CHUCK GRASSLEY, CHAIRMAN

IVIIKE CRAPC, IDAHO RON WYDEN ORE SON

PAT ROBERT S, KANSAS DHIBIF MICHIGAN
MICHAEL B. ENZI. WYOMING MAFIIA . WASHINGTON
JOHN CORNYN. IIXAS RUHEHT 
JOHN THUNE SOUTH IA. R. H, 

RICHARD BUFR, CAROLINA BI L. CARDIN, MARYLAND 
JOHNNY ISAKSC N, GEORGIA BROWN, OHIO IT [a [3 
ROB COLORADO 

PA FUBFHT P. 
SCOTT. SOUTH (EAROLNA MARK it. VIRGINIA COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

HILE CASSIDV I JON \rmm OJSE, RHODI. 

JAMES OKLAHOMA MAGGIE HASSAN. NI-W HAMPSHIRE:

STEVEDAINES, MONTANA WASHINGTON, DC 20510?6200
TODD YOUNG, 

K-JLAN DAVIS, SIAFF DIRHJIOH AND (X JNSEL
JOSHUA SHEINKMAN, DE MOCIIATIC SI 

March 29, 2019

The Honorable Steven Mnuchin
Secretary of the Treasury

US. Department of the Treasury
1500 Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20220

Dear Secretary Mnuchin:

I am writing to follow up on my questions concerning the Rusal, En+ Group sanctions relief
package, which we discussed during your appearance before the Senate Finance Committee on
March 14. Thank you for making your staff available to brief my staff and provide
more insight into this matter.

During the hearing, I asked you about reports that Deripaska?s children had bene?tted from the
sanctions relief deal through a transfer of $100 million worth of shares of En+ from Deripaska to
their trust, the Liberi Foundation. I stated that I was concerned that Deripaska?s children were
bene?ting from a sanctions effort meant to punish him. In response, you assured me that ?his
children did in no way bene?t from sanctions relief.?

Now that my of?ce has been briefed further by Treasury staff, I remain concerned about this
matter. Although just one part in a broad deal, the transfer of shares of En+ from Deripaska to
Liberi is an unnecessary element of the package that is contrary to the Treasury Department?s
stated objectives in this matter.

In the Treasury Department?s December 19, 2018 removal noti?cation, Of?ce of Foreign Assets
Control Director Andrea Gacki stated that one of the objectives of the relief package was
structuring the deal in a way that did not involve. the ?transfer of funds directly or indirectly to
Deripaska.? You underscored this objective in your testimony, stating his children ?in no way
bene?t from sanctions relief.? However, according to information provided to my staff, the
transfer of $100 million worth of shares in En+ (1.64% of the total shares in the company) from
Deripaska to his children?s trust was a deliberate element of the negotiations, intended to satisfy
the terms of Deripaska?s divorce settlement.

In my mind, the transfer of $100 million in restricted assets to Liberi constitutes a clear bene?t to
Deripaska and his children and is contrary to the statements made by you and the Treasury. It is
a well?established principle in many areas of the law that a bene?t conferred on a child is
considered a bene?t to the parent as well. The inclusion of this provision allowed Deripaska to
utilize shares in a manner that otherwise would have been dif?cult or impossible given his status
as a Specially Designated National. The inclusion of this transfer casts a shadow over the
Treasury Department?s decision making and candor.

In light of these concerns, please answer the following questions.

1. Why did the Treasury Department make the determination that it was appropriate to
include the transfer of shares in En+ from Deripaska to his children as part of the 
sanctions relief package?

2. Why did the Treasury Department decide not to publicly disclose the transfer of shares in
En+ from Deripaska to his children?

3. Did you know about the transfer of shares from Deripaska to Liberi when you testi?ed
before the Senate Finance Committee that ?his children did in no way bene?t from
sanctions relief??

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,

Ron Wyden
Ranking Minority Member