On June 1, 2018, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim described to the Council on Foreign Relations efforts of the United States, in partnership with leading antitrust agencies around the world, to introduce and invite the global antitrust enforcement community to help finalize and join the Multilateral Framework on Procedures in Competition Law Investigation and Enforcement (MFP). This article also highlights remarks made by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Andrew Finch on May 31, 2018 in international antitrust cooperation.

The Council of Europe’s (CoE) European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) held its 74^th plenary session on June 5-7, 2018, in Strasbourg.

On June 8, 2018, Germany’s chief prosecutor issued an international arrest warrant for Jamil Hassan, who has lead Syria’s Air Force Intelligence since 2009.  The filing of charges against Hassan marks an important milestone for victims and governments who are trying to hold senior members of the Assad security apparatus liable for their alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes.

On June 7, 2018, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced that Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, of Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Corporation”) and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. of Hi-New Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Kangxun”) (collectively, “ZTE”) has agreed to severe additional penalties and compliance measures to replace the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (VIS) denial order imposed as a result of ZTE’s violations of its March 2017 settlement agreement.  The new agreement requires ZTE to pay $1 billion and place an additional $400 million in suspended penalty money in escrow before BIS will remove ZTE from the Denied Persons List.  The penalties are in addition to the $892 million in penalties ZTE has already paid to the U.S. government under the March 2017 settlement agreement.

On June 4^th, 2018 the President of the Russian Federation (“President”) signed into Federal Law No 127-FZ “On measures of reaction (counteraction) to adversarial actions of the United States of America and other foreign states” (“Anti-sanctions law,” “Law”) which became effective the same day.

On June 12, 2018, an indictment charges eight businessmen, including five Russian nationals and three Syrian nationals, for conspiring to violate U.S. economic sanctions against Syria and Crimea, by sending jet fuel to Syria and making U.S. dollar wires to Syria and to sanctioned entities in Syria without receiving a license  from U.S. Treasury Department.  The indictment was returned in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

On June 4, 2018, Eric Christopher Conn, 58, of Pikeville, Kentucky, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, one count of conspiracy to escape, and one count of conspiracy to retaliate against an informant.

On May 24, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a superseding indictment charging two employees of an international engineering consulting firm for their alleged participation in a scheme to launder briber payments to foreign government officials for the benefit of a Columbus, Ohio-based subsidiary of Rolls-Royce plc, to obtain a contract to supply equipment and services to power a gas pipeline from Kazakhstan to China.

On May 11, 2018, Kasim Kurd and several others filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Republic of Turkey and five other defendants (two American citizens and three Canadian citizens) for the assault on allegedly peaceful protestors in D.C.  The two Americans are Sinan Narin and Eyup Yildirim, and the Canadians are Mahmut Ellialti, Alpkenan Dereci, and Ahmet Dereci.  The incident raises the following issues: (1) whether the Turkish government can be subjected to jurisdiction within the United States for the alleged incident, (2) whether the security guards involved in the incident could be added to this suit, and (3) what would the diplomatic ramifications be for allowing a U.S. court to have jurisdiction over these security guards?