NETHERLANDS Law and Practice Contributed by: Sebastiaan Bennink, Nicolas Burnichon, Siqi Zhao and Daniel Webb, Bennink Dunin-Wasowicz
2.2.2 Breaching Sanctions A National Sanctions Regulation ( Sanctieregeling ), cre - ated under the powers provided for in the Sanctions Act 1977, is always enacted in relation to sanctions regimes and prohibits violations of sanctions regula - tions. A violation of the relevant National Sanctions Regulation constitutes a violation of the Sanctions Act 1977. A violation of the Sanctions Act 1977 is in turn considered a crime under the Economic Offences Act ( Wet op de economische delicten ). Under the Economic Offences Act, the potential maxi - mum penalties are as follows: • for natural persons – up to six years’ imprisonment, community service or a fifth-category financial penalty (currently EUR103,000); and • for legal persons – a sixth-category financial pen - alty (currently EUR1,030,000) or, in certain cases, a fine of up to 10% of turnover in the financial year preceding the judgment or settlement. 2.2.3 Civil Enforcement Action At present, the Netherlands does not provide for a civil enforcement mechanism in cases of sanctions vio - lations. Enforcement is exclusively pursued through criminal law. However, a bill on the International Sanction Act, pro - posed by the Dutch government to reform and mod - ernise the Dutch sanctions system, is floating more possibilities for administrative enforcement in addition to criminal law and stronger foundations for informa - tion exchange. At present, the Netherlands employs both criminal and administrative mechanisms to enforce sanc - tions. However, administrative enforcement is limited to breaches of compliance obligations by financial institutions under the Sanctions Act 1977 Supervision Regulation ( Regeling toezicht Sanctiewet 977). 2.2.4 Criminal Enforcement Action Key criminal enforcement action that has been taken in respect of sanctions breaches in the Netherlands in the last three years includes the following.
• July 2024 settlement case: In September 2017, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service launched a criminal investigation into the role of several Dutch companies, including Dieseko, in the construc - tion of Russia’s Crimean Bridge. The investigation revealed that Dieseko had violated sanctions by supplying restricted goods and offering technical assistance related to those products. The case was resolved in July 2024 through a settlement, which involved both a monetary fine and asset forfeiture. • 17 October 2024 Rotterdam case (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2024:11106): The District Court of Rotterdam convicted a Russian national resid - ing in the Netherlands for supplying and exporting dual-use goods and technology, restricted luxury goods and goods capable of enhancing Russia’s industrial capacity to companies in Russia. The court imposed a custodial sentence of 450 days, 344 days of which were suspended, with credit for time spent in pre-trial detention. The sentence also included a probation period of two years and a community service order of 240 hours, or, alterna - tively, 120 days’ imprisonment. • 22 November 2024 Rotterdam case (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2024:11674): The District Court of Rotterdam convicted a natural person for supply - ing aviation components to a company in Russia via circumvention routes through Turkey, Serbia, the United Arab Emirates and Kyrgyzstan. The Court imposed a prison sentence of 300 days, 195 days of which were conditional, with credit for time spent in pre-trial detention. The sentence also included a probation period of two years and a community service order of 240 hours – or 120 days’ imprisonment. • 20 May 2025 Hague case (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:945): The Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that the suspect, as the de facto manager of a company, is criminally liable for establishing and executing a scheme to export dual-use electronic goods, as well as goods that could contribute to military reinforcement, to companies established in Russia, primarily via the Maldives, in violation of EU sanctions. The sen - tence imposed was 18 months’ imprisonment and the forfeiture of the seized items. • 28 November 2024 Amsterdam case (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:4195): The District Court
137 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook