DOCSLIB.ORG

Ransomware Attacks – a Story of Sanctions, Risks, Damages, and How to Prevent an Attack

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ransomware Attacks – a Story of Sanctions, Risks, Damages, and How to Prevent an Attack Ransomware Attacks – A Story of Sanctions, Risks, Damages, and How to Prevent an Attack Ransomware is malicious software or malware that is designed to prevent access to a computer network or to data through encryption to extort ransom payments from the victims in exchange for decrypting the data and restoring network access to the victim organization. Ransomware attacks can cripple an organization by halting operations, shutting down computer systems, and disconnecting networks. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) reported that ransomware attacks have increased 37% from 2018 to 2019, while losses have increased at an alarming rate of 147% during the same period. The antivirus software firm, Emsisoft, reported that the average ransomware demand has increased from $5,000 in 2018 to $200,000 this year. Sanctions The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued an advisory on October 1, 2020 to inform the public about the risks of sanctions associated with payments of ransom to cyber actors. Ransom payments could possibly violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA). Demand for ransomware payments has increased significantly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which allows criminals to profit and advance their illicit activities. Funding ransomware demands may also enable cyber criminals to perpetrate activities that threaten our national security and foreign policy objectives. U.S. persons are prohibited from participating in transactions with individuals or entities on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) and those covered by country or regional embargos such as Cuba, North Korea, Ukraine, and Syria. Violations under these regulations create cause for OFAC sanctions, which include civil penalties that may exceed $1 million. OFAC indicated within the advisory that they would be enforcing sanctions against organizations that paid ransoms to cyberattack criminals included on the SDN List or from an embargoed jurisdiction. The most recent individuals, organizations, and jurisdictions added to the designation list include – • Evgeniy Mikhailovich Bogachev, developer of Cryptolocker, an early ransomware that infected more than 234,000 computers, half of which were in the U.S. • Two Iranian nationals behind SamSam, the ransomware that crippled the City of Atlanta in 2018 • Lazarus Group, sponsored by the North Korean government and responsible for the WannaCry attacks that shutdown computers worldwide • Evil Corp, Russian criminal gang that used Dridex malware to steal $70 million from US and European banks Sanctions are levied using the “strict liability” principle, meaning that an organization can be sanctioned even if it was not aware that it was engaging in a transaction with a cybercriminal prohibited under OFAC laws and regulations. The sanctions also apply to organizations that help the victim entities recover from a cyberattack, including cyber insurance firms, financial institutions, and digital forensic and incident response firms. Sanctions can be severe if the ransomware attack is not reported to law enforcement in a timely manner. Cooperation with law enforcement’s investigation efforts is a significant mitigating factor during OFAC’s evaluation of a possible enforcement outcome. Other factors include the willfulness or recklessness of the violation, awareness of conduct at issue, harm to sanctions program objectives, and remediation efforts. Healthcare Ransomware Risks Cyberattacks targeting healthcare organizations have increased 150% in 2020 according to a report by C5 Alliance. Recent attacks on healthcare organizations have prompted a warning from U.S. law enforcement agencies. On October 28, 2020, a joint cybersecurity advisory notice was issued by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the FBI, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The alert notice advised that healthcare and public health sector organizations are being targeted by cybercriminals to infect systems for financial gain. CISA, FBI, and HHS have credible information of an increased and imminent cybercrime threat to U.S. hospitals and healthcare providers. Attacks on healthcare organizations are threat to life crimes because they can affect a healthcare provider’s ability to provide patient care. In October 2020, several hospital systems in Vermont and New York were attacked by a strand of ransomware called Ryuk, which has been linked to a Russian cybercriminal gang sometimes referred to as UNC 1878 or Wizard Spider. Ryuk is transmitted using a botnet known as Trickbot. Three other hospital chains in Oregon, Michigan, and Wisconsin have also been attacked by the same ransomware. Universal Health Services’ facilities were attacked by Ryuk, which affected all its 250 hospitals and clinics, crippling digital services and impacting patient care services. Healthcare organizations are at increased risks for ransomware cyberattacks for the following reasons – • Large number of patient records – On average, over 7,200 patient records are impacted during a ransomware attack. These records can be traded and sold on the dark web to criminals who are seeking to commit identify theft crimes or extort funds or information from individuals. • More likely to pay to recover data – Ransom demands are usually cheaper than efforts to recover data held hostage. Healthcare