The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) both apply a 50% ownership threshold to determine regulatory control, yet their purposes and enforcement contexts differ significantly.
According to Moody’s, while the BIS 50% Rule is grounded in export controls, the OFAC 50% Rule applies to sanctions enforcement. Together, they form part of the U.S. government’s broader effort to prevent restricted entities from evading compliance through ownership structures or subsidiaries.
At their core, both frameworks aim to close regulatory loopholes. They ensure that individuals or organisations subject to restrictions cannot hide behind partial ownerships or affiliate companies. When a listed or blocked person owns 50% or more of an entity—directly or indirectly, or in aggregate—the entity itself is treated as if it were also listed or blocked. For OFAC, being “blocked” means the entity’s assets are frozen and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from conducting business with them. Under BIS, being “listed” usually means appearing on one of its controlled lists, such as the Entity List or Military End-User (MEU) List, which can trigger strict export licensing requirements.
This structure allows regulators to apply restrictions efficiently across complex corporate networks without naming each entity individually. For compliance teams, however, calculating aggregate ownership can be challenging—especially across international structures and multiple tiers of investment. Yet, the 50% threshold brings clarity by standardising the compliance expectation. It enables firms to build policies and data-screening systems aligned with clearly defined regulatory criteria, reducing the likelihood of inconsistent interpretations or enforcement risks.
The OFAC 50% Rule forms part of the U.S. Treasury’s sanctions regime. It applies when a company is 50% or more owned by one or more sanctioned persons, whose property and transactions are already blocked. Even if the entity is not listed on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List, it is automatically treated as if it were—effectively expanding sanctions coverage. This approach ensures that the financial assets and trade privileges of sanctioned persons cannot be indirectly maintained through corporate ownership.
Meanwhile, the BIS 50% Rule operates under the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR). It imposes export licensing requirements on goods, software, and technology when an entity is 50% or more owned by parties on certain BIS-controlled lists—such as the Entity List, SDN List (for specific identifiers), or MEU List. Exporting controlled items like semiconductors or advanced software to such entities requires a BIS-issued licence, aimed at preventing sensitive technology from reaching actors that could threaten U.S. national security.
Though both Rules share a numerical threshold, their scope and implications diverge. The OFAC 50% Rule primarily blocks property and prohibits transactions—focused on financial and asset-based sanctions. The BIS 50% Rule, however, deals with export control, reexports, and in-country transfers of controlled goods, software, or technologies. Another difference lies in how ownership is aggregated. Under OFAC, aggregation occurs only among blocked persons on the SDN list, while BIS aggregates across several lists, meaning that ownership by multiple restricted entities can collectively trigger compliance obligations.
Enforcement discretion also varies. OFAC may designate entities with less than 50% ownership if effective control is evident, while BIS can impose restrictions below the 50% mark if it deems national security risks significant enough. These discretionary powers give both agencies flexibility to address evolving geopolitical and technological risks.
Ultimately, the existence of two separate Rules highlights the different missions of BIS and OFAC. OFAC’s focus is on financial integrity and the isolation of bad actors from the global banking system. BIS, by contrast, safeguards critical technologies and intellectual property from being diverted to adversaries. For international businesses, exporters, and financial institutions, understanding both frameworks is essential. Failure to identify ownership exposure could result in violations, penalties, or loss of export privileges.
As global supply chains and investment structures grow more complex, these Rules remain central to ensuring that regulatory safeguards extend beyond direct relationships and into the intricate web of ownership and control that defines modern commerce.
Find more on RegTech Analyst.
Copyright © 2025 FinTech Global
