Sanctions 2025

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

CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES

Sanctions 2025

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

Contributing Editor Charles Enderby Smith Carter-Ruck

Global Practice Guides

Sanctions Contributing Editor Charles Enderby Smith

Carter-Ruck

2025

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 and Stephen Dinkeldein Content Reviewers Vivienne Button, Lawrence Garrett, Sean Marshall, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino and Adrian Ciechacki Content Coordination Manager Nancy Laidler Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Hannah Leinmüller 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 Charles Enderby Smith and Tasha Benkhadra, Carter-Ruck p.4

JAPAN Law and Practice p.122 Contributed by Anderson Mori & Tomotsune NETHERLANDS Law and Practice p.132 Contributed by Bennink Dunin-Wasowicz Trends and Developments p.144 Contributed by Bennink Dunin-Wasowicz

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice p.6 Contributed by Nyman Gibson Miralis Trends and Developments p.17 Contributed by Nyman Gibson Miralis BELGIUM Law and Practice p.24 Contributed by ACQUIS Trends and Developments p.38 Contributed by ACQUIS CHINA Law and Practice p.41 Contributed by AnJie Broad Law Firm Trends and Developments p.52 Contributed by AnJie Broad Law Firm

SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice p.151 Contributed by Bae, Kim & Lee LLC

SWITZERLAND Law and Practice p.162 Contributed by Baker McKenzie Switzerland AG Trends and Developments p.182 Contributed by Baker McKenzie Switzerland AG

UK Law and Practice p.190

Contributed by BCL Solicitors LLP Trends and Developments p.201 Contributed by BCL Solicitors LLP UKRAINE Law and Practice p.208 Contributed by VB Partners Trends and Developments p.222 Contributed by VB Partners Contributed by Seward & Kissel LLP Trends and Developments p.238 Contributed by Seward & Kissel LLP USA – WASHINGTON, DC Trends and Developments p.243 Contributed by Holland & Knight LLP USA Law and Practice p.227

DENMARK Law and Practice p.58

Contributed by Hafnia Law Firm LLP Trends and Developments p.70 Contributed by Hafnia Law Firm LLP

EU Law and Practice p.75 Contributed by Dentons

FRANCE Law and Practice p.89 Contributed by WJ Avocats Trends and Developments p.106 Contributed by WJ Avocats JAMAICA Law and Practice p.111 Contributed by Henlin Gibson Henlin

CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION

Contributed by: Charles Enderby Smith and Tasha Benkhadra, Carter-Ruck

Carter-Ruck advises on a broad range of sanctions issues and is widely considered to be the leading UK law firm for individuals and entities wishing to take steps, including court action, for the annulment of restrictive measures. The firm pioneered challenges to such sanctions in 2001 for client Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi whose two successes before the Eu - ropean Court of Justice have set the benchmark for sanctions challenges. It has represented clients be -

fore the UK and EU courts and authorities, the UN and the Ombudsperson to the United Nation’s ISIL and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee. The firm also works closely with local counsel advising clients challenging US and Australian designations. Carter- Ruck’s unrivalled expertise in media law means that it is uniquely well-placed to assist in this area, provid - ing swift and authoritative responses to press interest concerning its clients.

Contributing Editor

Co-Author

Charles Enderby Smith is a partner and international law specialist at Carter-Ruck. He spearheads its leading sanctions practice, while also maintaining a wider focus on international law, commercial and

Tasha Benkhadra is an associate at Carter-Ruck with significant

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 Regime. Tasha is a founding member of the City Sanctions Network and a committee member of the Young Fraud Lawyers Association (YFLA).

media disputes. Charlie maintains a pioneering practice in international and domestic sanctions. He advises clients on administrative and judicial challenges before various tribunals including the authorities and courts of the UK, EU, US and UN; as well as on pre-emptive steps to mitigate designation risk, on sanctions compliance and on representation before regulators and licencing authorities, including OFSI. His sanctions cases often test new rules and legislation, establishing important principles of law.

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

CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Charles Enderby Smith and Tasha Benkhadra, Carter-Ruck

A General Overview While the deployment of sanctions by states and executive bodies has grown steadily over the last few decades, there can be little doubt that the last few years have seen a marked increase in their use as Western powers have grappled with how to respond to Russia’s activity in Ukraine. This is true of both tar - geted sanctions (ie, restrictive measures targeted at entities or legal or natural persons) and trade sanc - tions (for example, sanctions on the purchase of oil or the provision of professional services). It is also true globally – with restrictive measures being intro - duced by Western and emerging nations alike (with Russia, for example, imposing retaliatory sanctions on the West). This has created an unprecedented level of activity for almost all stakeholders in the sanctions industry, whether designated persons, regulators, govern - ments, executives or advisers. On the latter, legal representatives in particular have been extraordinarily busy advising on administrative and legal challenges to sanctions designations, compliance, and regula - tory enforcements and investigations. The levels of work across the global legal industry have arisen not just from the unprecedented numbers of people and businesses affected by sanctions, but also from the constantly and rapidly evolving legal and regulatory landscape in which stakeholders have found them - selves. This has been exacerbated by the fact that, post- Brexit, the UK now has its own autonomous and rela - tively new sanctions regime, which has perhaps been tested much sooner than anyone could have expected in light of the West’s response to Russia’s actions.

This autonomous regime presents new challenges where clients taking a global perspective now have an additional layer of rules and compliance to con - sider, enforced by one of the world’s largest and most influential economies. In the context of administrative and legal challenges to sanctions designations it is not unusual for clients to find themselves included on sanctions lists imposed by the USA, the EU and the UK (as well as the lists of other Western-aligned countries such as Australia and Canada). This pre - sents additional complexity and the need for addi - tional strands of litigation, as well as opportunities where clients are appropriately advised. Given the continuing geopolitical turbulence seen over the last three years, and states’ ever-increasing reliance upon sanctions as a means of response and of pressing their foreign policy objectives, it seems unlikely that the rapid development in this area will abate over the course of this next year. Stakeholders should be braced for further legislative and regulatory changes in this exciting and dynamic intersection between politics and law. Given the interconnected and multinational scope of today’s sanctions regulations, with many regimes striving for extraterritorial effect, practitioners are more than ever in need of guidance from a global perspec - tive. It is our hope that this guide will provide such a resource.

CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA

Australia

Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis, Henry Yu and Darren Pham Nyman Gibson Miralis

Sydney

Tasmania

Contents 1. Trends and Overview p.8 1.1 Sanctions Market p.8 1.2 Key Trends p.8 1.3 Key Industries p.9 1.4 Overview p.9 2. Overview of Regulatory Field p.10 2.1 Primary Regulators p.10 2.2 Enforcement p.10

2.3 Licensing p.11 2.4 Reporting p.12

3. Recent and Future Legal Developments p.13 3.1 Significant Court Decisions or Legal Developments p.13

3.2 Future Developments p.13 4. Delisting Challenges p.13 4.1 Process p.13 4.2 Remedies p.14 4.3 Timing p.14 5. Trade and Export Restrictions p.14 5.1 Services p.14 5.2 Goods p.14 6. Civil Litigation and Arbitration p.14

6.1 Force Majeure p.14 6.2 Enforcement p.15 7. Designation, Compliance and Circumvention p.15 7.1 Executive Body p.15 7.2 Scope of Designation p.15 7.3 Circumvention p.16

CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis, Henry Yu and Darren Pham, 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.

Henry Yu is an international criminal lawyer and part of the white-collar investigations team at Nyman Gibson Miralis. He assists the partners in various international criminal law matters, focusing on white-collar

Darren Pham is a defence lawyer who is part of the white-collar investigations team at Nyman Gibson Miralis, where he brings his deep experience in risk advisory, AML, fraud, corruption, bribery and

crime, anti-bribery and corruption, anti-money laundering, tax fraud and evasion, and cybercrime. With extensive experience in financial crime, foreign bribery, high-value taxation investigations and disputes, tax fraud and evasion, money laundering, and unexplained wealth matters, Henry brings a comprehensive understanding to complex legal challenges.

sanctions to complex local and international investigations. Darren is experienced in advising banks, insurance companies, superannuation funds and casinos on their operational policies, governance frameworks, and internal audit compliance.

CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis, Henry Yu and Darren Pham, 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

• There continues to be a deceleration of sanctions use. As at June 2024, there were almost double the amount of sanctions that had been imposed as at June 2025. Of the sanctions still in force, 35.62% were imposed in 2022, 25.31% were imposed in 2023, 13.96% were imposed in 2024, with only 6.9% being imposed in the first six months of 2025. • Australia’s overall focus with sanctions remains on the Russia–Ukraine conflict. Over 50% of in-force sanctions as at June 2025 relate to the autono - mous sanction regimes concerning Russia and Ukraine. • Australia’s sanctions focus is narrowing. In the first six months of 2024, an almost equal amount of individuals and entities were designated under the autonomous sanctions regimes relating to Syria (25.3%), Russia (24.1%), and Iran (23.2%). This focus barely shifted throughout the remain - ing six months. In contrast, Australia’s sanctions regime over the first six months of 2025 has been squarely utilised in relation to Russia (85.78%) and the remainder peppered towards ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida, UN 1373 (2001), and Magnitsky-style 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

During the past 12 months, Australia’s steady decel - eration in the use of sanctions overall continued and contrasted against an influx of government reviews. It remains to be seen what will come from the multiple recommendations. However, the stakeholders made it very clear that they want change in both the legislation and regulatory operations. Out from the gates of 2025, the primary regulator’s co-operative and educative regulatory approach has been amped up with the release of a deluge of advi - sory and guidance notes and in conducting outreach sessions. There is an increasingly strong focus on enforcement and compliance, suggesting that the Australian Sanctions Office (ASO) may soon switch into a more proactive role. Russia is now the primary focus for Australian sanc - tions law, with the overwhelming amount of sanctions directed towards the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Rus - sia’s potential sanctions evasion tactics being a pri - mary concern of the recent government reviews. 1.2 Key Trends Statistics on the Use of Sanctions As of July 2025, approximately 3,259 individuals and entities were designated under Australian sanctions regimes according to the Consolidated List. From an examination of the Consolidated List, the following observations can be made:

CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis, Henry Yu and Darren Pham, Nyman Gibson Miralis

there is increased utilisation of these sanctions in relation to human rights violations in the Israel‒Pal - estine conflict, there has been a notable drop-off in any usage in relation to corruption, 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 gen - eral public. In July 2021, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) released a “Sanctions Regu - lator Performance – Self-Assessment Report”, dis - closing that in 2020–21 there were 55 permit applica - tions finalised (where ASO assessed that a sanctions permit was required). Co-Ordinated Sanctions Australia continues to impose sanctions in co-ordina - tion with the UK and the USA. All three governments have sanctioned key figures in cybercrime networks and the financial networks of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Court Proceedings and Enforcement Action The slow trickle of judicial decisions on Australia’s sanctions regimes has come to a stop in terms of con - tractual and administrative law, signalling the com - plexity of the former and difficulty (if not futility) with the latter. There also remains a distinct lack of enforce - ment cases commencing or enforcement action being publicly announced or pursued. The Australian gov - ernment may be looking to shift gears, as additional powers for the regulator are being contemplated and sanctions evasion continues to feature prominently in the government’s reviews across 2024 and 2025. 1.3 Key Industries Sanctions can be imposed on individuals irrespec - tive of their industry, which in turn impacts how other individuals and entities can interact with those desig - nated. Commonly, financial industries are particularly affected by any sanction, given the requirement to freeze the assets of designated individuals. 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 throughout many global industries with complex and intersecting operations. Finally, with the recent amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) and proposed new anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) rules, govern - ance obligations related to sanctions are expanding. 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. 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 Australia 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

CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis, Henry Yu and Darren Pham, Nyman Gibson Miralis

“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); • 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 2025) regimes against North Korea, Iran, Libya, Sudan, South Sudan, and Syria. 1.4.2 Scope of Sanctions Who must comply with the sanctions depends on the specific regulations relating to the sanction 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 corporates 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 (domestic) federal level in Australia. Although the COTUNA sanctions regimes only relate to sanctions passed by the UNSC, as a dualist system, the Australian government must still pass domestic legislation for each sanction to give it effect under Australian law. DFAT is broadly responsible for administering and enforcing the sanctions. To this end, DFAT established ASO on 1 January 2022 to sit within DFAT’s Regula - tory Legal Division in the Security, Legal and Consular Group. ASO is the Australian government’s sanctions regulator. As the regulator, ASO: • 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 ASO is the primary agency responsible for the enforce - ment of Australian sanctions law. It does so by work - ing with a network of Australian partners, including the 2. Overview of Regulatory Field 2.1 Primary Regulators

CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis, Henry Yu and Darren Pham, Nyman Gibson Miralis

2.2.5 Mitigation ASO adopts a co-operative approach in administering and enforcing sanctions law to work with the public to prevent and address breaches of Australian sanc - tions law. Certain actions are beneficial to undertake 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, ASO manages the ASO Consolidated List, which sets out the persons and entities who are sanctioned (this is a good, but not definitive, refer - ence 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 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 one of strict liability; how - ever, there is a defence if the body corporate “took reasonable 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 ). Otherwise, mental elements are still required to 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). 2.3 Licensing 2.3.1 Derogation

Department of Defence (DOD), the Australian Trans - action 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 prosecution of sanction contraventions is undertaken by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. There is no civil liability or enforcement for sanction contraventions. 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 depends on who commit - ted 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. At as June 2025, 2,500 penalty units equalled AUD825,000. For body corporates, the penalty can be a fine of 10,000 penalty units or – where transactions are involved – the greater of three times the value of the transaction or 10,000 penalty units. As at June 2025, 10,000 penalty units equalled AUD3.30 million. 2.2.3 Civil Enforcement Action There is no civil liability or enforcement for sanction contraventions. 2.2.4 Criminal Enforcement Action There has been no key criminal enforcement action taken in respect of sanctions breaches in Australia in the last three years. The only publicly known criminal enforcement action in Australia was brought against Chan Han Choi, which concluded in 2021.

CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis, Henry Yu and Darren Pham, Nyman Gibson Miralis

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 begins from when the permit was granted or, if it was refused, when 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 documents to determine compliance with a sanction law. A designat - ed Commonwealth entity includes DFAT, the Depart - ment of Defence, the Australian Customs Service, and AUSTRAC. These are called section 353 notices. The section 353 notice will specify the information 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. Failing to comply with the requirement is a criminal offence, with a penalty of up to 12 months’ imprison - ment.

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 satisfied that it would be in the national interest to grant the permit. 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 • a contractual dealing, such as “payment of interest on accounts holding controlled assets and pay - ments required under contracts, agreement or obli - gations made before the date on which the assets became controlled assets”. ASO requires all applications to contain “sufficient detail of a specific contravention to which the applica - tion relates” and should not be made unless “there is a clear likelihood of a sanctions contravention occur - ring”. The application process will likely take at least three months and will take even longer for complex activi - ties and activities in high-risk countries or regions. 2.3.2 Provision of Legal Services There is no exception for the provision of legal servic - es to designated persons; activities associated with such services are likely to breach Australian sanctions law. Therefore, the provision of legal services to a des - ignated person requires a permit. There is a general permit authorising certain dealings in association with the provision of certain services directly related to the provision of legal advice or legal representation (SAN-2024-00138). This permit was reissued 30 October 2024.

CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis, Henry Yu and Darren Pham, Nyman Gibson Miralis

3. Recent and Future Legal Developments 3.1 Significant Court Decisions or Legal Developments 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; • 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); and • the Full Federal Court decision (same name, [2024] FCAFC 142) dismissed this appeal in November 2024, confirming the primary judge’s reasoning. 3.2 Future Developments The Australian government has received reports 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 and concluded in February 2025, titled “Australia’s sanctions regime”; and • the review by the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Reference Committee that commenced in December 2024 and concluded in March 2025, titled “Australia’s

thematic sanctions framework: A legislated review of the operation of the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and other Thematic Sanctions) Act 2021”. All in all, this patchwork of reviews lays out a variety of stakeholders’ views on Australia’s sanctions regimes and provides a starting point for an array of legal and regulatory developments. However, there is no draft legislation on the table. There are two general ways to “challenge” a designa - tion – namely, by requesting a revocation of the des - ignation or by seeking judicial review of the decision to designate. Request Revocation The specific procedure depends on the specific case factors, including what basis a person wants to chal - lenge the designation and under which specific regime the person was designated. By way of example, requests for delisting of: • UNSC listings should be made to the Focal Point for De-listing or through the country of citizenship or residence; • UNSC listings related to ISIL (Da’esh) and Al Qaeda should be made to the UN Office of the Ombud - sperson or through the country of citizenship or residence; 4. Delisting Challenges 4.1 Process • UNSC listings related to the counter-terrorism (UNSCR 1373) sanctions regime should be made to DFAT; and • listings related to Australian autonomous sanctions should be made to DFAT. Importantly for requests relating to Australian autono - mous sanctions, once any such request is made, the Minister is not required to review any further requests by (or on behalf of) the same entity for at least 12 months. That is to say, it is important that any initial request be properly made (with legal advice), lest there be a 12-month wait afterwards.

CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis, Henry Yu and Darren Pham, Nyman Gibson Miralis

Judicial Review The procedure by which to challenge the decision to list itself may be different from the foregoing (eg, through administration law) and differ from case to case. 4.2 Remedies A successful de-listing challenge can result in the removal of the designation list, as this is the primary objective of a delisting challenge. Importantly, there is no statutory right or framework in Australia to recover financial compensation for being wrongly designated. However, there may be compen - sation available if the sanctions were imposed “mali - ciously”. This remains untested in Australia. 4.3 Timing The time it takes to obtain a delisting may vary sig - nificantly depending on the specific circumstances. There are no statutory timeframes. 5. Trade and Export Restrictions 5.1 Services There are several – independent and overlapping – statutory regimes prohibiting, authorising or otherwise controlling the import and export of a range of ser - vices and goods in Australia. The primary statutory instruments include the follow - ing: • The Customs Act 1901 (Cth) and the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 (Cth) – these primarily deal with controls for the import and export of most goods, including defence and dual- use goods and technologies. The ABF is the pri - mary agency responsible for enforcing this regime; however, other government agencies are involved, including the Defence Export Controls (DEC) within the Department of Defence. • The Weapons of Mass Destruction (Prevention of Proliferation) Act 1995 (Cth) – this controls any goods, technologies, or services that could be used in a weapons of mass destruction pro - gramme. This regime is administered by the DEC.

• Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 (Cth) – this con - trols the transfer of defence and strategic goods, technologies, and services. This regime is also administered by the DEC. Key to this regime is the Defence and Strategic Goods List 2024, which lists the military and dual-use goods, software, and technologies that are subject to export control regulations in Australia. • Export Control Act 2020 (Cth) – this creates a framework regulating the export of all goods (including agricultural products and food) through the Export Control Rules 2021. This regime is gen - erally administered by the Department of Agricul - ture, Fisheries and Forestry. The import or export of a good or service must be compliant with any applicable regime, which may require seeking authorisation under each regime from the relevant authority. By way of example, the exporting of a dual-use good to a country in respect of which there is a sanction regime may require an export permit from the DEC as well as a sanctions permit from ASO. 5.2 Goods Please refer to 5.1 Services . Australian courts have recognised that Australian- imposed sanctions can trigger a force majeure clause, allowing the contracting party to terminate a contract. This position was made clear in Alumina and Bauxite Company Ltd v Queensland Alumina Ltd (2024) FCA 43 , whereby it was found that a party was entitled to cease supplying, shipping and delivering certain goods to other entities – in which the designated oli - garchs held indirect shareholding interests – on the basis that such activities would breach Australia’s autonomous sanctions. This question turned on the construction of the specific sanction regime and each of the contract’s force majeure clauses. This position was confirmed by the Full Federal Court of Australia in dismissing Alumina and Bauxite Company Ltd’s appeal i n Alumina and Bauxite Company Ltd v Queensland Alumina Ltd [2024] FCAFC 142 . 6. Civil Litigation and Arbitration 6.1 Force Majeure

CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis, Henry Yu and Darren Pham, Nyman Gibson Miralis

Based on this, a party would have to show only on the balance of probabilities that they would breach Australian sanctions (a breach that would ordinarily require proving beyond a reasonable doubt). Even where there is not a suitable force majeure clause, there may be other avenues available to par - ties where sanctions impact contracted obligations, such as the common-law defence of supervening illegality. This defence is enlivened where there is a change in the law – after the formation of a contract – that renders the future performance of a contract unlawful. Supervening illegality is a defence to the non-performance of the contract. In some circum - stances, supervening illegality may have the same terminating effect as frustration. The impact of non-Australian sanctions on the per - formance of contractual obligations remains a largely Australian courts are yet to consider key questions concerning the enforcement of Australian judgments – or the recognition and enforcement of foreign judg - ments – where sanctions are live issues. These questions will turn on the precise sanction regimes that are at play, the role of the sanctioned person or entity (eg, plaintiff, defendant, judgment creditor or judgment debtor), and the circumstances of the matter, including the timing of the proceedings. There may be influence drawn from UK decisions such as PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Boris Mints & Ors (2023) EWHC 118 (Comm) and the Ministry of Defence and Support for Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v International Military Services Ltd (2019) 1 WLR 6409 . As a starting point, a permit may be able to be issued under regulation 20 (4) of the Sanctions Regulations for certain dealings required to “satisfy a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgment that was made before the date on which the person or entity became a designated person or entity” where the dealing is not “for the benefit” of that designatee. untested question. 6.2 Enforcement

It remains to be seen how courts will interpret and apply this provision, including whether it extends to foreign judgments. Regardless, ASO has noted that assets provided to a designated person or entity as a result of a legal proceeding or settlement will be frozen until the designation is removed, which is an approach that seeks compliance both with pre-des - ignation judgments and sanctions regimes. What is clear is that a permit basis is not expressly available for judgments secured after a designation, even where those proceedings were ongoing at the time the designation was made, further widening the impact of sanctions. 7. Designation, Compliance and Circumvention 7.1 Executive Body The Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for mak - ing designation decisions. 7.2 Scope of Designation Strictly speaking, only those who are expressly desig - nated are designated. However, Regulation 14 of the Sanctions Regulations prohibits indirect facilitation of providing sanctioned assets to a designated person. That is to say, it is an offence if one “indirectly makes an asset available to or for the benefit of a person or entity” without a permit. Australian courts have stated that this regulation should be given “the full mean - ing that is open from the words”, so as to include provision “through interposed corporate entities” and “where the benefit is either the object, effect or likely effect of making the asset available”. There are also additional offences that extend prohi - bitions to entities or bodies “owned or controlled” by or those “acting on behalf of” (and similar language) sanctioned governments, individuals, or entities. More definitively, the assets of a designated person may not be easy to identify and extend beyond those that are obvious as it encapsulates assets that are owned or controlled by the designated person. ASO’s Guidance Note – dealing with assets owned or con - trolled by designated persons and entities – advis -

CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis, Henry Yu and Darren Pham, Nyman Gibson Miralis

es that ownership and control of a given asset are determined according to the “factual circumstances, including the kind of asset and the laws of jurisdiction in which it was created”. 7.3 Circumvention 7.3.1 Prohibiting Provisions Some provisions were designed to ensure compli - ance with Australia’s sanctions regimes by prevent - ing any circumvention. Specifically, Regulation 13 of the Sanctions Regulations prohibits the provision of a “sanctioned service”, which is broadly defined to include essentially any service “if it assists with, or is provided in relation to, a sanctioned supply”. This broad scope was reportedly explained by the Austral - ian government as necessary to prevent circumven - tion of the laws through the use of intermediaries or exploiting loopholes. 7.3.2 Criminal Penalties An activity that breaches Regulation 13 of the Sanc - tions Regulations is a criminal offence and attracts the same penalties as set out in 2.2.2 Breaching Sanc- tions .

CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Trends and Developments

Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dennis Miralis and Jack Dennis Nyman Gibson Miralis

Authors

CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRALIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dennis Miralis and Jack Dennis, 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

Introduction Australia is on the precipice of change for both the leg - islative framework and regulatory approach within its sanctions landscape. Stakeholders have made their views clear, with multiple reviews having been con - cluded by Senate Committees and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), opening up potential for change across the board. Already regulatory prac - tice has leaned heavily into compliance and education in response to reviews, with DFAT releasing several publications and tools. These may prove critical to Australian businesses as new AML/CTF obligations come into effect and the AML/CTF regime expands its coverage in 2026. Although much remains the same at this stage in terms of the enforcement and use of sanctions regimes, there are early signs that the Australian government and regulator may be increasing enforcement actions targeting evasions and breaches. Even now, the gov - ernment is considering additional regulatory powers and capacity-building methods. However, the scale continues to be tipped towards opaqueness and away from fairness, with limited (if any) reasoning disclosed for listings; delisting pro - cesses remaining as hard as ever to navigate; per - mits left unrecognised by financial institutions; and the Australian government continuing to embrace and use sanctions in a highly selective and transparently political fashion. Although we will likely see notable legislative reform and regulatory operational changes in the 2025-26 period, it remains to be seen whether they will resolve or exacerbate the ongoing issues.

Reviews, Reviews, Reviews! A constant theme of the Australian sanctions legal landscape has been reviews. In January 2023, DFAT announced its review of Aus - tralia’s autonomous sanctions framework after 12 years of operations and ahead of the framework expir - ing on 1 April 2024. This review was ongoing until 30 October 2024, when a five-page report was published summarising stakeholders’ responses to the seven issues. Recognised in this report was the need to streamline and increase guidance on several facets of Australian sanctions regimes. The report is still under consideration by the Australian government. In February 2025, another review into Australia’s sanc - tions regime concluded after being conducted by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Reference Com - mittee (FADT Committee). Having started in July 2024, this review focused on the assessment of consistency and effectiveness of the regime, Australia’s co-ordina - tion with “like-minded states”, and potential uses of frozen/confiscated assets. The report comprised eight recommendations and canvassed a range of views, including: • the underutilisation, inconsistent application of, and lack of objective reasoning behind Magnitsky- style sanctions; • concerns that Australia’s sanctions are lagging many months behind allies’ sanctions notwith - standing the same intelligence likely being avail - able; and • the need for stronger enforcement, including build - ing capabilities to “close loopholes which allow

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