Tag: Custodial sentence

Posted on by Mark Handley

European Sanctions Enforcement – performance league tables (2017-2024)

The figures are, naturally, based on publicly-available information as collated in this blog.

The figures are not always easy to reconcile into a coherent picture. For example:

  • The Netherlands has the most convictions, but none of the longest sentences;
  • Germany has far fewer convictions than the Netherlands, but all of the longest sentences;
  • Finland has a massive number of ongoing investigations but has only imposed fines to date of €11,080;
  • Switzerland has 15 convictions, but no custodial sentences and €58,435 in fines;
  • Poland has the highest number of successfully-concluded enforcement actions under the Russian sanctions but has no criminal convictions; and
  • The UK dominates the figures on total fines, but has a low number of criminal convictions.

Most criminal convictions since 2017:

  1. Netherlands – 40
  2. Switzerland – 15
  3. Germany – 10
  4. Latvia – 7

Fewest criminal convictions since 2017:

  1. Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden – 0
  2. Czechia and Norway – 1
  3. Denmark, Italy and United Kingdom – 3

Most Russian/Belarusian sanctions convictions/fines/penalties since 2017:

  1. Poland – 24
  2. Netherlands – 21
  3. Switzerland – 15
  4. Latvia – 11

Fewest Russian/Belarusian sanctions convictions/fines/penalties since 2017:*

  1. Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden – 0
  2. Czechia, Italy, Norway, Romania – 1
  3. Finland – 4
  4. United Kingdom and Lithuania – 7

* The Estonia figure is uncertain based on this story, but how high/low is uncertain.

Most currently-ongoing investigations:*

  1. Finland – 800
  2. Latvia – 310
  3. United Kingdom – 307
  4. Netherlands – 192

* Germany probably belongs on this list. It has commenced at least 1988 investigations since February 2022, but many of the States that responded to Freedom of Information Requests did not provide data on ongoing investigations, but only the total number of investigations commenced since the start of the full-scale war.

Longest custodial sentences since 2017 (where the sanctions element can be distinguished):*

  1. Germany – 7 years (2020)
  2. Germany – 6 years and 9 months (2024)
  3. Germany – 5 years (2023)
  4. Germany – 3 years and 9 months (2021)

* The list excludes convictions where there are also non-sanctions offences and where the sentence cannot be divided, such as the 19-year sentence imposed in the Netherlands which included war crimes offences.

Most extraditions to the United States to face US sanctions charges

  1. Latvia – 4
  2. Cyprus, Estonia, Spain, United Kingdom – 2
  3. Croatia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania – 1
  4. All other European countries are at zero.

Highest total value of fines/confiscations/penalties (in Euros) since 2017:

  1. United Kingdom – €268,344,548 (of which the FCA’s fines make up €228,465,751)
  2. France – €50,600,000
  3. Germany – €26,112,903
  4. Lithuania – €23,513,079

Lowest total value of fines/confiscations/penalties (in Euros) since 2017 where value is known:*

  1. Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Moldova, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden – €0
  2. Norway – €4260**
  3. Finland – €11,080
  4. Switzerland – €58,435
  5. Czechia – €143,500

* Malta has imposed a fine of unknown size but greater than €800, and Austria has imposed at least 10 fines of unknown value.

** This is an underestimate for Norway as it has concluded 23 confiscations of goods where no value was published.

Highest single fines/confiscations/penalties within 2024

  1. UK – £29m by the FCA
  2. Lithuania – €13.6m by Customs
  3. Lithuania – €8.23m by the Financial Crimes Investigation Service
  4. Poland – €2.78m by Customs

Most successfully-concluded enforcements within 2024

  1. Poland – 22
  2. Netherlands – 10
  3. Lithuania – 7
  4. Switzerland – 6
  5. UK – 5*
  6. Germany – 4
  7. Luxembourg – 3
  8. Estonia – 2**
  9. Finland – 2
  10. Latvia – 2
  11. Czechia – 1
  12. Malta – 1
  13. All other European countries are at zero.

* The UK figure excludes export control enforcements unrelated to sanctions.

** The Estonia figure is likely to be higher based on this story, but how much higher is uncertain.

Posted on by Mark Handley

Netherlands – two years and eight months sentence for exporting sanctioned goods to Russian airlines

On 3 October 2024, the District Court in Rotterdam sentenced an individual to 32 months in jail, as well as confiscation of $8,000 and €250,000 in cash, as well as the forfeiture of all the stock-in-trade and business bank accounts.

The individuals had exported over 460 prohibited aircraft parts to three different Russian airlines: i) Ural Airlines; ii) S7 Engineering LLC; and iii) JSC Siberia Airlines.

The defendant had created a paper trail to mask the destination of the exports which purported to show exports to Serbia, Turkey and Tajikistan. Internal documents, however, linked the exports to the Russian customers.

Messages on seized phones included: “We’re going to keep loading until we’re arrested”.

Posted on by Mark Handley

Netherlands – conviction for breach of ISIS sanctions upheld by Court of Appeal

Yesterday the Court of Appeal in the Hague issued judgment on an appeal against a conviction for multiple terrorism-related offences including one of making funds or economic resources available to a person designated under the EU’s ISIS sanctions.

The transfers were of €200 and €300 respectively.

The conviction was upheld on the basis that the necessary criminal intent was present:

“In order to prove that the regulations have been deliberately violated, it is not necessary to prove that there was intent to violate the standards set out in the indictment. The intent is colorless.  However, it must be proved that the defendant intended that the sums of money would end up directly or indirectly with [person 1] and [person 2], to whom the Terrorism Sanctions Regulations 2007-II applied at the time“.

The total sentence was for a custodial prison term of 48 months, but it is not possible to identify what proportion of that was for the sanctions offence and what proportion for the other non-sanctions convictions.

 

Posted on by Mark Handley

Germany – CJEU rules on appeal against conviction and interpretation of Myanmar sanctions

Further to our earlier post, in 2022 a German individual was convicted of importing timber from Myanmar in breach of EU sanctions and was sentenced to 19 months in jail and a substantial confiscation order of over €3m was also issued.

The case then went on appeal through the German system, and ultimately a referral was made to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”).

The argument on the appeals, and for consideration by the CJEU, was that the timber in question underwent sufficient processing in Taiwan, such that it should no longer be considered timber of Myanmarese origin.

The CJEU has ruled that the timber which only underwent “debranching and debarking” was not processed to a level as to amount to a change of origin. The CJEU also held that the timber which was sawn into “wooden cuboids” also did not undergo sufficient processing as to amount to a change of origin.

By contrast the timber which was sawn into finished boards of lumber was held to have undergone sufficient processing to properly be considered of Taiwan origin.

On the referred question of whether the prohibition against goods “exported from Burma/Myanmar” in article 2(2)(a)(ii) of the EU Regulation prohibits imports via third countries, the CJEU held the prohibition “must be interpreted as meaning that that provision covers only goods that have been imported into the European Union directly from Burma/Myanmar“.

It should be noted that this last ruling was in the context of a separate prohibition against the importation of goods which “originate in Burma/Myanmar”, with the court ruling that this other provision was the one which caught imports via third countries.

The German courts will now need to apply these findings to the existing conviction.

 

Posted on by Mark Handley

Germany – two individuals convicted of electronics exports to Russia

A court in Stuttgart has convicted two individuals for their role in the export of 120,000 dual-use items to Russia between January 2020 and May 2023. The parts included those used for the “Orlan 10” drone. The value of the goods was estimated at €875,000. Another report states that this amount was confiscated as part of the sentencing.

One individual was given a custodial sentence of 6 years and 9 months and the other was given a suspended sentence of 1 year and 9 months.

The scheme had involved disguised sales and invoices involving Hong Kong and Turkey, as well as false documents indicating that some of the goods had been sold to customers in Germany.

As per our earlier post, the individuals were charged had been charged in March 2024.

 

Posted on by Mark Handley

Netherlands – Attorney-General’s advice to uphold conviction and custodial sentence for ISIS sanctions violation

The post below has been updated on 17 June 2024 after the helpful input from the Sanctions Unit of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Further to our earlier post, in late 2021 the Dutch Court of Appeal sentenced an individual to a six month custodial prison term for a number of offences including for making a payment in breach of the EU’s ISIS sanctions.

In his advice to the Dutch Supreme Court has upheld the Attorney General has advised that the convictions for terrorist financing and breaching the Dutch Sanctiewet 1977 be upheld, but that the conviction for money laundering be remanded to the Court of Appeal.

The facts relate to the transfer of €471 from an individual to his brother who was in Syria as part of ISIS. The defence sought to argue that the man did not have the required intent to support terrorism, or knowledge that the funds had benefitted ISIS.

As stated by the Attorney General at [2.9]:

“With regard to the violation of the provision of Article 2 of the Sanctions Act 1977, the offense proven under 2, the suspect’s intent does not have to be aimed at non-compliance with the legal regulations referred to in the finding of proof. The suspect’s intention must be aimed at ensuring that the money ends up indirectly with (a) terrorist organization”.

 

Posted on by Mark Handley

Netherlands – four month prison sentence for breach of ISIS sanctions

The Court of Appeal in the Hague has quashed some convictions and upheld others of a suspect charged with terrorist financing and with breaching the EU’s ISIS sanctions.

The underlying actions were the indirect transfer of approximately €4,550 in several tranches to the suspect’s daughter and son-in-law who were then in Syria as part of ISIS.

The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions for terrorist financing saying there was no evidence that that was the suspect’s intention.

The convictions under the EU’s sanctions were, however, upheld with the court noting that intention does not form part of the offence which consists simply of making funds or economic resources available to a designated person.

The defendant was given a four month custodial sentence.

© 2009-2025 Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress