It also means these companies don’t have working financial controls. They gave money to people who they knew have a close connection to terrorists and may be members of a terrorist organization.
This isn’t JJ Jameson asking for pictures of spiderman. At best, it’s paying someone who had enough of a connection to Hamas to be told exactly where to go along the 60km border within an hour of the start. At worst, they may even be members who are supplementing their Hamas paycheck.
Reuters legal department should have signed off on every freelancer they contract with. That should have included a sanctions check - which clearly was not sufficient.
It also means these companies don’t have working financial controls. They gave money to people who they knew have a close connection to terrorists and may be members of a terrorist organization.
They gave money to freelance journalists for their pictures.
That’s what they do.
This isn’t JJ Jameson asking for pictures of spiderman. At best, it’s paying someone who had enough of a connection to Hamas to be told exactly where to go along the 60km border within an hour of the start. At worst, they may even be members who are supplementing their Hamas paycheck.
Reuters legal department should have signed off on every freelancer they contract with. That should have included a sanctions check - which clearly was not sufficient.
Well if that’s the logic that you are using here is a good one.
Qatar send money to Isreal to send to Hamas. Because Hamas is an acting government with different branches including there military branch.
US have one of the biggest military bases in Qatar.
So if the US says Hamas is terrorists, then US and Isreal are directly involved in funding them and should be sanctioned.
Not how sanctions work. You can legally do business with a SDGT or FTO if you get a waiver from the US Department of Treasury.
They only really hand those out to state actors as part of negotiated agreements.
Reuters does not have such an agreement.