Sanctions

 

Let us know which countries you would like to receive updates?

Switzerland follows EU on Belarus sanctions

 

Switzerland has followed the EU in lifting its asset freezes and travel bans that relate to all but 4 people on its sanctions against Belarus . The Swiss government’s notice is here and its consolidated list of Belarus targets is here.

As foreshadowed  the EU has now published measures extending its asset freezes and travel bans against Belarus until 28 February 2017 only in relation to 4 people – all of whom are said to be involved in the unresolved disappearances of 2 opposition politicians, a businessman, and a journalist. The 4 people still subject to sanctions are:

1. Vladimir Naumov – Former Minister of Interior and former Head of the President’s Security Service
2. Dmitri Pavlichenko – Former Head of the Special Response Group at the Ministry of Interior
3. Viktor Sheiman – Head of the Management Department of the President’s Administration and former Secretary of the Security Council
4. Iury Sivakov – Former Minister of Interior, Minister of Tourism and Sports, and former Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration.

Sanctions have been lifted in relation to President Lukashenko, 3 defence companies said to have close ties to the government in Minsk, and 169 others, in relation to whom sanctions had been suspended since 31 October 2015.

The renewal is made by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/276 implementing Council Regulation (EC) 765/2006 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/280 amending Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP.   The EU’s notice to the 4 people still subject to sanctions is here 

EU Scrutiny Committee clears new CAR listings

The House of Commons EU Scrutiny Committee has cleared EU measures listing Haroun Gaye and Eugene Barret Nagikosset on EU sanctions against the Central African Republic (see previous from scrutiny.  The Committee said that Minister for Europe David Lidington had explained clearly and convincingly why the listings were appropriate, for undermining attempts to bring peace, reconciliation, and democracy to “this deeply traumatised country”.  As is often the case, the Minister approved the measures before the Committee had a chance to scrutinise them; the Minister said this was because the “rapid transposition of UN sanctions designations into EU legislation is highly desirable…and ensures the effectiveness and credibility of the sanctions regime”.

The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has cleared measures published by the EU in November 2015 relisting the Oil Industry Pension Fund Investment Company in its targeted Iran sanctions. OPIC is one of several people and entities to have been re-listed on the EU’s sanctions lists following a successful annulment application in the European court

Although it cleared the measures, the Committee noted that the standard by which Minister for Europe David Lidington assessed the evidence for OPIC’s relisting, that it was “sufficient for the Council, in the event of a challenge, to defend its relisting decision”, was lower than the standard sought by the Committee when it first considered the matter, that the evidence “was sufficiently robust either to deter or to withstand further legal challenge”. The Committee also criticised Mr Lidington’s reasons for not providing information to Parliament on what public domain information is held by the Council in relation to OPIC, and stated that it finds it unlikely that either the UK Government or the EU Council will be able to enforce the confidentiality of this information or sustain it if challenged.  The same Committee kept the re-listings of the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) and Mr Golparvar under scrutiny last March

 EU Scrutiny Commitee clears OPIC relisting

he House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has cleared measures published by the EU in November 2015 relisting the Oil Industry Pension Fund Investment Company in its targeted Iran sanctions   OPIC is one of several people and entities to have been re-listed on the EU’s sanctions lists following a successful annulment application in the European court

Although it cleared the measures, the Committee noted that the standard by which Minister for Europe David Lidington assessed the evidence for OPIC’s relisting, that it was “sufficient for the Council, in the event of a challenge, to defend its relisting decision”, was lower than the standard sought by the Committee when it first considered the matter, that the evidence “was sufficiently robust either to deter or to withstand further legal challenge”. The Committee also criticised Mr Lidington’s reasons for not providing information to Parliament on what public domain information is held by the Council in relation to OPIC, and stated that it finds it unlikely that either the UK Government or the EU Council will be able to enforce the confidentiality of this information or sustain it if challenged.  The same Committee kept the re-listings of the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) and Mr Golparvar under scrutiny last March

4 indicted in USA for violating Iran sanctions

 4 men have been indicted in the USA for conspiring to violate US sanctions by exporting technical equipment with apparent applications in the oil and gas industry to Iran.  The indictment alleges that Shahin Tabatabaei, a Canadian national, ran companies in Mexico and Canada that shipped US goods through Turkey or the UAE into Iran between 2007 and 2011, and that he falsely stated in his paperwork that the goods would not be exported to countries where doing so was prohibited by sanctions. According to the FBI, Mr Tabatabaei was arrested at the US-Canada border last week.

Another of those indicted is Canadian Mohammad Fatemi, from whom Mr Tabatabaei rented office space until 6-8 months ago.  He is alleged to have shipped prohibited goods to co-conspirators in the UAE.  The others are Abbas Moradi and Amirreza Sahebjamei, both based in Iran, who are alleged to have collected orders from Iranian companies, sent those orders to Mr Tabatabaei, and facilitated payments to Mr Fatemi.

UK order to de-proscribe international Sikh Youth Federation

 

 On Monday (22 February 2016), the Home Secretary Theresa May laid before Parliament an order to remove the International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF) from the UK’s list of organisations proscribed under the UK Terrorism Act 2000.