organizations are often unprepared for cyberattacks and are left with no options to recover data except to pay the ransom. The sense of urgency is increased due to sensitive nature of patient data. These factors play to the cyber attacker and make it more likely that the healthcare organization will pay the ransom demand. • Less sophisticated IT departments and controls in place to protect data – Small to midsize healthcare organizations often operate with less sophisticated data security protections and lack corrective action plans and resources to respond to cyberattacks that make recovery from an attack successful. • Fewer resources to invest in cyber protection - Nonprofit and public healthcare organizations operate on lean budgets, which may restrict resources that can be invested in data security measures and controls. Based on a survey by Keeper Security, a full 90% of healthcare organizations dedicate less than 20% of their IT budget to cybersecurity. • Complexity of networks and systems - Healthcare organizations are complex organizations where a broad range of technology, internet of medical things, operational technology, and internet of things devices are interconnected. • Endless devices connected to networks – Healthcare networks include a wide array of endpoints, ranging from computer systems, surgical equipment, telemedicine platforms, medical sensors, and infusion pumps. Healthcare organization contain an average of 20,000 devices. Payments of ransom perpetuate the crime and embolden criminals to continue their activities. Unfortunately, paying the ransom is often the fastest and least expensive way to recover your data if your organization did not have the proper data security measures in place to protect the system. Many organizations assume that paying the ransom will resolve the problem. However, this rarely results in the desired outcome. Reports from federal law enforcement agencies indicate that less than 30% of organizations that pay the ransom recover access to their data and network systems. Cybercriminals want money, not data. However, most will not decrypt data since it might lead investigators back to them. Ransomware Attack Damages Malware can enter a network system through a variety of way, but the most common method is through phishing emails that contain embedded links or attachments. On average, employees receive over 120 emails daily and all it takes is one opened attachment to compromise an entire network. Ransomware attacks can cause damage in a variety of ways, including – • Loss of reputation – Patients depend on providers to protect their sensitive health information and their lives via connected health devices. When that health information is compromised, the trust has been broken. • Downtime that leads to lost revenues – Cyberattack victims waste time and resources trying to recover from an attack instead of focusing on patient care. • Threaten the lives of patients – If the data being held hostage involves sick or dying patients, the cyberattack may threaten the lives of those patients. • Loss of sensitive patient data – Health information related to chronic illnesses and diseases, as well as personally identifiable information, may be lost if the data has not been backed up or is not recovered. • Delayed patient care – Urgent patient care is sometimes delayed until paper records can be obtained in place of digital records or until patient records are recovered from a backup or from the cybercriminal. • Ambulatory care reroutes – Network and system application compromises may render an emergency department inoperable, requiring ambulatory cases to be rerouted to other hospitals. The other hospital may be further away or may not have facilities to care for specific patient needs, which can result in patient deaths. • Cancelled appointments – If networks and systems are compromised, patient records cannot be accessed during scheduled appointments. Therefore, appointments end up being cancelled. • Refer patients to other facilities to receive timely care – Cancer patients or terminal illness
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Advanced Persistent Threats
    THREAT RESEARCH Defending Against Advanced Persistent Threats Introduction As the name “Advanced” suggests, APT (advanced persistent threat) is one of the most sophisticated and organized forms of network attacks that keep cybersecurity professionals up at night. Unlike many hit & run traditional cyberattacks, an APT is carried out over a prolonged period of time by skilled threat actors who strategize multi-staged campaigns against their targets, employing clandestine tools & techniques such as Remote Administration Tools (RAT), Toolkits, Backdoor Trojans, Social Engineering, DNS Tunneling etc. These experienced cybercriminals are mostly backed & well-funded by nation states and corporation-backed organizations to specifi cally target high value organizations with the following objectives in mind: a Theft of Intellectual Property & classifi ed data i.e. Cyber Espionage a Access to critical & sensitive communications a Access to credentials of critical systems a Sabotage or exfi ltration of databases a Theft of Personal Identifi able Information (PII) a Access to critical infrastructure to perform internal reconnaissance To achieve the above goals, APT Groups use novel techniques to obfuscate their actions and easily bypass traditional security barriers that are not advancing at the same rate as the sophisticated attack patterns of cybercriminals. To understand the evolved behavioral pattern of APT Groups in the year 2020, a review of their latest activities revealed interesting developments and a few groundbreaking events¹: a Southeast Asia
