FAQ 1258
OFAC Frequently Asked Question 1258, issued 4 June 2026, extending secondary-sanctions exposure to any company 50 per cent or more owned by GAESA, MININT or MINFAR, even when that company does not appear on a published list.
Last refreshed: 12 June 2026 · Appears in 1 active topic
How far does FAQ 1258 extend Cuba sanctions to companies never named on any published list?
Timeline for FAQ 1258
Issued concurrently, extending secondary-sanctions exposure to 50%-owned GAESA/MININT/MINFAR subsidiaries
Cuba Dispatch: Cuba's president lands on OFAC blacklist- What is OFAC FAQ 1258 on Cuba?
- FAQ 1258 is OFAC guidance issued on 4 June 2026 that extends secondary-sanctions exposure to any company owned 50 per cent or more by GAESA, MININT or MINFAR, even if that company is not individually listed on the SDN or Cuba Restricted List. It imports the 50 per cent ownership rule previously used in Iran and Russia sanctions into the Cuba programme.Source: Baker McKenzie Global Sanctions Blog
- How does FAQ 1258 change Cuba sanctions compliance for foreign companies?
- Before FAQ 1258, a foreign firm could clear a Cuban counterparty by checking it against the published SDN or Cuba Restricted List. Under FAQ 1258, the firm must trace the ownership chain back to GAESA, MININT or MINFAR. If the chain crosses 50 per cent, secondary-sanctions exposure applies even with no named-list entry.Source: Baker McKenzie Global Sanctions Blog
- Does FAQ 1258 mean all GAESA subsidiaries are now effectively sanctioned?
- In practical terms, yes. Any entity in which GAESA (or MININT or MINFAR) holds a 50 per cent or greater ownership stake is now within the secondary-sanctions perimeter, even without a published SDN entry. Baker McKenzie called this a departure from prior Cuba sanctions practice.Source: Baker McKenzie Global Sanctions Blog
- What is the legal status of an OFAC FAQ?
- OFAC FAQs are interpretive guidance rather than formal regulations. They do not go through notice-and-comment rulemaking, but compliance departments treat them as binding because they state how Treasury reads existing rules. Courts have generally deferred to OFAC FAQ guidance in enforcement proceedings.Source: Lowdown Cuba Dispatch
Background
FAQ 1258 is a Frequently Asked Questions guidance document issued by the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control on 4 June 2026, the same day as the Diaz-Canel personal SDN designation. Its operative rule extends secondary-sanctions exposure to any entity that GAESA, MININT or MINFAR owns at 50 per cent or more, even when that entity does not appear on any published SDN list and has never been individually designated. Baker McKenzie's sanctions team described this as a departure from prior OFAC practice on Cuba, under which only entities explicitly named on a list triggered liability.
FAQ guidance is a standard OFAC mechanism for clarifying the practical scope of sanctions programmes without issuing new executive orders or regulations. An FAQ carries interpretive authority: it tells regulated parties how the Treasury reads the existing rules, and compliance departments treat it as binding guidance even though it lacks the formal notice-and-comment process of a regulatory change. The 50 per cent ownership threshold that FAQ 1258 imports into Cuba sanctions is the same rule used in the Iran and Russia programmes, where it has consistently been interpreted to mean that a chain of 50-per-cent ownerships compounds: a company owned 51 per cent by a company owned 51 per cent by GAESA is covered. Prior Cuba sanctions practice required a named entry on the Cuba Restricted List or the SDN list; FAQ 1258 replaces that named-list check with an ownership audit.
The practical consequence is that a foreign hotel operator, bank, shipping company or insurer dealing with a Cuban counterparty must now trace the ownership structure back to GAESA, MININT or MINFAR to determine whether it inherits exposure. The Spanish hotel chains that exited before the 5 June GAESA wind-down deadline had cleared the named-list risk; those with GAESA-subsidiary ties not yet on any named list inherit a fresh exposure under FAQ 1258 that they cannot audit away by checking a published registry. The weight of the 4 June package sits in this unlisted exposure rather than in the head-of-state designation itself.
