AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis and Phillip Salakas, Nyman Gibson Miralis
of active sanctions) directed towards Russian ves- sels. This means over 32% of active sanctions are directed towards Russia, up from 20.1% as of July 2025. • Relatedly, 21.9% of sanctions are imposed under the Ukraine country framework, meaning the Russia-Ukraine conflict is the likely context from which Australian sanctions are arising (53.9%). This is notable from July 2025 (46.3% active sanctions). • There continues to be a steady but minimal use of Magnitsky-style sanction instruments since the introduction of the Autonomous Sanctions Amend - ment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanc - tions) Regulations 2021 (Cth) (the “Magnitsky-style Regulations”) in December 2021, with Australia incrementally using these powers more throughout 2024, with five of the nine instruments being issued between November 2023 and June 2024. While there is a constant (but slow) use of the cyber and human rights frameworks, there continues to be a notable drop-off in any usage in relation to cor - ruption, with the last set of still-in-force corruption sanctions dating back to 2022. Statistics on Permits Statistics on reports, contraventions, enforcement actions and permits remain undisclosed to the general public. In July 2021, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) released a “Sanctions Regulator Performance – Self-Assessment Report”, disclosing that in 2020–21, 55 permit applications were finalised (in which the ASO assessed that a sanctions permit was required). On 5 December 2025, DFAT issued a new permit to accompany the launch of the new Afghanistan sanc- tions framework. This permit authorises the provision of humanitarian assistance and other activities to sup- port basic human needs in Afghanistan. Co-Ordinated Sanctions Australia continues to impose sanctions in co-ordi- nation with friendly countries, including the UK, the USA and Canada. For example, Australia has consist - ently acted in conjunction with other countries in the imposition of Magnitsky-style human rights sanctions against Israeli individuals and entities for settler vio-
lence against Palestinians in the West Bank as recent as June 2026. Court Proceedings No cases in terms of contractual law or other admin- istrative decisions were rendered. However, 2026 did feature an important case, an appeal decision by the High Court of Australia in Deripaska v Minister for Foreign Affairs, important to administrative law. In short, the High Court held that Australian sanctions law could not prohibit a des- ignated person from engaging a lawyer to assist in challenging the designation or the associated law. The precise parameters of this implied exclusion will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but it does provide an important pathway for those designated to receive legal advice and protection for the lawyers who provide it. See 2.3.2 Provision of Legal Services and 3.1 Significant Court Decisions or Legal Develop - ments for further details. Enforcement Action There has been only one charge during this 2025 to 2026 period. This reflects the broad trend in Australia not to prosecute sanctions violations. This case con- cerned an individual who is a director of a remittance company alleged to have contravened Australian sanctions by transferring funds to an Iranian bank (See 2.2.4 Criminal Enforcement Action). It is unclear if this case is still ongoing. This trend has been ongoing for some time. As of 15 November 2024, it was confirmed that the AFP had four active sanctions investigations and that DFAT had 21 sanctions compliance matters under review, yet no cases were reported in the CDPP 2025 Annual Report related to the sanctions legislation. No further report- ing on investigations or other enforcement action has occurred to date. In fact, there is a distinct lack of charges reported by the AFP or the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions. However, this charge in 2025 may signal a broader escalation in regulatory and sanctions enforcement action. Notably arising from this case, there has been an enforcement effort targeting remittance services with the ASO issuing “a number of” warning letters to
12 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook