Sanctions 2026

Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers

CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES

Sanctions 2026

Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers

Contributing Editor Cameron Doley Carter-Ruck

Global Practice Guides

Sanctions Contributing Editor Cameron Doley Carter-Ruck

2026

Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair, Stephen Dinkeldein, Vivienne Button and Sean Marshall Content Reviewers Lawrence Garrett, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino, Alison Moore, Adrian Ciechacki and Michael Irvine Content Coordination Manager Nancy Tsang Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Joanna Chivers Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan

Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com

Contents

INTRODUCTION Contributed by Cameron Doley and Tasha Benkhadra, Carter-Ruck p.5

FRANCE Law and Practice p.135 Contributed by WJ Avocats Trends and Developments p.151 Contributed by WJ Avocats INDIA Law and Practice p.158 Contributed by Khaitan and Co ITALY Trends and Developments p.171 Contributed by Studio Isolabella

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice p.9 Contributed by Nyman Gibson Miralis Trends and Developments p.21 Contributed by Nyman Gibson Miralis

AUSTRIA Law and Practice p.28 Contributed by Lansky Ganzger Goeth + Partner Rechtsanwälte GmbH Trends and Developments p.41 Contributed by Lansky Ganzger Goeth + Partner Rechtsanwälte GmbH

JAPAN Trends and Developments p.178 Contributed by Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners

BELGIUM Law and Practice p.47 Contributed by ACQUIS Trends and Developments p.62 Contributed by ACQUIS CHINA Law and Practice p.67 Contributed by AnJie Broad Law Firm Trends and Developments p.78 Contributed by AnJie Broad Law Firm CZECH REPUBLIC Law and Practice p.83 Contributed by PRK Partners Trends and Developments p.92 Contributed by PRK Partners DENMARK Law and Practice p.99 Contributed by Accura Trends and Developments p.110 Contributed by Accura EU Law and Practice p.115 Contributed by Dentons Trends and Developments p.129 Contributed by ACQUIS

LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice p.185 Contributed by Ospelt & Partner Attorneys at Law Ltd Trends and Developments p.201 Contributed by Ospelt & Partner Attorneys at Law Ltd NETHERLANDS Law and Practice p.206 Contributed by Bennink Dunin-Wasowicz Trends and Developments p.218 Contributed by Bennink Dunin-Wasowicz PORTUGAL Law and Practice p.225 Contributed by Rogério Alves & Associados SWEDEN Law and Practice p.236 Contributed by Advokatfirman Vinge KB Trends and Developments p.248 Contributed by Gernandt & Danielsson SWITZERLAND Law and Practice p.256 Contributed by Baker McKenzie Switzerland AG Trends and Developments p.276 Contributed by Baker McKenzie Switzerland AG

3 CHAMBERS.COM

Contents

UK Law and Practice p.284

Contributed by BCL Solicitors LLP Trends and Developments p.295 Contributed by BCL Solicitors LLP

USA Law and Practice p.303

Contributed by Seward & Kissel LLP Trends and Developments p.315 Contributed by Seward & Kissel LLP USA – WASHINGTON, DC Trends and Developments p.321 Contributed by Holland & Knight LLP

4 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Cameron Doley and Tasha Benkhadra, Carter-Ruck

Carter-Ruck advises on a broad range of sanctions issues (including compliance with the UK’s sanc - tions regimes and engagement with the UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation) and is widely considered a leading law firm for individuals and enti - ties wishing to take steps to pre-empt or challenge sanctions designations. The firm pioneered chal - lenges to such sanctions in 2001 when representing Sheikh Yassin Kadi, whose two successes before the European Court of Justice have set the benchmark for sanctions challenges. It has represented clients before the UK and EU authorities, the UN and the

Ombudsperson to the UN’s ISIL and Al-Qaida Sanc - tions Committee, the Administrative Court in London in domestic judicial reviews of administrative sanc - tions decisions, the General Court of the European Union and the European Court of Justice. The firm also works closely with local counsel advising clients challenging US, Australian and other designations. Many sanctions cases include a reputation manage - ment element, where Carter-Ruck is especially well placed to assist in light of its unrivalled media law expertise in the UK and internationally.

Contributing Editor

Co-Author

Cameron Doley heads Carter-Ruck’s sanctions and international arbitration practices, and was a senior member

Tasha Benkhadra is a senior associate in Carter-Ruck’s international law team, with significant

of the team that launched Sheikh Yassin Kadi’s successful sanctions challenges following his designations in the aftermath of 9/11. He also maintains a wider focus on international law, dispute resolution, regulatory cases involving an international or diplomatic context, and high-profile media cases. As head of Carter-Ruck’s sanctions practice, Cameron advises clients on administrative and judicial challenges before various tribunals, including the authorities and courts of the UK, EU, USA and UN, as well as on sanctions compliance, representing clients before regulators and licensing authorities including OFSI.

experience in all areas of domestic and international sanctions, including advising on steps to pre-empt potential designations, how to comply with the UK’s sanctions regime, licence applications, OFSI reporting, OFSI breach investigations and information requests, and delisting challenges both at the ministerial and court review stages. Her practice spans the full range of UK sanctions regimes, with a particular focus on the UK’s Russia and Iran regimes. Tasha is also a founding member of the City Sanctions Network and Vice Chair of the Young Fraud Lawyers Association (YFLA).

Carter-Ruck The Bureau 90 Fetter Lane London EC4A 1EN United Kingdom Tel: +44 020 7353 5005 Email: lawyers@carter-ruck.com Web: www.carter-ruck.com

5 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Cameron Doley and Tasha Benkhadra, Carter-Ruck

Reflecting on Sanctions Prior to the chapters that follow, it is worth reflecting on the remarkable transformation which sanctions – and the related market more generally – have under - gone over the past decade. Once viewed primarily as a diplomatic tool operat - ing at the margins of international relations, sanctions have evolved such that they have become the princi - pal mechanism through which states pursue foreign policy objectives, protect national security interests, respond to geopolitical crises and seek to influence behaviour. This is true both of targeted sanctions (ie, restrictive measures targeted at entities or legal or natural persons) and of trade sanctions (eg, sanctions on the purchase of oil or the provision of professional services). In so doing, sanctions have developed into a highly complex and increasingly consequential area of law which sits at the intersection of public interna - tional law, human rights, dispute resolution, interna - tional trade, financial services regulation and reputa - tion management. The pace of this transformation has accelerated con - siderably in recent years. The sanctions imposed in response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine rapidly became the most extensive and co- ordinated sanctions campaign in modern history, thus fundamentally reshaping the global sanctions land - scape. Nevertheless, the significance of sanctions today extends far beyond a single conflict; rather, governments around the world (albeit, chiefly in the Global North) continue to deploy sanctions in order to address a broad range of issues, including, but not limited to: • armed conflicts; • terrorism; • organised crime; • corruption; • human rights abuses; and • nuclear proliferation. This has been at the forefront of geopolitical discus - sion in recent months, due to the commencement of the Israel/US-Iran conflict, which began in February 2026. At the same time, economic security consid - erations have become increasingly intertwined with

sanctions policy, due to the volatility of certain mar - kets (eg, the energy sector) as a result of, inter alia, the aforementioned conflicts, which must often be considered in tandem in order to adequately deter - mine their impact on global politics and supply chains. The practical consequence of these developments is that both domestic and international clients alike must constantly remain abreast of the legislative, regulatory and political changes and assess the impact of those changes upon their lives and businesses. Against this backdrop, sanctions have become an issue of increasing global consequence. While the United States, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom remain among the most influential sanctioning authorities, they are no longer alone, with other jurisdictions expanding or developing their own sanctions frameworks, while regional and suprana - tional organisations continue to play an important role in the implementation of restrictive measures. General Overview of the Forthcoming Chapters One of the main objectives of this guide is to provide a comparative overview of how different jurisdictions approach recurrent legal and practical challenges. Contributors will accordingly examine the evolution of sanctions regimes over the past 12 months, the sectors most affected by sanctions regulations, the types of sanctions implemented and the extent to which those measures operate beyond national bor - ders. Contributors will also consider the institutional frameworks through which sanctions are imposed, administered and enforced, thereby highlighting important differences in legal frameworks, regulatory priorities and enforcement. Interconnectedness of sanctions One of the recurring themes throughout the present guide is the increasingly global nature of sanctions compliance. In an interconnected economy, organisa - tions frequently find themselves simultaneously tar - geted by multiple sanctioning authorities, each with its own legal framework, policy objectives and enforce - ment mechanisms. The result therefore presents a compliance landscape in which most stakeholders in the sanctions industry – but especially financial insti - tutions and professional advisers – must navigate a complex array of obligations.

6 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Cameron Doley and Tasha Benkhadra, Carter-Ruck

Extraterritoriality The question of extraterritoriality occupies a central role in modern sanctions. Many sanctions regimes aim to directly or indirectly influence conduct occurring outside the territory of the sanctioning state. There are several means by which they seek to do this – for instance, through secondary sanctions, or by putting in place restrictions on trade or access to financial markets, which have the potential to impact individu - als and entities with few connections to the sanction - ing jurisdiction. Contributors will accordingly explore the extent to which sanctions in their respective juris - dictions possess extraterritorial characteristics. Ownership and control The guide will also highlight the increasingly impor - tant role played by ownership and control analyses. Particularly since 2022, questions surrounding indi - rect designation through ownership and control have remained some of the most complex and heavily liti - gated issues in sanctions law. Across multiple juris - dictions, entities may become subject to sanctions restrictions – not because they are expressly desig - nated themselves but because they are owned or con - trolled by a designated person. Determining whether ownership and/or control exists can involve a highly fact-sensitive analysis of corporate structures, voting rights, governance arrangements, beneficial owner - ship interests and other indicators of corporate influ - ence. Contributors will therefore examine the legal tests adopted in their jurisdictions and the guidance available to assist stakeholders in navigating such assessments. Anti-circumvention Closely linked to these developments is the ever-grow - ing emphasis of governments on anti-circumvention measures, so as to prevent attempts to undermine sanctions through intermediary jurisdictions, complex ownership structures and/or other indirect commercial dealings. As sanctions regimes have expanded, so too have efforts to identify and disrupt mechanisms designed to circumvent them. Indeed, sanctioning authorities typically have the power to impose sig - nificant civil or criminal consequences in response to the intended or actual circumvention of sanctions. Acquiring a complete understanding of the scope of anti-circumvention provisions, along with the result -

ing standards placed on individuals and entities, is a central aspect of sanctions compliance. Transformations within enforcement Another prominent theme emerging from the chap - ters that follow is the continued emphasis on, and development of, sanctions enforcement. In many jurisdictions, the focus appears to have evolved from the rapid introduction of sanctions designations towards ensuring their effective implementation and enforcement. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, regulatory authorities and enforcement bodies have turned their attention to the consolidation of their civil and criminal enforcement measures, resulting in a marked increase of enforcement activity. This trend is reflected in the guide’s examination of the authorities responsible for civil and criminal enforcement and the penalties which may arise from non-compliance. In this regard, the distinction between civil and crimi - nal enforcement remains an important area of differ - ence between jurisdictions. Some systems continue to reserve criminal penalties for the most serious or deliberate breaches, while others have adopted civil enforcement mechanisms which permit substantial penalties to be imposed without proof of criminal intent. Contributors will accordingly provide an over - view of the enforcement frameworks operating within their jurisdictions and insight into significant enforce - ment actions undertaken during the past three years. Industries impacted by sanctions The increasing sophistication of sanctions regimes has transformed sanctions compliance from a spe - cialist legal concern to a core governance issue. As a result, sanctions considerations have become highly influential in commercial decision-making at every stage of a transaction, from due diligence to contract drafting and dispute resolution. Contributors will therefore outline the manner in which sanctions affect numerous and diverse industries. Licensing The present guide will further examine the practical mechanisms that underlie sanctions regimes, includ - ing licensing frameworks and processes, which are increasingly important tools to maintain the balance between policy objectives and legitimate commercial,

7 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Cameron Doley and Tasha Benkhadra, Carter-Ruck

Closing Remarks Notwithstanding the broad convergence in many states’ responses to recent conflicts and their result - ing policy objectives, the approach taken towards the imposition and enforcement of sanctions continues to exhibit key differences between jurisdictions. The comparative perspective offered by this guide serves as a reminder of those differences, from the types of sanctions that jurisdictions impose, and the legal basis upon which those sanctions are adopted, to the operation of licensing frameworks, the perspec - tives adopted by the courts and the approach taken to enforcement. Understanding such differences is crucial for practitioners and businesses to operate effectively in an increasingly regulated, and regrettably volatile, global market. The current environment of economic competition and ongoing geopolitical instability gives us every reason to expect that sanctions will remain a critical feature of international relations and foreign policy for the fore - seeable future. The manner in which sanctions and enforcement agencies adapt to the challenges pre - sented by this environment will be a key focus over the next 12 months, and will continue to influence the advice given by sanctions practitioners to their clients. This guide has been prepared against this backdrop, bringing together contributions from dozens of juris - dictions in order to provide a comprehensive and practical overview of the contemporary sanctions landscape, with a view to assisting practitioners and other industry stakeholders in navigating one of the most rapidly evolving and geopolitically significant areas of modern law.

humanitarian and/or legal interests. Contributors will consider the grounds upon which licences may be granted, the procedures for obtaining them and the extent to which legal services can be provided to des - ignated persons. Reporting Reporting obligations represent another area of increasing complexity. In most jurisdictions, stake - holders impacted by sanctions – such as businesses, financial institutions and professionals – are subject to obligations to identify and report certain assets, trans - actions or conduct connected to designated persons or prohibited activities. A failure to comply with such obligations may itself constitute a breach, regardless of whether any underlying sanctions violation has occurred. Contributors will accordingly examine the reporting frameworks applicable in their jurisdictions, including the persons subject to reporting obligations, the circumstances in which reports must be made and the authorities to whom such reports should be directed. Judicial developments Particularly since 2022, courts have assumed a highly influential role in shaping the interpretation and appli - cation of sanctions measures. This guide therefore identifies the most important judicial developments in recent years, with contributors discussing the manner in which the courts have addressed sanctions-related issues, including those arising out of (or resulting in) contractual disputes. In view of the profound consequences which sanc - tions designations can have for both individuals and entities (such as by affecting access to assets, finan - cial services and commercial opportunities), the avail - ability of judicial oversight is crucial. Consequently, sanctions regimes will usually provide mechanisms through which designations may be challenged or reviewed, and these are again explored in this guide, as are the remedies which may be obtained (if any) and the practical timeframes involved in pursuing such challenges.

8 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis and Phillip Salakas Nyman Gibson Miralis Contents 1. Trends and Overview p.11 1.1 Sanctions Market p.11 1.2 Key Trends p.11 1.3 Key Industries p.13 1.4 Overview p.13 2. Overview of Regulatory Field p.14 2.1 Primary Regulators p.14 2.2 Enforcement p.14

Australia

Sydney

Tasmania

2.3 Licensing p.15 2.4 Reporting p.16

3. Recent and Future Legal Developments p.17 3.1 Significant Court Decisions or Legal Developments p.17

3.2 Future Developments p.17 4. Delisting Challenges p.18 4.1 Process p.18 4.2 Remedies p.18 4.3 Timing p.18 5. Trade and Export Restrictions p.18 5.1 Services p.18 5.2 Goods p.19 6. Civil Litigation and Arbitration p.19

6.1 Force Majeure p.19 6.2 Enforcement p.19 7. Designation, Compliance and Circumvention p.20 7.1 Executive Body p.20 7.2 Scope of Designation p.20 7.3 Circumvention p.20

9 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis and Phillip Salakas, Nyman Gibson Miralis

Nyman Gibson Miralis is an international, award- winning criminal defence law firm based in Sydney, Australia. For more than 55 years, the firm has been leading the market in all aspects of general, complex and international crime and is widely recognised for its involvement in some of Australia’s most significant criminal cases. Nyman Gibson Miralis’ international law practice focuses on white-collar and corporate crime, transnational financial crime, international sanctions, bribery and corruption, international mon- ey laundering, cybercrime, international asset freez- ing/forfeiture, extradition and mutual assistance law.

The team strategically advises and appears in mat- ters where cross-border investigations and prosecu- tions are being conducted in parallel jurisdictions, involving some of the largest law enforcement agen- cies and financial regulators worldwide. Working with the firm’s international partners, Nyman Gibson Mi - ralis has advised and acted in investigations involv- ing the USA, Canada, the UK, the EU, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Macao, Vietnam, Cambo - dia, Russia, Mexico, South Korea, the British Virgin Islands, New Zealand and South Africa.

Authors

Dennis Miralis of Nyman Gibson Miralis is a leading Australian defence lawyer who specialises in international criminal law, with a focus on complex multi-jurisdictional regulatory investigations and prosecutions. His

Jack Dennis is a senior criminal defence lawyer who brings significant experience in international, corporate and tax matters to his role at Nyman Gibson Miralis, having worked at a top-tier commercial firm and advised

areas of expertise include international sanctions, cybercrime, global investigations, proceeds of crime, bribery and corruption, AML, worldwide freezing orders, national security law, INTERPOL Red Notices, extradition and mutual legal assistance law. Dennis advises individuals and companies under investigation for economic crimes both locally and internationally. He has extensive experience in dealing with all major Australian and international investigative agencies.

on cross-border transactions and disputes involving foreign and domestic corporations and individuals across the software, financial services and crypto industries. His international criminal work involves transnational criminal and regulatory investigations, often working in parallel with other jurisdictions to co-ordinate with foreign law enforcement, intelligence and regulatory agencies. Through such matters, Jack has developed expertise in extraditions, sanctions, customs, white-collar crime and national security.

Phillip Salakas is a defence lawyer who assists the partners with complex criminal matters and investigations involving corporate and financial crime as part of Nyman Gibson Miralis’ white-collar crime

team. Phillip has completed a Bachelor of Laws degree at the University of Technology Sydney and has previously worked in the area of general crime.

10 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis and Phillip Salakas, Nyman Gibson Miralis

Nyman Gibson Miralis Level 9 299 Elizabeth Street Sydney NSW 2000 Australia Tel: +61 2 9264 8884

Email: dm@ngm.com.au Web: www.ngm.com.au

1. Trends and Overview 1.1 Sanctions Market

1.2 Key Trends Statistics on the Use of Sanctions

As of July 2026, approximately 3,838 primary designa - tions were active under Australian sanctions regimes according to the ASO Consolidated List. Comparisons between prior years have been impeded by certain changes to the Consolidated List, renewal of 336 designated entities under the UNSC sanctions related to the 1267 (ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida) Com - mittee and the introduction of a separate sanctions framework for Vessels. Nevertheless, observations can be made from a close examination of the Consolidated List, as follows. • Sanctions have been imposed against 2,537 indi - viduals, 1,039 entities and 262 vessels. • The sheer number of active sanctions has stead- ily increased year-on-year, with there being 3,213 designations in July 2025 and 3,052 in July 2024. Approximately 25% of the active sanctions were imposed within the first six months of 2026; however, this figure may be misleading due to the renewal of sanctions and the transposition of oth- ers between frameworks. • Of the 262 vessels that have been designated, all but one are Russian and the remainder is Iranian. • The focus of Australia’s sanctions regime contin- ues to be Russia, with 25.3% of active sanctions imposed under the Russian sanctions framework and the overwhelming majority of sanctions under the vessels sanctions framework (making up 6.8%

During the past 12 months, Australia’s focus on sanc- tions has been primarily on Russia, in response to the conflict with Ukraine and against North Korea, to target cybercrime and missile development. The Australian Government is utilising many aspects of the sanctions law, including introducing new frame- works, general permits and adjusting the Oil Price Cap (OPC). However, notable aspects remain underuti - lised, including the Magnitsky-style thematic cyber sanctions framework. The primary regulator, the Australian Sanctions Office (ASO), has maintained a co-operative and educative regulatory approach. Throughout 2026, the ASO has released advisory and guidance notes on a variety of topics and conducted outreach sessions. There is an increasingly strong focus on enforcement and compliance, suggesting that the ASO may soon switch into a more proactive role. Enforcement action will likely be in conjunction with other Australian agen- cies, including the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Border Force (ABF) and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC). This may be supported by at least one of the ASO’s sanctions matters being referred to the AFP; however, the outcome of this case and whether it is an isolated enforcement action remains to be seen.

11 CHAMBERS.COM

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

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis and Phillip Salakas, Nyman Gibson Miralis

Sanctions Under the COTUNA Sanctions Regimes The UNSC sanctions regime comprises sanctions passed by the UNSC. The primary instrument of its implementation is the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 (Cth) (COTUNA). Sanctions Under the Autonomous Sanctions Regimes The Australian autonomous sanctions regimes com- prise sanctions imposed by the Australian government that target specific countries or regions and, since the enactment of the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Act 2021 (Cth), address particular issues (referred to as “themes”) such as threats to international peace and security, malicious cyber-activity, serious violations or serious abuses of human rights or activities that undermine good governance or the rule of law. This second set of regimes is primarily implemented by the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Cth) (the “Sanctions Act”) and the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (Cth) (the “Sanctions Regulations”). Under Section 10 of the Sanctions Act, the regulations may make provisions relating to several prohibitions, including: • proscription of persons or entities; • restriction or prevention of uses of, dealings with and the making available of assets; • restriction or prevention of the supply, sale or transfer of goods or services; and • restriction or prevention of the procurement of goods or services. In other words, the main types of sanctions employed by Australia are: • designation of specific individuals or entities as subject to financial sanctions (eg, prohibiting mak - ing assets available to that person, as well as asset freezes); • travel bans on certain persons, preventing them from entering or transiting through Australia; • restrictions on trade in or procurement of goods and services (eg, prohibiting the export or the import of specific goods or services);

remittance companies in Australia. Warning letters are typically the first port of call for the ASO for suspected or low-risk breaches, suggesting the ASO may have already issued section 19 notices and that this charge arose from a broader review of this industry. 1.3 Key Industries Sanctions can be imposed on individuals, regardless of industry, which consequently affects how other individuals and entities interact with those designated. Financial industries are particularly affected by sanc - tions, given the requirement to freeze the assets of designated individuals. As noted before, it appears that the AFP and ASO are focusing particularly on remittance services, sending warning letters to mul- tiple companies. Australian sanctions can be targeted towards specific industries. By way of example: • the sanctions concerning Syria have an express focus on the oil and gas industry or the petrochem- ical industry; and • the sanctions concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“North Korea”) expressly sanc - tion any service that assists with or is in relation to an “extractive or related industry”. Court decisions in 2024 have shone a spotlight on the application of Australian sanctions on the resources (coal, alumina and bauxite) and transport industries. The ramifications may be felt across many global industries with complex, intersecting operations. Finally, with the new amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) and anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) rules, governance obligations related to sanctions are expanding to more industries, including the real estate and legal professions. 1.4 Overview 1.4.1 Types of Sanctions In Australia, there are two sets of sanction regimes: the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions regimes and the autonomous sanctions regimes.

13 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis and Phillip Salakas, Nyman Gibson Miralis

• restrictions on engaging in commercial activities or dealing with assets (eg, purchasing shares, grant- ing IP rights or establishing a joint venture); and • designation of specific vessels as sanctioned vessels, including preventing them from entering Australia. Simultaneous Sanctions Sanctions can be passed under both regimes, such as the current (as of June 2026) regimes against North Korea, Iran, Libya, Sudan, South Sudan, Afghanistan and Syria. 1.4.2 Scope of Sanctions Who must comply with the sanctions depends on the specific regulations governing the sanctions regime. Generally speaking, sanctions regulations have extra- territorial effect. Therefore, the sanctions law applies to activities that occur: • in Australia; • on board an Australian aircraft or an Australian ship; or • by Australian citizens living or bodies corporate registered/incorporated by or under Australian law (whether in Australia, overseas or on board a domestic or foreign vessel or aircraft). 1.4.3 Domestic and/or Supranational Measures Both sets of sanctions are imposed at the (domes - tic) federal level in Australia. Although the COTUNA sanctions regimes apply only to sanctions passed by the UNSC, under a dualist system the Australian gov - ernment must still pass domestic legislation for each sanction to give it effect under Australian law.

• provides guidance on Australian sanctions law to regulated entities and to the public, government and relevant parties; • processes applications for and issues, sanctions permits (see 2.3 Licensing ); • works with the public to promote compliance and help prevent breaches; • works in partnership with other government agen- cies to monitor compliance; and • supports corrective and enforcement action by law enforcement agencies in cases of suspected non- compliance (see 2.2 Enforcement ). 2.2 Enforcement 2.2.1 Enforcement Responsibilities The ASO is the primary agency responsible for the enforcement of Australian sanctions law. It does so by working with a network of Australian partners, includ- ing the Department of Defence (DOD), the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), the Department of Home Affairs, the Australian Border Force (ABF) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP), to promote compliance with Australian sanctions law and respond to possible breaches. Criminal prosecutions for sanctions contraventions are undertaken by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP). There is no civil liability or enforcement for contraven- tions of sanctions. 2.2.2 Breaching Sanctions It is a criminal offence to breach sanctions law or a condition of authorisation under sanctions law (see 2.3 Licensing). The penalty differs depending on whether an individual or a body corporate committed the contravention. For individuals, the penalty can be a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years, a fine or both. The fine is calculated as 2,500 penalty units or – where trans - actions are involved – the greater of three times the value of the transaction or 2,500 penalty units. As of July 2026, 2,500 penalty units equalled AUD910,000. For body corporates, the penalty can be a fine of 10,000 penalty units or – where transactions are

2. Overview of Regulatory Field 2.1 Primary Regulators

DFAT is broadly responsible for administering and enforcing the sanctions. To this end, DFAT established the ASO on 1 January 2022 to sit within DFAT’s Regu - latory Legal Division in the Security, Legal and Con - sular Group. The ASO is the Australian government’s sanctions regulator. As the regulator, the ASO:

14 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis and Phillip Salakas, Nyman Gibson Miralis

involved – the greater of three times the value of the transaction or 10,000 penalty units. As at July 2026, 10,000 penalty units equalled AUD3.64 million. 2.2.3 Civil Enforcement Action There is no civil liability or enforcement for sanction contraventions. 2.2.4 Criminal Enforcement Action In October 2025, a man was arrested and charged by the AFP following a referral from the ASO for allegedly remitting approximately AUD650,000 over a 12-month period to sanctioned Iranian banks in contravention of Australian sanction laws. This case was scheduled to be initially heard by the local court in October 2025. No further media coverage or reporting has occurred, so it is not known whether this case is still ongoing. The only other publicly known criminal enforcement action in Australia was brought against Chan Han Choi, which concluded in 2021. Mr Choi pleaded guilty to contravening both UNSC sanctions and Australian sanctions laws after he was accused of attempting to sell arms and related material to North Korea. He was sentenced to a period of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment. 2.2.5 Mitigation The ASO adopts a co-operative approach to admin - istering and enforcing sanctions law, working with the public to prevent and address breaches of Australian sanctions law. Certain actions are beneficial to under - take to minimise risk and potential penalties as a result of a breach, including: • undertaking due diligence checks for Australian sanctions law and the business and organisational structure of the ultimate customer (or end user) – to this end, the ASO manages the ASO Consolidated List, which sets out the persons and entities who are sanctioned (this is a good, but not definitive, reference point); • adopting appropriate compliance measures and governance policies; • obtaining professional legal advice before engaging in business activities and throughout; and • after obtaining legal advice or otherwise with the assistance of a lawyer, engaging with the ASO

when there are outstanding queries relating to business or activities. The above-mentioned guidance is particularly perti- nent for corporate entities. The criminal offence for breaching a sanctions law is strictly liable; however, there is a defence if the body corporate “took rea - sonable precautions – and exercised due diligence – to avoid contravening” the sanctions law. What this means will depend on the context of each person and company, but the foregoing is a good starting point. 2.2.6 Strict Liability For body corporates, breaches of sanctions are “strict liability” offences (see 2.2.2 Breaching Sanctions), meaning that the prosecution is not required to prove any intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in relation to the offence. Otherwise, mental elements must still be proven. An “authorisation” or “permit” (typically called a “sanc - tions permit”) is available in certain circumstances to permit certain activities related to a person or entity on the Consolidated List that would otherwise be prohib- ited under Australian sanctions laws. These sanctions permits are granted by the Minister (or their delegate). The criteria that must be met vary depending on the specific activity and the sanctions regime from which derogation is sought. For all permits, the Minister must be certain that granting the permit would be in the national interest. Additionally, any permits under the COTUNA require approval from the UNSC. According to new DFAT guidance, any permit applica- tion must be in respect of one of the following: • a basic expense dealing, being “a transaction that is necessary for basic expenses”; • a legally required dealing, being “a transaction that is necessary to satisfy a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgement that was made prior to the date which the person or entity who is party to the proposed transaction became a designated person or entity”; or 2.3 Licensing 2.3.1 Derogation

15 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis and Phillip Salakas, Nyman Gibson Miralis

• a contractual dealing, such as “payment of inter - est on accounts holding controlled assets and payments required under contracts, agreements or obligations made before the date on which the assets became controlled assets”. The ASO requires all applications to contain “suffi - cient detail of a specific contravention to which the application relates” and should not be made unless “there is a clear likelihood of a sanctions contraven - tion occurring”. The application process will likely take at least three months and will take even longer for complex activi- ties or those in high-risk countries or regions. Clients can request expedited treatment if there are critical commercial deadlines. 2.3.2 Provision of Legal Services There is no express exception for the provision of legal services to designated persons; activities associat- ed with such services are likely to breach Australian sanctions law. Therefore, providing legal services to a designated person requires a permit. However, there are two important caveats. First, there is a general permit authorising certain deal- ings in association with the provision of certain ser- vices directly related to the provision of legal advice or legal representation (SAN-2024-00138). This permit was reissued 30 October 2024 and is set to expire by 30 October 2026. Second, the appeal in Deripaska v Minister for Foreign Affairs featured the High Court of Australia ruling that a designation cannot prevent designated individuals from accessing legal services to challenge the valid- ity of decisions or actions under the Constitution or the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Practically speaking, this means a designated person can engage a lawyer to challenge a designation on constitutional or admin- istrative grounds and the lawyer can provide such services, irrespective of whether there is a Ministerial permit to do so. This also allows preliminary or ancillary steps, such as preliminary conferences, the transfer of retainer

funds to a trust account, the generation or sending of documents to the designated person or “any inquiry of fact” required to determine such remedies. 2.4 Reporting There are no continuous reporting obligations under Australian sanctions law. However, there are record- keeping obligations and certain government officials have information-gathering powers. Record-Keeping Obligations Two types of records must be retained, as follows. • Any records or documents relating to an applica- tion must be retained for five years by the appli - cant. Importantly, this obligation remains even if the permit is not granted. The five years begin from the date the permit was granted or, if it was refused, from the date the application was made. • Any records or documents relating to the person’s compliance with any conditions of the permit must be retained for five years, beginning on the last day on which an action to which the permit relates was done. Information-Gathering Powers A “CEO of a designated Commonwealth entity” can require a person to give information or docu- ments to determine compliance with a sanction law. A designated Commonwealth entity includes DFAT, the Department of Defence, the Australian Customs Service and AUSTRAC. These are called section 19 notices. The section 19 notice will specify the infor- mation and/or documents sought and the timing and manner in which the notice must be complied with. Information cannot be withheld on the basis that its provision will be self-incriminating. However, neither the information given – nor the giving of the document – is admissible as evidence against the individual in any criminal proceedings or in any proceedings that would expose the individual to a penalty, apart from proceedings for: • providing false or misleading information given in connection with a sanction law; or • failing to comply with the requirement to provide information or documents.

16 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis and Phillip Salakas, Nyman Gibson Miralis

Legal Developments The Australian Government has introduced new sanc- tions frameworks, including the Afghanistan sanctions framework, allowing the Minister to impose sanctions under a new set of criteria, in conjunction with or inde- pendently of the UNSC sanctions. Another significant and recent legal development in relation to Australian sanctions laws is the new AML/ CTF regime’s requirement for reporting entities to develop, maintain and comply with policies to ensure they do not contravene targeted financial sanctions obligations. Under the new regime, reporting entities are required to reasonably establish that a customer, beneficial owner of a customer or person acting on behalf of a customer, is not designated for targeted financial sanctions prior to providing a designated service to that customer. Reporting entities will also be subject to an ongoing requirement to monitor existing cus- tomers to check whether they have become designat- ed for targeted financial sanctions or have breached Australian sanctions laws. 3.2 Future Developments The Australian Government is actively considering reforms to sanctions laws “to ensure they are fit for purpose and easier to understand”. According to DFAT’s website, the Australian Gov- ernment is currently considering proposed reforms and drafting legislative and regulatory amendments ahead of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 sunsetting on 1 October 2027. These reforms are likely based on the reports received from at least four reviews that addressed the Australian sanctions regimes: • DFAT’s review that commenced in January 2023 and concluded on 30 October 2024, titled ‘Review of Australia’s Autonomous Sanctions Framework’; • the Defence and Trade References Committee’s review that commenced in March 2024 and con - cluded in September 2024, titled “Australian Sup - port for Ukraine”, September 2024; • the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Reference Committee’s review that commenced in July 2024

Failing to comply with the requirement is a criminal offence, punishable by up to 12 months’ imprison - ment. 3. Recent and Future Legal Developments 3.1 Significant Court Decisions or Legal Developments Court Decisions The three most significant court decisions or legal developments in Australia are: • Alexander Abramov v Minister for Foreign Affairs (No 2) (2023), which challenged the designation of an individual and confirmed that sanctions could be imposed for past actions that have been dis- continued but also provided further insight into the administrative process of sanction-making – this decision, in turn, led to the Australian government passing legislation to reflect the outcome of this decision and retrospectively validate past sanction decisions; and • Alumina and Bauxite Company Ltd v Queensland Alumina Ltd (2024) FCA 43, which was Australia’s first case examining the sanctions regimes in the context of commercial contracts/force majeure and confirmed the broad scope of sanction provisions (see 6.1 Force Majeure for further details). Deri- paska v Minister for Foreign Affairs [2026] HCA 14, which confronted the question of whether a sanc- tions instrument could deny a designated person access to legal services to advise on the availability of (or lack thereof) judicial review under administra- tive law or the constitution. By unanimous decision, the High Court held that the sanctions legislative instruments could be read down to exclude their constitutionally invalid operations and allow des- ignated persons to obtain legal advice for judicial review proceedings in relation to their designation and that such services did not require a ministerial permit. Importantly, this therefore allows lawyers to provide these services without reliance on a permit that must be renewed every two years.

17 CHAMBERS.COM

Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199