    [Show full text]
  • PARK JIN HYOK, Also Known As ("Aka") "Jin Hyok Park," Aka "Pak Jin Hek," Case Fl·J 18 - 1 4 79
    AO 91 (Rev. 11/11) Criminal Complaint UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the RLED Central District of California CLERK U.S. DIS RICT United States ofAmerica JUN - 8 ?018 [ --- .. ~- ·~".... ~-~,..,. v. CENT\:y'\ l i\:,: ffl1G1 OF__ CAUFORN! BY .·-. ....-~- - ____D=E--..... PARK JIN HYOK, also known as ("aka") "Jin Hyok Park," aka "Pak Jin Hek," Case fl·J 18 - 1 4 79 Defendant. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT I, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best ofmy knowledge and belief. Beginning no later than September 2, 2014 and continuing through at least August 3, 2017, in the county ofLos Angeles in the Central District of California, the defendant violated: Code Section Offense Description 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy 18 u.s.c. § 1349 Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud This criminal complaint is based on these facts: Please see attached affidavit. IBJ Continued on the attached sheet. Isl Complainant's signature Nathan P. Shields, Special Agent, FBI Printed name and title Sworn to before ~e and signed in my presence. Date: ROZELLA A OLIVER Judge's signature City and state: Los Angeles, California Hon. Rozella A. Oliver, U.S. Magistrate Judge Printed name and title -:"'~~ ,4G'L--- A-SA AUSAs: Stephanie S. Christensen, x3756; Anthony J. Lewis, x1786; & Anil J. Antony, x6579 REC: Detention Contents I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................1 II. PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT ......................................................................1 III. SUMMARY................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • LAZARUS UNDER the HOOD Executive Summary
    LAZARUS UNDER THE HOOD Executive Summary The Lazarus Group’s activity spans multiple years, going back as far as 2009. Its malware has been found in many serious cyberattacks, such as the massive data leak and file wiper attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment in 2014; the cyberespionage campaign in South Korea, dubbed Operation Troy, in 2013; and Operation DarkSeoul, which attacked South Korean media and financial companies in 2013. There have been several attempts to attribute one of the biggest cyberheists, in Bangladesh in 2016, to Lazarus Group. Researchers discovered a similarity between the backdoor used in Bangladesh and code in one of the Lazarus wiper tools. This was the first attempt to link the attack back to Lazarus. However, as new facts emerged in the media, claiming that there were at least three independent attackers in Bangladesh, any certainty about who exactly attacked the banks systems, and was behind one of the biggest ever bank heists in history, vanished. The only thing that was certain was that Lazarus malware was used in Bangladesh. However, considering that we had previously found Lazarus in dozens of different countries, including multiple infections in Bangladesh, this was not very convincing evidence and many security researchers expressed skepticism abound this attribution link. This paper is the result of forensic investigations by Kaspersky Lab at banks in two countries far apart. It reveals new modules used by Lazarus group and strongly links the tools used to attack systems supporting SWIFT to the Lazarus Group’s arsenal of lateral movement tools. Considering that Lazarus Group is still active in various cyberespionage and cybersabotage activities, we have segregated its subdivision focusing on attacks on banks and financial manipulations into a separate group which we call Bluenoroff (after one of the tools they used).
    [Show full text]
  • Council Decision (Cfsp)
    L 246/12 EN Offi cial Jour nal of the European Union 30.7.2020 COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2020/1127 of 30 July 2020 amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/797 concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Whereas: (1) On 17 May 2019 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2019/797 (1). (2) Targeted restrictive measures against cyber-attacks with a significant effect which constitute an external threat to the Union or its Member States are among the measures included in the Union’s framework for a joint diplomatic response to malicious cyber-activities (the cyber diplomacy toolbox) and are a vital instrument to deter and respond to such activities. Restrictive measures can also be applied in response to cyber-attacks with a significant effect against third States or international organisations, where deemed necessary to achieve common foreign and security policy objectives set out in the relevant provisions of Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union. (3) On 16 April 2018 the Council adopted conclusions in which it firmly condemned the malicious use of information and communications technologies, including in the cyber-attacks publicly known as ‘WannaCry’ and ‘NotPetya’, which caused significant damage and economic loss in the Union and beyond. On 4 October 2018 the Presidents of the European Council and of the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (the ‘High Representative’) expressed serious concerns in a joint statement about an attempted cyber-attack to undermine the integrity of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the Netherlands, an aggressive act which demonstrated contempt for the solemn purpose of the OPCW.
    [Show full text]
  • View Final Report (PDF)
    TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III INTRODUCTION 1 GENESIS OF THE PROJECT 1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1 INDUSTRY SITUATION 2 METHODOLOGY 3 GENERAL COMMENTS ON INTERVIEWS 5 APT1 (CHINA) 6 SUMMARY 7 THE GROUP 7 TIMELINE 7 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 9 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 9 APT10 (CHINA) 13 INTRODUCTION 14 THE GROUP 14 TIMELINE 15 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 16 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 18 COBALT (CRIMINAL GROUP) 22 INTRODUCTION 23 THE GROUP 23 TIMELINE 25 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 27 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 30 APT33 (IRAN) 33 INTRODUCTION 34 THE GROUP 34 TIMELINE 35 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 37 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 38 APT34 (IRAN) 41 INTRODUCTION 42 THE GROUP 42 SIPA Capstone 2020 i The Impact of Information Disclosures on APT Operations TIMELINE 43 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 44 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 48 APT38 (NORTH KOREA) 52 INTRODUCTION 53 THE GROUP 53 TIMELINE 55 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 59 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 61 APT28 (RUSSIA) 65 INTRODUCTION 66 THE GROUP 66 TIMELINE 66 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 69 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 71 APT29 (RUSSIA) 74 INTRODUCTION 75 THE GROUP 75 TIMELINE 76 TYPOLOGY OF ATTACKS 79 DISCLOSURE EVENTS 81 COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS 84 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ACTOR RESPONSE 84 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES 86 MEASURING THE SUCCESS OF DISCLOSURES 90 IMPLICATIONS OF OUR RESEARCH 92 FOR PERSISTENT ENGAGEMENT AND FORWARD DEFENSE 92 FOR PRIVATE CYBERSECURITY VENDORS 96 FOR THE FINANCIAL SECTOR 96 ROOM FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 97 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 98 ABOUT THE TEAM 99 SIPA Capstone 2020 ii The Impact of Information Disclosures on APT Operations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project was completed to fulfill the including the scope of the disclosure and capstone requirement for Columbia Uni- the disclosing actor.
    [Show full text]
  • Forces Shaping the Cyber Threat Landscape for Financial Institutions
    SWIFT INSTITUTE SWIFT INSTITUTE WORKING PAPER NO. 2016-004 FORCES SHAPING THE CYBER THREAT LANDSCAPE FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WILLIAM A. CARTER PUBLICATION DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2017 The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors. SWIFT and the SWIFT Institute have not made any editorial review of this paper, therefore the views and opinions do not necessarily reflect those of either SWIFT or the SWIFT Institute. 1 Contents I. Executive Summary II. Introduction III. Consumer fraud: New defenses and mobile banking are transforming the landscape a) New defenses are transforming consumer fraud and carding b) As consumer bank fraud becomes harder, business customers are being targeted c) Mobile malware is the new frontier of consumer bank fraud d) ICT4C: Financial inclusion is creating new threats in the developing world IV. Targeted Attacks on Bank Networks: What is changing? a) Attackers are becoming more sophisticated, persistent b) Law enforcement still struggling to keep up c) Banks in Asia are top targets d) Vectors of compromise – new twists on old themes. e) Attacks are changing V. Conclusion: More Threats, More Complexity, More Sophistication 2 I. Executive Summary Financial institutions have long been the leading targets for cybercrime, but the tools and tactics used are changing. New technologies are increasingly incorporated into financial networks and the broader internet, transforming the attack surface that adversaries can exploit. The incentives for attackers are also shifting, forcing banks to face more numerous and sophisticated adversaries. And as cyber awareness grows in the financial sector and firms continue to invest billions in new defenses, attackers are changing their approaches to stay one step ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • KIVU THREAT INTELLIGENCE Cyber Threat Intelligence Insights for Claims and Underwriting Professionals
    KIVU THREAT INTELLIGENCE Cyber Threat Intelligence Insights for Claims and Underwriting Professionals Volume XIX-1 February 1, 2019 Purpose To share cyber threat intelligence and aid in Kivu Myth Busters: Ryuk vs. North Korea protecting digital assets globally I. Executive Summary Sources Several media outlets misleadingly This publication incorporates reported that the Ryuk ransomware publicly-available and Kivu variant may have been developed and internally-developed Cyber Threat Intelligence operated by North Korean state- sponsored actors. Kivu conducted its own proprietary and confidential analysis of Subscription/Questions the malware variant and concludes with Click HERE to request being a high degree of confidence that the added to this product’s Ryuk (aka Hermes v2.1) ransomware distribution list variant was not developed by North Korean state-sponsored actors and that Ryuk usage by itself is not indicative of North Korea being behind a particular attack. II. Background Over the last few years, North Korea has continued to develop its Cyber Operations capabilities, and currently has an army of approximately 6,000 hackers, some of which were trained in Russia and China1. Unlike typical state-sponsored cyber operations programs that generally focus on intelligence gathering, influence and/or information operations and offensive capabilities, the North Korean regime also dedicates significant amount of resources toward operations for financial gain. According to research by The New York Times, North Korea’s for-profit cyber operations may earn over US$1 billion a year for the regime, which would account for roughly 1/3rd of North Korea’s annual exports2. While North Korea was able to pull off several successful cyber-heists, the primary Contact Us goal of this report is to examine whether the Ryuk (aka Hermes v2.1) ransomware www.kivuconsulting.com variant has been improperly attributed to this regime.
    [Show full text]
  • North Korean Cyber Activity 03/25/2021
    North Korean Cyber Activity 03/25/2021 TLP: WHITE, ID# 202103251030 Agenda • DPRK National Interests • Timeline of Recent Activity • Overview of DPRK APT Groups • APT Threat Actor Profiles o HIDDEN COBRA o Andariel o APT37 o APT38 o TEMP.Hermit o TEMP.Firework o Kimsuky o Bureau 121 Bureau 325 o Slides Key: • Recommendations Non-Technical: Managerial, strategic and high- • Outlook level (general audience) Technical: Tactical / IOCs; requiring in-depth knowledge (sysadmins, IRT) 2 DPRK National Interests • North Korea, officially the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) • Supreme leader: Kim Jong-un (since 2011) • Primary strategic goal: perpetual Kim family rule via development of economy and nuclear weapons • Primary drivers of security strategy: o Deterring foreign intervention by obtaining nuclear capabilities o Eliminating perceived threats to Kim regime o Belief that North Korea is entitled to respect as a world power • “Cyberwarfare is an all-purpose sword that guarantees the North Korean People’s Armed Forces ruthless striking capability, along with nuclear weapons and missiles.” – Kim Jong-un (2013) • Reportedly has 7,000 cyber warriors • 300% increase in the volume of activity to and from North Korean networks since 2017 3 Timeline of Recent Activity Jan 2020 Feb 2021 Two distinct Aug 2020 Nov 2020 South Korean Feb 2021 clusters of USG exposed North Korean Intelligence North Korean DPRK cyber DPRK hackers claims DPRK Lazarus activity begin malware used targeted a targeted Group targeting in fake job major COVID- COVID-19
    [Show full text]
  • How to Use Hacker Persona's to Successfully Build Devsecops
    How to use hacker persona’s to successfully build DevSecOps Pipeline • Robin Yeman • Lockheed Martin Sr. Fellow • Lockheed Martin • twitter @robinyeman Agenda • DevOps and Pipeline • Securing the pipeline • Apply the practices 2 DevOps and delivery pipeline DevOps DevOps is “a cross-disciplinary community of practice dedicated to the study of building, evolving and operating rapidly-changing resilient systems at scale.” - Jez Humble Why DevOps Forsgren, Nicole. “DevOps Solutions | Google Cloud.” Google, Google, 22 Aug. 2019, https://cloud.google.com/devops/state-of- devops/. DevOps Pipeline Requirements / Design Version Control Build Tool(s) Continuous Integration Test Framework(s) API Library End to End Security Commit & Build Validate Deploy D Application Code & Build Application a s Integration Acceptance Production h Version Control Test Test Deploy b Environment o Commit & Build Validate Deploy Infrastructure Automation Package Infrastructure a Development Integrated r d API Library Configuration Environments Monitoring Artifact Repository Product Backlog Management Schedule Securing the delivery pipeline Threat Modeling • Identify Assets • Using IDDIL-ATC Methodology • Define the Attack Surface – Gain understanding • Decompose the System – Assess risk • Identify Attack Vectors – Justify security controls • List Threat Actors • Analysis & Assessment • Triage • Controls DevOps Pipeline Threat Model Attack Surfaces in the pipeline Requirements / Design Version Control Build Tool(s) Continuous Integration Test Framework(s) API Library
    [Show full text]
  • Threat Intelligence Report
    June 2019 Threat Intelligence Report - MAN - UFACTUR ING/PUBLIC SECTOR IN THIS ISSUE • New supply chain threats • Ransomware exploits Oracle WebLogic • Hacktivism on the rise • WhatsApp risks to mobile devices • New Lazarus Trojan discovered June 2019 About this report Supply chain vulnerabilities expose critical assets Fusing a range of public and proprietary information feeds, including DXC’s global network of security operations centers and cyber intelligence services, this Mark Hughes report delivers a overview of major Senior Vice President and General Manager of Security incidents, insights into key trends DXC Technology and strategic threat awareness. We’ve seen another active month with third-party security risks playing a role in major breaches, meaning it is more critical than ever to understand supply chain exposure. This report is a part of Ransomware continues to be a growing threat, with an increasing number of attacks DXC Labs | Security, which provides against enterprise environments, often referred to as big game hunting. insights and thought leadership to the security industry. Hacktivist groups are also very active, but the good news is these attacks are becoming Intelligence cutoff date: less effective where proper security controls are in place. I encourage you to read more May 24, 2019 about the latest threats. Table of Contents Threat New ransomware variant exploits Oracle Web- Multi-industry updates Logic vulnerability Hacktivism increases in the first quarter of 2019 Public Sector, but is less effective Healthcare,
    [Show full text]
  • 31 July 2020
    FINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITY (CAYFIN) Delivery Address: th Mailing Address: 133 Elgin Ave, 4 Floor P.O. Box 1054 Government Administrative Building Grand Cayman KY1-1102 Grand Cayman CAYMAN ISLANDS CAYMAN ISLANDS Direct Tel No. (345) 244-2394 Tel No. (345) 945-6267 Fax No. (345) 945-6268 Email: [email protected] Financial Sanctions Notice 31/07/2020 Cyber-Attacks Introduction 1. Council Regulation (EU) 2019/796 (“the Regulation”) imposing financial sanctions against Cyber- Attacks has been amended so that an asset freeze now applies to the persons listed in the Annex to this Notice. Notice summary (Full details are provided in the Annex to this Notice) 2. The 9 entries listed in the Annex to this notice have been added to the consolidated list and are now subject to an asset freeze. What you must do 3. You must: i. check whether you maintain any accounts or hold any funds or economic resources for the persons set out in the Annex to this Notice; ii. freeze such accounts, and other funds or economic resources; iii. refrain from dealing with the funds or assets or making them available (directly or indirectly) to such persons unless licensed by the Governor; iv. report any findings to the FRA at [email protected] , together with any additional information that would facilitate compliance with the Regulation; v. provide any information concerning the frozen assets of designated persons to the FRA at [email protected] by completing and submitting a Compliance Reporting Form (CRF). Information reported to FRA may be passed on to other regulatory authorities or law enforcement.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release
    31 July 2020 NOTICE RE: Financial Sanctions 1. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (“CIMA”) hereby notifies you that it has received a new Notice from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, HM Treasury (“OFSI”), which is attached as an Annex to this Notice. 2. What you must do: A. In the case of an addition or amendment of a person to the Consolidated List and asset freeze: i. Check whether you maintain any accounts or hold any funds or economic resources for the persons set out in the OFSI Notice; ii. Freeze any such accounts and other funds or economic resources. iii. Refrain from dealing with the funds or assets or making them available (directly or indirectly) to such persons unless licensed by the Governor. iv. Report any findings to the Financial Reporting Authority (“FRA”) at [email protected] together with any additional information that would facilitate compliance with the relevant legislative requirements. v. Provide any information concerning the frozen assets of designated persons to the FRA at [email protected] and submitting a compliance reporting form. Information reported to FRA may be passed to other regulatory authorities or law enforcement. B. In the case of the removal of a person from the Consolidated List and unfreezing of assets i. Check whether you have frozen assets of any person or entity removed from the Consolidated List and verify that the person is no longer subject to an asset freeze. ii. Remove the person from your institution’s list of persons or entities subject to financial sanction. iii. Un-freeze the assets of the person and where necessary re-activate all relevant accounts.
    [Show full text]