NETHERLANDS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sebastiaan Bennink, Daniel Webb, Carlijn Raijmakers and Matilde Muriotto, Bennink Dunin-Wasowicz
• the first is to assist undertakings that may become economically isolated as a result of sanctions; and • the second, explained in the following section, is for the management of assets subject to prolonged freezes. In relation to undertakings, the bill empowers the competent minister to appoint a silent administrator (a distinct and less intrusive figure from the administra - tor who replaces management, as described above) where necessary to limit the influence of a sanctioned owner or shareholder, while ensuring compliance with sanctions. The power is reserved for cases in which the impact of sanctions on the undertaking would have serious social, economic or employment con - sequences in the Netherlands. The appointment may serve either to preserve the undertaking’s continuity or to facilitate its orderly winding-up. In practical terms, the administrator may seek to establish a functional separation between the undertaking and the sanc - tioned person, or to advise on the restructuring of the business, including the replacement of suppliers or customers. Management of frozen registered property The bill establishes a comparable mechanism for the management of long-term frozen registered property, including real estate, vessels and aircraft. Prolonged freezing under the applicable sanctions regulations may itself create legal, financial or safety risks. The proposal therefore allows the State to assume man - agement where necessary – for example, to ensure the maintenance of ships and aircraft or the continued operation of leased property. The associated costs, together with a management fee, may be recovered from the owner once the freeze is lifted. Sanctions - related entries in public registers The bill provides a broader legal basis for making sanctions-related entries in various Dutch registers, with a view to improving transparency for citizens, businesses, notaries and supervisory authorities. At present, such registration powers exist only in a lim - ited form, notably in connection with the Russia and Belarus sanctions regimes. The proposed act seeks to extend this mechanism to all sanctions regimes and to a wider range of registries, including the Com - mercial Register, the UBO registers, the land register,
and the registers for ships and aircraft. Its purpose is to make visible the direct or indirect links between registered entities or assets and designated natural or legal persons. Central reporting point The bill also establishes a central reporting point for sanctions compliance, which would become the default channel for obligations arising under EU, UN and national sanctions regimes. This responds to a number of practical shortcomings in the current sys - tem, including fragmented reporting channels, uncer - tainty among reporting parties, and limited capacity for verification and pattern analysis. The reform is par - ticularly significant in light of the increasingly detailed reporting obligations imposed under EU asset freeze regimes. The central reporting point would receive, register, verify and analyse reports, and would share relevant information with ministries, the European Commis - sion, supervisory authorities and enforcement bodies. It would also perform an advisory function for per - sons subject to reporting obligations. A key excep - tion is the Central Import and Export Service (CDIU), which would remain the reporting point for import and export-related notifications and authorisation requests concerning sanctioned goods. Supervision of business operations : lawyers and notaries Lastly, the bill expands operational supervision to law - yers and notaries. Both professions would become subject to supervision of their administrative organi - sation and internal controls for sanctions compliance, even before the relevant EU anti-money laundering reforms enter into force. Notaries, including trainee and assistant notaries, would be supervised by the Bureau Financieel Toezicht (BFT), while lawyers would fall under the local district’s designated Dean appoint - ed by the General Council of the Dutch Bar. The pro - posal reflects the fact that both supervisory structures already exercise functions under anti-money launder - ing legislation and have identified shortcomings in sanctions compliance, but currently lack a specific legal basis to intervene under the Sanctiewet 1977.
221 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook