)
  6. ALEXANDER, Samuel Kern, "United States Financial Sanctions and International Terrorism, Part 1", Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law, 17(2) (2002)
  7. CARTER, Barry E, "International Economic Sanctions: Improving the Haphazard U.S. Legal Regime", California Law Review, 75 (1987)
  8. CARTER, Barry E, "Overview and Operation of U.S. Financial Sanctions, Including the Example of Iran", Georgetown Journal of International Law, 44 (2013)
  9. CHEMERINSKY, Erwin, "Constitutional Law - Principles and Policies" (2006), Wolters Kluwer
  10. CLEVELAND, Sarah, "Norm Internatinoalization and U.S. Economic Sanctions", Yale Journal of International Law, 26 (2001)
  11. FFIE Council, "Bank Secrecy Act-Anti-Money Laundering-Examination Manual", ~ (2014)
  12. HUFBAUER, Gary Clyde, "Economic Sanctions Reconsidered: History And Current Policy" (2007), Peterson Institute
  13. LEVY, Steven Mark, "Federal Money Laundering Regulation: Banking, Corporate And Securities Compliance" (2017), Wolters Kluwer
  14. MEYER, Jeffrey, "Second thoughts on secondary sanctions", University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 30 (2008)
  15. MEYER, Jeffrey, "Good Intentions Corrupted: The Oil for Food Scandal and the Threat to the UN" (2006), Public Affairs
  16. MONAGHAN, Henry, "Constitutional Adjudication: The who and when", Yale Law Journal, 82 (1973)
  17. Usa Patriot Act: Better Interagency Coordination And Implementing Guidance For Section 311 Could Improve U.S. Anti-Money Laundering Efforts, "U.S. Government Accountability Office", Gao, ~, pp.Gao-08-1058 (2008)
  18. Jennifer Shasky Calvery, "Banco Delta Asia, Delta Asia Group, and Stanley Au v. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network", Case 1:13-cv-00333-BAH Document 1 Filed 03, 13, pp.2013, ~
  19. "Cierco v. Lew, 190 F. Supp. 3d. 16 (D.D.C. 2016)", ~ (2016)
  20. "FBME Bank Ltd. v. Lew (“FBME I”), 125 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2015)", ~ (2015)
  21. "FBME Bank Ltd. v. Lew (“FBME II”), 142 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.D.C.2015)", ~ (2015)
  22. "FBME Bank Ltd. v. Lew (“FBME III”), 2016 WL 5108018 (D.D.C. Sept.20, 2016)", ~ (2016)
  23. "FBME Bank Ltd. v. Mnuchin (“FBME IV”), __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2017 WL 1379311 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 2017)", ~ (2017)
  24. "FBME Bank Ltd. v. Mnuchin (“FBME V”), USCA Case No. 17-5076, Document No. 1701013 (D.D.C. Oct. 24, 2017)", ~ (2017)
  25. "Cardenas v. Smith, 733 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984)", ~ (1984)
  26. "City of Portland, Oregon v. EPA, 507 F.3d 706 (D.C. Cir. 2007)", ~ (2007)
  27. "Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138", ~ (2013)
  28. "Dellums v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 863 F.2d 968 (D.C. Cir. 1988)", ~ (1988)
  29. "Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555", ~ (1992)
  30. "Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. FAA, 988 F.2d 186 (D.C. Cir. 1993)", ~ (1993)
  31. "Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135", ~ (1994)
  32. "United States v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 410 U.S. 224", ~ (1973)
  33. "Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7", ~ (2008)
  34. SAMUELS, Brett, "Trump: North Korea sanctions I reversed were not ‘necessary’", The Hill, ~ (2019)
  35. MOURA, Nelson, "US authorities and Banco Delta Asia agree in extra audit to solve years long sanction dispute", Macau Business.com, ~ (2018)
  36. BANKADMIN, "The “vulture fund” JC Flowers is the one getting the most benefit out of millions in interest payments", Global Banking Exposed, ~ (2018)
  37. MICHAEL, Peter, "Paris court rules in favour of Cyprus in FBME case (updated)", CyprusMail Online, ~ (2019)
  38. Department of the Treasury, Withdrawal notice by FinCEN, "Withdrawal of the Proposed Rulemaking Against Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL", ~ (2015)
  39. Department of the Treasury, Notice of Finding by FinCEN, "Finding That Banco Delta Asia SARL Is a Financial Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern", Federal Register, ~ (2005)
  40. Department of the Treasury, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by FinCEN, "Amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations—Imposition of Special Measure Against Banco Delta Asia SARL", Federal Register, ~ (2005)
  41. Department of the Treasury, Final Rule by FinCEN, "Amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations—Imposition of Special Measure Against Banco Delta Asia, Including Its Subsidiaries Delta Asia Credit Limited and Delta Asia Insurance Limited, as a Financial Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern", Federal Register, ~ (2007)
  42. Department of the Treasury, Notice of Finding by FinCEN, "Notice of Finding That Banca Privada d’Andorra Is a Financial Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern", Federal Register, ~ (2015)
  43. Department of the Treasury, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by FinCEN, "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Imposition of Special Measure against Banca Privada d’Andorra as a Financial Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern (NPRM)", Federal Register, ~ (2015)
  44. Department of the Treasury, Withdrawal of finding by FinCEN, "Withdrawal of Finding Regarding Banca Privada d’Andorra", Federal Register, ~ (2016)
  45. Department of the Treasury, Withdrawal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, by FinCEN, "Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Banca Privada d’Andorra", Federal Register, ~ (2016)
  46. Department of the Treasury, Notice of Finding by FinCEN, "Notice of Finding That FBME Bank Ltd., Formerly Known as Federal Bank of the Middle East, Ltd., Is a Financial Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern", Federal Register, ~
  47. Department of the Treasury, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by FinCEN, "Imposition of Special Measure Against FBME Bank Ltd., Formerly Known as Federal Bank of the Middle East, Ltd., as a Financial Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern", Federal Register, ~ (2014)
  48. Department of the Treasury, Final Rule by FinCEN, "Imposition of Special Measure Against FBME Bank Ltd., Formerly Known as the Federal Bank of the Middle East Ltd., as a Financial Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern", Federal Register, ~ (2016)
  49. Department of the Treasury, Final Rule by FinCEN, "Imposition of Special Measure Against FBME Bank Ltd., Formerly Known as the Federal Bank of the Middle East Ltd., as a Financial Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern", Federal Register, ~ (2016)
  50. Department of the Treasury, Supplement to Final Rule by FinCEN, "Supplemental Information Regarding the Final Rule Imposing the Fifth Special Measure Against FBME Bank, Ltd", Federal Register, ~ (2016)

관련 논문AI추천

미국의 ‘국제자금세탁방지 및 반테러금융법’(International Money Laudering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001)과 북한 금융제재: 법적 기반과 한계변진석은행법학회 · 은행법연구2017 · 제10권 제1호미국의 세컨더리 보이콧 금융제재의 의도와 실행전략:방코델타아시아 사례의 제재 효과와 메커니즘구갑우, 임종식통일연구원 · 통일정책연구2019 · 제28권 제1호미국의 일방 표적 제재에 대한국제법적 평가와 구제수단박효민대한변호사협회 · 인권과 정의2020 · 제494호Domestic Law and International Relations: USA PATRIOT Act Section 311, and the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004Bliss Burdett Pak, Jasper S. Kim한국국방연구원 · The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis2007 · 제19권 제3호미국의 금융기관 임직원 제재 절차 제도와 시사점고동원은행법학회 · 은행법연구2013 · 제6권 제1호유엔⋅미국 등의 대테러자금관련법과 대이란제재이훈동한국중동학회 · 한국중동학회논총2011 · 제31권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)

착오송금의 분쟁해결지원과 관련 법리의 재검토 -예금자보호법 개정안을 중심으로-임정하pp. 3-28독일의 상장폐지규제에 관한 검토김성화pp. 81-111은행의 API 공개를 촉진하기 위한 법제도의 모색:신용정보의 이용 및 보호에 관한 법률 개정안을 중심으로문병순pp. 113-136스마트 계약과 부동산거래 시스템 -블록체인 기술의 부동산거래 적용가능성을 중심으로-박기주pp. 137-167금융실명법상 행정기관 등의금융거래정보요구권 행사에 관한 소고안현수pp. 169-194
원문 보기