? Actually "Millions moved through Shelbit" -> "Millions flyttet gjennom Shelbit" but better "Millions of dollars moved through Shelbit" but the heading is short. We can say "Millions flyttet gjennom Shelbit" or "Millions of dollars flyttet gjennom Shelbit" but keep concise. I'll do "Millions flyttet gjennom Shelbit" but that might be awkward. Maybe "Millions of dollars flyttet gjennom Shelbit" but the original is just "Millions moved through Shelbit" so we can say "Millions flyttet gjennom Shelbit". However, in Norwegian, "millions" is "millioner" and we need to specify currency? The original doesn't specify, but it's implied dollars. We can say "Millions of dollars" but the heading is short. I'll keep it as "Millions flyttet gjennom Shelbit" but that might be ambiguous. Alternatively, "Millions of dollars flyttet gjennom Shelbit" but that is longer. Since the heading is short, we can translate literally: "Millions flyttet gjennom Shelbit" - but "millions" is not a Norwegian word; we say "millioner". So "Millioner flyttet gjennom Shelbit" but that sounds odd. Perhaps "Millioner av dollar flyttet gjennom Shelbit" but that is longer. Actually, in Norwegian, we would say "Millions of dollars" as "Millioner av dollar". But the heading is "Millions moved through Shelbit" - we can say "Millioner flyttet gjennom Shelbit" but it lacks the currency. Since the article is about dollars, it's understood. I'll use "Millioner flyttet gjennom Shelbit" but that might be too literal. Maybe "Millioner i dollar flyttet gjennom Shelbit" but that is more explicit. Let's see the context: the paragraph says "The sanctions detail a web of transfers. Kayvan