The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe organisations that she considers to be “concerned in terrorism”, for example by participating in, preparing for, or promoting acts of terrorism.  The effect of proscription is that it is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, invite support for, arrange a meeting in support of, or wear or display articles in public which arouse suspicion that they are a member of that organisation. The ISYF was proscribed in March 2001, and lodged an application for de-proscription and an appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) last year.  The Home Secretary has now concluded that the statutory test is not met, and that there is insufficient information that the ISYF is currently concerned in terrorism and so their application should be granted.

This is the second time on which the Government has laid an order to de-proscribe a group before Parliament since the Act came into force in 2001.  The first was in 2008, removing the Peoples’ Mojahedin of Iran (the PMOI, or MEK) after a POAC judgment and appeal to the Court of Appeal.

ISYF remains proscribed until Parliament has agreed that the order should come into force, under the affirmative resolution procedure. The House of Commons will debate the order on 15 March 2016. Guidance on UK proscribed organisations is here  Maya Lester acted for the ISFY before POAC.

UK Government seeks to increase sanctions enforcement powers

 The UK government has introduced legislation to Parliament that, if passed, would increase the available prison sentences for financial sanctions violations and create new powers for the Treasury to impose civil fines on those it believes to have committed a sanctions breach.

Sections 89 and 90 of The Policing and Crime Bill increase the available sentence for most sanctions violations, including new offences, on summary conviction from 6 months to 12 months, and on conviction on indictment from 2 years to 7 years.  Under section 91, it also grants the Treasury the power to impose a civil fine of the greater of £1,000,000 or 50% of the estimated value of the funds or resources involved, where applicable, when it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a person has breached sanctions.

The proposed new power to impose civil penalties on violators is redolent of powers already enjoyed by US enforcement agency OFAC, and would represent a substantial increase in the potency of enforcement powers available in the UK

 HM Treasury renews asset freeze against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

HM Treasury has renewed the sanctions designation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for 1 year until 12 January 2017.  As a result, he will continue to be subject to an asset freeze under the Terrorist Asset Freezing etc. Act 2010.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is said to be the principal architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and is currently detained at Guantanamo Bay under US custody.

UK publishes updated strategic export control list

 The UK’s Export Control Organisation, the governmental body responsible for issuing licences for the export of military and other strategic goods from the UK, has published an updated version of its consolidated list of items requiring export authorisation.  The updated list has been published following changes made in October 2015 to controls on dual-use goods, software, and technology by the European Commission in order to implement amendments to several multilateral regimes.  The changes relate primarily to new controls on machine tools, avionics technology, spacecraft equipment, and civil UAVs, and also remove from control certain encrypted information security products. 

Full details on request 

Guidance for information; operating within counter-terrorism legislation

 

While this note has been drafted primarily for international non-governmental organisations it has relevance to other sectors.

Does counter-terrorism legislation prevent organisations from operating overseas?

No, in the government’s assessment existing terrorism (or other) legislation does not prevent organisations, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), from operating overseas, including in areas where terrorist groups operate. This can involve very finely balanced judgments for non-governmental organisations, but this is an inherent risk for any organisation operating in high threat areas overseas. It remains the responsibility of non-governmental organisations or other parties to ensure that their activity complies with UK law and to take reasonable steps to reduce the risk of non-compliance.

Prosecution

Will I be prosecuted in the UK as a result of my involvement in legitimate humanitarian or conflict resolution work?

The risk that an individual or a body of persons corporate or unincorporated will be prosecuted for a terrorism offence as a result of their involvement in humanitarian efforts or conflict resolution is low

While this note has been drafted primarily for international non-governmental organisations it has relevance to other sectors.

Does counter-terrorism legislation prevent organisations from operating overseas?

No, in the government’s assessment existing terrorism (or other) legislation does not prevent organisations, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), from operating overseas, including in areas where terrorist groups operate. This can involve very finely balanced judgments for non-governmental organisations, but this is an inherent risk for any organisation operating in high threat areas overseas. It remains the responsibility of non-governmental organisations or other parties to ensure that their activity complies with UK law and to take reasonable steps to reduce the risk of non-compliance.

Prosecution

Will I be prosecuted in the UK as a result of my involvement in legitimate humanitarian or conflict resolution work?

The risk that an individual or a body of persons corporate or unincorporated will be prosecuted for a terrorism offence as a result of their involvement in humanitarian efforts or conflict resolution is low.

Has anyone involved in legitimate humanitarian or conflict resolution work been prosecuted for a terrorism offence?

We are not aware of any recent UK prosecutions of NGOs or their staff for terrorism offences.

Who makes the decision to prosecute?

Prosecution decisions are taken independently of government and will be made on a case by case basis depending on the particular facts and circumstances. More generally, it is important to recognise that any potential prosecution would have to go through a number of stages before a decision to prosecute was made:

• police identify that a crime may have been committed
• police decide whether or not to investigate
• police investigate and, if they consider that there is sufficient evidence to charge, refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service
• Crown Prosecution Service consider whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute
• Crown Prosecution Service consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest (in line with the Code for Crown Prosecutors)
• if the offence requires the consent of the Attorney General (as many offences under the terrorism legislation which concern the affairs of another country do) the Crown Prosecution Service refer the case to the Attorney General
• the Attorney General decides whether the prosecution should proceed, considering the sufficiency of evidence and the public interest in bringing proceedings

.