UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: John Binns, BCL Solicitors LLP
Worse, UK courts up to and including the Supreme Court (the leading authority from the latter being the decisively unsuccessful challenge brought by Eugene Shvidler) have demonstrated extreme deference to the “institutional expertise” of the FCDO in matters relevant to the proportionality exercise, which has been assessed at an aggregate level rather than with reference to the individual circumstances of the DP concerned. Targeting trade While few, perhaps, have much sympathy for those labelled (rightly or not) as “oligarchs”, the scope of the Russia regulations has meanwhile expanded to affect the provision of goods and services to “persons con - nected with Russia” (PCWRs), which the regulations have defined to mean, broadly speaking, individuals residing there and companies incorporated or domi - ciled there. The trend is particularly pernicious in the context of professional services, where the chilling effect of sanc - tions effectively creates a hostile environment for an entire population, and a toxic (albeit understandable) reluctance among professionals to take the risk of (or to jump through the administrative hurdles involved in) continuing to work for them. These services, of course, are otherwise entirely lawful and available to clients without discrimination. Forfeiture? Early rhetoric from the Johnson government about restricting Russians’ access to UK bank accounts has so far not been translated into law, but the trend of expanding designation criteria and service restrictions into ever greater categories of people is not encour - aging. In parallel with this, debates continue about the prospect of forfeiting Russian assets, apparently without much care to distinguish between assets belonging to the Russian state and those belonging to private parties. An obligation on DPs (on the Russia and Belarus lists) to report their assets (with fines of up to half the value of the assets available if reports are not accurately filed) suggests one option for effectively transitioning from freezing of assets to seizing (or forfeiting) them. Another option may be the use of proceeds of crime
laws, which (on an extreme basis) may be presumed to apply to anyone in possession of money who has also ever had an interest in Russian business. In the context of measures intended to protect the values of liberal democracy against arbitrary authoritarianism, any drift in law or rhetoric that makes such assump - tions, or is so ready to impose such discriminatory restrictions on an entire population, needs to be treat - ed with scepticism. A broadening agenda The experience of Russia (and Belarus) sanctions’ expansion since 2022 would appear to have embold - ened the UK government to make greater use of sanctions as a tool, including for purposes that would traditionally be considered part of a criminal law enforcement agenda, and in foreign policy contexts that are often controversial. At the time of publication of this guide (13 August 2026), examples include: • continued use of the anti-corruption regime to target those suspected of involvement in overseas bribery and/or misappropriation of public assets, sometimes in conjunction with proceeds of crime laws; • use of the human rights regime to tackle a diverse range of issues, including the involvement of the Chinese government in persecution of the Uyghur population of Xinjiang province, gender-based violence against women and girls in Iran, Syria and elsewhere, overseas “scam centres” using forced labour to commit fraud, suspected violent settlors of Palestinian territories in Israel, and (controver - sially) certain members of the Israeli government; and • a new regime targeting those involved in irregu - lar immigration, including the transport of asylum seekers across the Channel in small boats. Scaling back The scaling back of sanctions against Syria in the UK and other countries illustrates how foreign policy priorities can influence the treatment of different par - ties. Some groups, which have faced sanctions or been designated under terrorism legislation at vari - ous points, continued to be sanctioned due to their past actions. In contrast, other groups seemed to be pardoned for similar conduct.
300 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook