NETHERLANDS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sebastiaan Bennink, Daniel Webb, Carlijn Raijmakers and Matilde Muriotto, Bennink Dunin-Wasowicz
Conclusion The case for replacing the Sanctiewet 1977 is a strong one. The current framework was designed for a dif - ferent era of sanctions practice, and the institutional machinery it supports has visibly struggled with the volume and pace of EU measures adopted since 2022. The International Sanctions Act addresses that problem at the right level: institutions, procedures and enforcement instruments. What the June 2026 draft has not yet done is convert those choices into a framework that businesses and their advisers can plan around. The boundary between administrative and criminal enforcement, the thresh - old for replacing a company’s management, and the treatment of privileged communications are all mat - ters on which the bill leaves the essential question open. These are not drafting details; they determine how the regime will operate for the parties subject to it. With plenary debate scheduled for September 2026, there is still time to address them, and good reason to do so before the act enters into force. Pending the adoption of the International Sanctions Act, practitioners are recommended to closely monitor further amendments to the bill, and to treat the interim period as an opportunity for compliance preparation in anticipation of its entry into force.
A second concern relates to the onwards transmis - sion of information by the Dean. Under the proposal, lawyers would report to the local district’s designated Dean, who is in turn bound by confidentiality. That duty does not, however, guarantee that the informa - tion remains protected once it is passed on to the central reporting point or reflected in a public register. Without clearly delineated safeguards, the result may be an indirect erosion of privilege, and in practice a route by which the State obtains access to confiden - tial legal communications. A third concern is the effect on access to legal assis - tance. Faced with heavier reporting burdens and uncertain boundaries, some lawyers may become reluctant to accept instructions from sanctioned or sanctions-affected clients even where they are per - fectly entitled to act. In principle, however, those clients remain entitled to legal advice and represen - tation, including in matters far removed from sanc - tions evasion or asset concealment. A framework that indirectly discourages representation therefore risks undermining not only professional confidentiality, but also practical access to justice. Taken together, these criticisms suggest that the bill has not yet found a stable equilibrium between the legitimate enforcement demands of sanctions law and the protections owed to legal privilege, confidentiality and effective legal representation. If lawyers and nota - ries are to be brought more fully within the sanctions supervision framework, the act will need to articulate safeguards tailored to these professions.
224 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook