A humanitarian organisation preparing a cross-border relief operation into a sanctions-affected region faces a question that can halt an entire programme: does the planned activity require an authorisation from OFAC before it can proceed? The answer determines whether funds can move, whether goods can be shipped, and whether partner organisations in the field can be paid. Getting it wrong exposes the organisation – and its directors – to enforcement risk under OFAC's civil penalty authority.
OFAC administers both general licences (standing authorisations that permit a defined category of transactions without a separate application) and specific licences (case-by-case authorisations for activities not covered by a general licence). As of June 2026, most major OFAC sanctions programmes include at least one general licence addressing humanitarian activities, but the scope, conditions, and covered parties vary materially between programmes. Where a general licence does not fully cover the intended activity, a specific-licence application – submitted through OFAC's licensing portal – is the correct route. The determination of which route applies, and whether any conditions attach, is the first and most consequential decision in any NGO or humanitarian authorisation matter.
This guide walks through the authorisation process step by step: from determining whether a general licence covers the activity, through preparing and submitting a specific-licence application, to managing OFAC queries and maintaining ongoing compliance. It also addresses how the OFAC position compares with those of OFSI and the EU, where the rules differ in ways that frequently affect cross-border humanitarian operations.
Step 1: Determine whether a general licence already covers your activity
The first question in any OFAC humanitarian matter is whether an existing general licence authorises the transaction – because if it does, no application is needed, though conditions still apply. OFAC issues general licences at the programme level, so the answer depends entirely on which sanctions programme is in play.
Most OFAC programmes contain general licences for personal remittances, the export of food and medicine to civilian populations, and the activities of certain international organisations such as the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Some programmes extend general licence coverage to NGOs engaged in relief activities. Others are more restrictive, authorising only a narrow set of humanitarian categories or imposing conditions – such as prohibitions on transactions with the designated government's authorities – that effectively narrow the practical scope.
The programme-specific nature of this analysis is a point that organisations with multi-country operations often underestimate. An activity that is straightforwardly general-licence covered under one programme may require a specific licence under another, even where the humanitarian need is identical. In our experience, compliance teams that treat all OFAC general licences as interchangeable regularly encounter avoidable problems when a second or third country-specific programme enters the picture.
The correct method is to identify the applicable programme or programmes, read the relevant general-licence text in the Code of Federal Regulations (without relying on summary descriptions), and map each element of the planned activity against the conditions. If every element is covered and every condition can be satisfied, the general licence applies. If any element falls outside it, a specific-licence application is required for that element.
Two conditions that frequently create gaps are the prohibition on direct or indirect benefit to listed persons, and restrictions on dealings with the government authorities of the designated country. A humanitarian organisation routing funds through a partner that is itself a listed entity – even a designated charity – cannot rely on a general licence that expressly excludes transactions with SDN-listed persons. The same applies where relief supplies must pass through a government-controlled port or customs authority in a programme that restricts dealings with the relevant government.
Step 2: Map your counterparties and supply chain against the SDN List and ownership rules
Before preparing any application or relying on a general licence, the organisation must screen every counterparty, financial intermediary, and supply-chain partner against the SDN List (OFAC's list of Specially Designated Nationals and blocked persons) and apply the 50 percent rule (OFAC's rule treating entities owned 50 percent or more by blocked persons as themselves blocked, even if not separately listed).
This step is operationally more demanding for humanitarian organisations than for commercial entities, for two reasons. First, the counterparty set is often large, geographically dispersed, and involves informal actors – local suppliers, transport contractors, money-service businesses – whose ownership structures are difficult to verify. Second, the relief environment may involve coordination with governmental or quasi-governmental bodies that are themselves subject to designation.
The 50 percent rule requires aggregation across multiple blocked-person holdings. Two SDN-listed individuals each holding a 30 percent interest in the same local logistics contractor reach the threshold together. Screening tools that check only direct hits against the SDN List will miss this pattern. A manual ownership review, supported by available corporate registry data and field intelligence, is the minimum standard for higher-risk counterparties.
Where a counterparty is blocked – or where the organisation cannot satisfactorily clear it – the options are: replace the counterparty, apply for a specific licence that covers the specific dealing, or restructure the operation to eliminate the exposure. Proceeding without clarity is not a risk-tolerance question; it is a potential violation regardless of the humanitarian purpose of the activity.
This is also the stage at which the cross-border dimension becomes acute. A UK-based NGO with US-dollar funding and US-person involvement is simultaneously subject to OFAC and to OFSI. The UK ownership-and-control test under OFSI differs from OFAC's mechanical 50 percent rule: OFSI's test captures entities that a designated person owns or controls, a formulation that can extend to entities where the ownership figure is below 50 percent but effective control is exercised. We regularly advise organisations operating under both regimes to run the analysis separately under each authority rather than assuming that an OFAC clearance covers the UK position.
Step 3: Prepare a specific-licence application where a general licence does not cover the activity
A specific-licence application to OFAC must be submitted through OFAC's online licensing system and must present a complete, accurate, and well-documented statement of the proposed activity, the parties involved, the applicable programme, and the legal basis for the licence being sought.
The application should address each of the following elements in a structured way:
- Applicant identity: the full legal name, jurisdiction of incorporation, and primary contact of the entity applying.
- Transactional description: a precise description of the activity – what goods or services are being transferred, by whom, to whom, through what financial and logistical channels, and over what period.
- Programme identification: the specific OFAC sanctions programme or programmes under which the authorisation is required.
- Counterparty detail: identification of all material counterparties, with the results of screening against the SDN List and any ownership analysis performed.
- General-licence analysis: a clear statement of why no existing general licence covers the proposed activity, or why the applicable general licence contains a gap.
- Policy grounds: the humanitarian or public-interest basis for the licence, supported by documentary evidence of the organisation's mandate, programme design, and field partners.
- Safeguards: the controls the organisation will apply to prevent licence benefits from reaching listed persons – a critical element that OFAC reviewers assess carefully.
In our practice, the quality of the safeguards section is frequently the factor that distinguishes a well-structured application from one that draws prolonged queries. OFAC is not solely assessing the humanitarian purpose; it is also assessing whether the proposed activity can be conducted in a way that prevents sanctions benefits from being diverted. An application that presents robust controls – enhanced due diligence on counterparties, contractual prohibitions on onward transfer to listed persons, and an audit or monitoring mechanism – will generally progress more smoothly than one that states the humanitarian purpose without addressing the diversion risk.
The position above covers the standard case. Your facts – the specific programme, the counterparties in play, the structure of the funding chain, and the field conditions – change the analysis materially. For a preliminary assessment of your application before submission, contact Calder & Vance at info@caldervance.com.
How long does OFAC take to decide a specific-licence application?
OFAC does not publish a statutory decision deadline for specific-licence applications, and processing times vary significantly by programme, complexity, and current agency workload. Straightforward applications in well-established humanitarian programme areas have historically been processed more quickly than complex or novel requests involving multiple counterparties or restricted programmes. In our experience, applicants should plan for a processing period that may extend to several months in complex cases, and should not structure field operations with hard dependencies on a specific-licence decision arriving within a fixed window.
OFAC may issue a request for additional information (an "RFI") after an application is submitted. Responding to an RFI promptly and completely is critical: delays in providing requested documentation extend the processing clock and, in some cases, result in an application being administratively closed. Treat an RFI as a priority response item, not as a routine correspondence.
The most effective way to reduce processing time is to submit a complete application at the outset. Applications that arrive with gaps – missing counterparty information, unclear programme identification, or an absent general-licence analysis – are more likely to generate RFIs. The preparation time invested before submission is generally recovered in processing time.
It is also worth considering whether interim operations are possible under an available general licence while a specific-licence application is pending. If a general licence partially covers the activity, structuring the initial phase of operations within that coverage – and deferring the elements that require a specific licence – can allow a programme to begin while the application progresses. This requires careful structuring to ensure the general licence conditions are maintained for the authorised portion.
How does OFAC differ from OFSI and the EU in this area?
OFAC, OFSI, and the EU each maintain humanitarian exceptions and licence routes, but the regimes differ in structure, scope, and procedure in ways that can critically affect a cross-border operation. For an organisation with US-dollar funding, UK-based staff, and EU-sourced supplies, all three regimes may apply simultaneously.
Under OFAC, the general-licence architecture is programme-specific and relatively detailed: the text of each general licence sets out the covered activities, the excluded persons, and the conditions with specificity. This gives practitioners a degree of certainty where the general licence is clearly applicable, but it also means that gaps in coverage are difficult to fill without a specific-licence application.
Under OFSI (the UK's Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation), general licences operate at the programme level in a similar way, but the UK licensing authority also has the power to issue licences for activities of a "humanitarian" nature under the relevant thematic regulations. OFSI's licensing guidance sets out the information required for a humanitarian licence application, and the process is managed through OFSI's online portal. A material difference is that OFSI has published specific licensing criteria for humanitarian activities in certain programme areas, providing applicants with clearer ex ante guidance on what is required to obtain a licence.
The EU regime presents a further variation. Council regulations applicable to specific countries typically contain derogations for humanitarian aid activities, and member states license through their competent national authority rather than a single EU-level body. The result is that an EU-based organisation must apply to the relevant member state authority – and the practice of different member state competent authorities in applying the same regulation may not be identical. The EU General Court provides a judicial route to challenge licensing decisions, though this route is rarely used in humanitarian contexts.
A practical point of divergence concerns the treatment of international organisations and their partners. Some OFAC general licences expressly authorise transactions with specified international organisations and their sub-grantees. The equivalent EU and UK provisions do not always replicate this structure. An NGO that is a sub-grantee of an international organisation may be covered under OFAC by a general licence while requiring a separate specific or general licence under OFSI and an application to a national competent authority under the EU regime.
For a detailed treatment of OFSI's licensing process for humanitarian activities, see our guide at Humanitarian Authorisation under OFSI. For information on export-control authorisations that may run alongside a sanctions licence where relief supplies are classified under the dual-use rules, see our overview of frozen account management and BIS/EAR licensing services.
If a transaction has already been flagged, or a filing has been refused, an early review can preserve options that narrow with time. Contact Calder & Vance at info@caldervance.com for a confidential assessment.
Risk flags: what triggers enforcement exposure for humanitarian actors?
Humanitarian actors are not automatically insulated from OFAC enforcement by the nature of their work. OFAC's enforcement authority applies to all US persons and to non-US persons in certain circumstances, and the existence of a humanitarian mandate does not of itself create an exception to the prohibitions. Several risk patterns recur in our practice.
The most common is the unlicensed transaction with a blocked counterparty. An organisation that processes a payment to or through an SDN-listed entity – even where the intended end recipient is a civilian beneficiary and the purpose is clearly humanitarian – commits a violation. The existence of a humanitarian intent is a mitigating factor in OFAC's enforcement calculus, but it is not a defence to the underlying violation.
The second pattern is the over-reliance on a general licence whose conditions are not fully met. An organisation that reads a general licence as covering its activity, without carefully checking each condition, may be operating outside the authorisation. A common example is a general licence that authorises the export of food and medicine but excludes transactions that involve the government authorities of the designated country: an organisation that must route goods through a state-controlled port authority may be outside the licence without realising it.
Third, the absence of a voluntary self-disclosure (VSD) – a formal disclosure to OFAC of a potential or apparent violation – when one would be appropriate can convert a manageable enforcement matter into a more serious one. OFAC treats timely, accurate, and complete VSDs as a significant mitigating factor. Where a compliance review identifies a historical transaction that may have been in violation, the VSD question should be addressed promptly and with legal advice.
Fourth, inadequate record-keeping is a persistent risk. OFAC expects entities relying on its authorisations to maintain documentation of their screening, their general-licence analysis, and their specific-licence submissions and approvals. Where enforcement attention arrives, the ability to produce contemporaneous records of the compliance analysis carried out at the time of the transaction is essential.
A common misconception and when to involve counsel
A widely held view among humanitarian organisations is that because the United Nations or a major bilateral donor has approved a programme, OFAC authorisation is effectively established. This is not correct. Donor approval and UN programme endorsement do not constitute an OFAC authorisation, and they do not satisfy the requirements of a general or specific licence. OFAC's authority is independent of donor-funding relationships, and the compliance obligation rests with the US person or entity involved in the transaction, not with the donor agency.
The same misconception sometimes extends to the view that receipt of a sub-grant from a major international NGO means the sub-grantee inherits the prime grantee's OFAC authorisation. Where the applicable general licence expressly extends to sub-grantees of named international organisations, this may be correct – but only where that extension is explicit in the licence text. Where it is not explicit, the sub-grantee should not assume coverage.
Counsel should be involved at the programme-design stage, not after a transaction has been flagged. The most cost-effective point of intervention is before an application is prepared: counsel can confirm which programme or programmes apply, identify applicable general licences and their conditions, identify gaps that require a specific-licence application, and structure the safeguards section of that application in a way that reflects current OFAC expectations. In a recent matter, a development-sector organisation operating a multi-country relief programme discovered, at the programme-design stage, that two of its planned supply-chain partners fell within the 50 percent rule. We restructured the counterparty arrangements before any prohibited transaction occurred. The matter was resolved without enforcement exposure.
Related practices
- Frozen account management and BIS/EAR licensing – export-control authorisations and licence applications under the EAR
- Humanitarian authorisation under OFSI – the UK licensing process and conditions for NGO and relief activities
- OFSI humanitarian licences: advanced guide – conditions, safeguards, and cross-regime considerations for UK-based humanitarian actors