Tag: legal sanctions

  • OFSI Licence Application Guide

    OFSI Licence Application Guide

    If a person, company, or entity is subject to UK financial sanctions under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA), anyone who wishes to continue business dealings with the sanctions target must obtain a licence from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI). This licence will provide an exception to the prohibition on making funds or economic resources available to businesses owned, held, or controlled by a designated person or entity.

    It is important to note that OFSI grants relatively few licences and scrutinises applications rigorously. Commenting to the Law Society Gazette concerning the granting of OFSI licences to legal professionals providing advice to those on the Russian sanctions list a Treasury spokesperson stated:

    “OFSI carefully scrutinises all applications made to assess whether they fall under the relevant licensing grounds as outlined in sanctions legislation. OFSI aims to engage with applicants on the substance of completed applications for specific licences within four weeks. A completed application is one where OFSI has received all the information needed to make a decision about whether there is a legal basis to grant a licence.”

    Below is a brief guide to obtaining an OFSI licence to conduct business dealings with a sanctioned person or entity.

    What is an OFSI licence?

    At its essence, an OFSI licence is written permission to carry out functions that would otherwise be in breach of UK financial sanctions. If you are granted a licence, it is unlikely to provide a carte blanch to undertake any transaction you wish with the designated person, company, or entity. Instead, the OFSI licence will contain specific permissions and conditions that control the boundaries of your activities.

    How do I apply?

    You need to fill out an application form. This must be done correctly, incomplete forms will slow down the review process. You will need to provide information and evidence concerning:

    • How much you will be paid for your work.
    • The intended purpose of the transaction/funds.
    • The intended payment route(s).
    • Who will send and receive the funds, including any intermediaries and beneficiaries.
    • How the funds will be accounted for.
    • Evidence that the proposed payment is reasonable.
    • The urgency of the deadline relating to receiving the licence (if applicable).
    • The legal basis for your application.

    What is meant by the legal basis for an OFSI licence application?

    An OFSI licence can only be issued if there are legal grounds to do so. The grounds available under SAMLA for transactions involving a designated person, business, or entity include, but are not limited to:

    • Reasonable legal fees and expenses associated with providing legal advice.
    • The provision of basic needs such as food, shelter, and medicine.
    • Humanitarian assistance.
    • The meeting of obligations started before the sanctions were imposed.

    You will need to work with an experienced sanctions solicitor to ensure you not only reference the correct legal grounds for obtaining a licence but also provide the evidence required to prove that granting a licence is lawful and reasonable.

    A list of legal grounds is available in the schedules of the regulations setting out financial sanction targets by regime. For example, the legal grounds for licences concerning sanctions made against Iran can be found in schedule 4 of the Iran (Sanctions) (Human Rights) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Within the schedules, you will also find a list of prohibited transactions.

    How long does it take to get an OFSI licence?

    The OFSI aims to discuss applications with the sender within four weeks. Humanitarian applications and those involving life-threatening situations will be prioritised.

    If the OFSI decides to grant you a licence, it will share a draft copy of the document with you. The purpose of this is to check that the details are correct. It is not an opportunity to ask for substantive amendments. To ensure the licence provides the coverage you need to undertake necessary transactions with a designated person, business, or entity, it is best practice to have the draft checked by a solicitor experienced in sanction licence law.

    Wrapping up 

    Applying for an OFSI licence is far from straightforward, however, there are several things you can do to expedite the process and increase your chances of making a successful application, including:

    • Carefully study the government guidelines and the legal grounds for making your particular application.
    • Submit your application as early as possible, reviews can take longer than four weeks.
    • Do not undertake any transactions unless you have a valid licence, otherwise you risk being in breach of sanctions and could face serious penalties.
    • Provide as much evidence and information as you can in your initial application and ensure it is completed correctly.
    • Expect questions from the OFSI – they will likely need to clarify certain points.
    • Instruct an experienced solicitor to advise and represent you throughout the application process.

    To discuss any points raised in this article, then please contact the author Waleed Tahirkheli who is a partner in Civil Fraud at Eldwick Law. For more information on sanctions related topics, please follow the News page where the following articles maybe of interest to you:

  • New Defence Available In Russian/Ukraine War Sanctions

    New Defence Available In Russian/Ukraine War Sanctions

    On 20 June 2023, the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2023 (the Regulations) came into force.

    Established under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA), the Regulations amended the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (Russia Regulations) to establish a clearer legislative basis to enable certain assets to remain frozen/immobilised until Russia pays compensation to Ukraine “for damage, loss or injury suffered by Ukraine as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on or after 24 February 2022.”

    Existing finance, shipping, and trade sanctions have also been extended under the Regulations.

    The new sanctions relate to non-government controlled Ukrainian territory “the Autonomous Republic of Crimea” and city of Sebastopol and non-government-controlled areas of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts (administrative district or region) of Ukraine.

    These reflect the changing demographics now under Ukrainian control.

    The Regulations introduce a defence to the strict liability offence under section 68(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 relating to the prohibition on exportation of certain goods to, or for use in, non-government-controlled areas of the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts.

    What is the purpose of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019?

    Before the amendment, the Russia Regulations were for the purposes of ‘encouraging Russia to cease actions destabilising Ukraine or undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, or independence of Ukraine.’
    The explanatory memorandum to the Russia Regulations states that they reflect the UK’s position that Russia is fully responsible for the war in Ukraine and the damage caused, including to Ukraine’s critical infrastructure.

    The amended sanctions are designed to contribute to the objective of ensuring Russia pays compensation for the damage it has caused.

    What is the defence to the strict liability offence under section 68(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979?

    Section 68(1) reads:

    68 Offences in relation to exportation of prohibited or restricted goods.

    (1) If any goods are—

    (a) exported or shipped as stores; or

    (b) brought to any place in the United Kingdom for the purpose of being exported or shipped as stores,

    and the exportation or shipment is or would be contrary to any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force with respect to those goods under or by virtue of any enactment, the goods shall be liable to forfeiture and the exporter or intending exporter of the goods and any agent of his concerned in the exportation or shipment or intended exportation or shipment shall each be liable on summary conviction to a penalty of three times the value of the goods or [F1level 3 on the standard scale], whichever is the greater.

    The defence under the Regulations in relation to section 68(1) is available in circumstances where a person had no knowledge or reasonable cause to suspect that the prohibited goods were destined for the non-government-controlled areas of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts.

    What are the anticipated future developments in sanctions against Russia?

    In a press release dated 19 June 2023, the British government affirmed its commitment to maintaining sanctions until Russia paid compensation to Ukraine for the damage caused by the Russian invasion.

    The statement confirmed that a legislative route was being introduced to ensure frozen Russian assets are donated to Ukraine to help fund reconstruction.
    Laws are also anticipated to mandate that “persons and entities in the UK, or UK persons and entities overseas, who are designated under the Russia financial sanctions regime, must disclose assets they hold in the UK.”

    Russians who are already subject to sanctions are now able to apply to have their frozen funds released for the express purposes of donating money to support reconstruction in Ukraine.

    It is important to note that no relief from sanctions will be offered in exchange for making donations.

    Wrapping up

    Sanctions involve a complex web of domestic and international law, much of which is beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, it is imperative to check each transaction related to Russia or any other country subject to sanctions individually and seek legal advice as to you and/or your organisation’s legal position.

    To discuss any points raised in this article, please call us on +44 (0) 203972 8469 or email wt@eldwicklaw.com

    Note: The points in this article reflect sanctions in place at the time of writing, 13th July 2023. This article does not constitute legal advice. For further information, please contact our office.

  • Are Targeted Sanctions Effective In Dealing With Rogue States?

    Are Targeted Sanctions Effective In Dealing With Rogue States?

    As the war in Ukraine continues, sanctions imposed by Western governments and the impact of hundreds of companies pulling out of the country are starting to negatively affect the daily life of the Russian people. Prices are increasing, shortages are being reported, and the rouble has plummeted.

    Never before has such a large, modern economy been cut off from most of the world so swiftly. Unfortunately, there is ample proof that state and even UN sanctions are not effective in coercing a government deemed to be breaking international law to change its behaviour. What sanctions are extremely good at achieving is punishing innocent civilians. The horror placed upon ordinary Iraqi people following crippling sanctions in response to Saddam Hussain’s invasion of Kuwait in 2003 led to sanctions being focused more on individuals and companies rather than the misbehaving state itself. These are known as smart or targeted sanctions and they are also being used by Western governments, including the UK, to punish Russia. Evidence shows, however, that targeted sanctions also achieve little in relation to dealing with rogue states. Worse still, innocent people can become caught up in freezing orders and other sanction tactics whilst the individuals targeted often use their wealth and power to avoid most of the negative consequences.

    Before looking at the details of the sanctions imposed by the British Government on Russia, it is useful to define what sanctions actually are.

    What are sanctions?

    Sanctions are a range of measures put in place by individual governments, regional groups (for example the European Union or the African Union) or the United Nations to achieve one or more of the following:

    • Prevent escalation of or settle conflicts.
    • Curtail nuclear proliferation.
    • Deal with terrorism and human rights violations.

    Types of sanctions include:

    • Economic – impose commercial and financial penalties, for example levying import duties and/or blocking exports of certain goods.
    • Diplomatic – reducing or recalling diplomats or cancelling high-profile international meetings.
    • Sport – preventing the sanctioned country’s athletes from competing in international events.
    • Targeted/smart sanctions – imposes travel bans and asset freezing orders on individuals, companies, or other entities such as terrorist organisations.
    • Military sanctions – these are used as a last resort and can involve targeted military strikes and arms embargoes.

    Russians affected by UK sanctions following the invasion of Ukraine

    The UK has long been criticised for turning a blind eye to international money laundering within its territories. Many Russian oligarchs have invested heavily in UK luxury homes, businesses, and even football clubs. Following the invasion of Ukraine, the UK, alongside the EU and US, imposed sanctions on hundreds of members of the Russian regime, including wealthy Russian oligarchs such as Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich and ex-Arsenal shareholder, Alisher Usmanov as well as others who are considered to be close to the Kremlin, for example, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev and Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, plus a further 386 members of the Russian parliament.

    The problem with imposing targeted sanctions on Russian oligarchs

    Countries such as the US have had sanctions in place against many Russian billionaires since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. These appeared to do nothing to deter President Vladimir Putin from a full-scale invasion of Ukraine eight years later. This may be because despite being once close to the Kremlin, most of the recognised oligarchs now seem to have little influence, or even contact with President Putin and his inner circle.

    In 2000, at a meeting with 21 business tycoons, President Putin made himself abundantly clear regarding his attitude to the oligarchs – they could remain in business but they were to stay out of politics. And he backed this up with action – Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once Russia’s richest man as head of oil giant Yukos and a fierce critic of the President, spent 10 years in prison for tax evasion and theft after funding opposition parties.

    With Mr Khodorkovsky’s fate still fresh in their minds, almost all oligarchs now stay well clear of politics. Although some have condemned the war, none have directly criticised President Putin. Mikhail Fridman told Bloomberg that “to say anything to Putin against the war, for anybody, would be kind of suicide.”

    It seems, therefore, that although imposing sanctions on the business and personal interests of oligarchs may appease the public by giving the impression that those who made billions out of the collapse of the USSR are finally being penalised, in reality, they no longer have any ability to influence the Kremlin’s actions. And even if they did, a 2019 paper concerning the effectiveness of targeted business sanctions concluded:

    “Through empirical analysis, significant evidence was found in support of the hypothesis that targeting military interests will result in more successful outcomes than targeting other interest groups or comprehensive sanctions. Evidence regarding the targeting of business interests presented a far less compelling case of this line of sanctioning’s efficacy relative to comprehensive sanctions.”

    Final words

    Although more research is required to judge the effectiveness of smart sanctions, the initial evidence does not appear promising. Furthermore, smart sanctions are even less likely to achieve the aim of the government or group that imposes them if they are not targeting people and/or business interests that can actually influence the rogue state’s leadership. I will leave the final word to Mohamed ElBaradei, an Egyptian law scholar and diplomat, former Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Nobel Peace Prize recipient:

    “People talk about smart sanctions and crippling sanctions. I’ve never seen smart sanctions, and crippling sanctions cripple everyone, including innocent civilians, and make the government more popular.”

    Written by Waleed Tahirkheli

    To discuss any points raised in this article, please call us on +44 (0) 203972 8469 or email us at mail@eldwicklaw.com.