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:
- Vladimir Naumov – Former Minister of Interior and former Head of the President’s Security Service
- Dmitri Pavlichenko – Former Head of the Special Response Group at the Ministry of Interior
- Viktor Sheiman – Head of the Management Department of the
President’s Administration and former Secretary of the Security Council
- 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
.
