Netherlands – corporate fine and confiscation for company’s role in building Kerch bridge

The Dutch Public Prosecution Service has issued a press release relating to a settlement with the company Dieseko Group BV for its role in supplying equipment and expertise for the construction of the Kerch bridge in breach of the EU’s sanctions in relation to Crimea.

The prohibited activities took place during 2015 to 2016 and were uncovered through press reporting in 2017. An investigation was commenced in 2017 (see our earlier post) and then expanded to include Dieseko (see our earlier post).

The company exported equipment and machinery (via Finland but with the knowledge that the goods were to go to Crimea) and supplied staff to the site to provide technical assistance.

The company was given the maximum available fine per each of the three counts with a discount for its cooperation with the investigation for a fine of €180,000. The cooperation includes document production and making staff available for interview.

The company has also had its entire “gain” from its work on the bridge confiscated of €1.6m. It is not entirely clear if this is gross or net profits.

The company has put in place remediation and compliance measures. The senior management of the company were interviewed as part of the investigation but will not be prosecuted as two have since passed away and one is seriously ill.

For the Statement of Facts see here.

For the Settlement Agreement see here (in Dutch).

The Dutch version of the Press Release includes comment that the Dutch intend to prosecute another company and several individuals for their involvement in the building of the Kerch bridge.

Czechia – conviction, fine and confiscation for export of luxury cars to Russia

It is being reported (and here) that the Czech authorities have obtained a conviction of Vladimir Lihutin, a Czech national, for an attempt to export three luxury cars to Russia.

The sentence includes:

    • a fine of 300,000 crowns (c. €11,500)
    • confiscation of €132,000 (being the sums paid by the customers for the cars)
    • a ban on buying and selling any cars for 20 months.

This is the first known conviction or fine imposed in Czechia for breaches of EU sanctions.

 

Luxembourg – CSSF imposes fine for AML and sanctions compliance failings

The Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) in Luxembourg has imposed fines of €109,000 and €17,200 for compliance failings on abrdn Investments Luxembourg S.A.

The fine of €17,200 related to failings in relation to AML/CFT, and included in these failings was failure to “perform initial name screenings controls against international and European financial sanctions lists”.

The CSSF had conducted on-site inspections in 2020.

Lithuania – company operating crypto exchange fined €8.23m for EU sanctions violations

Lithuania’s Financial Crimes Investigation Service has imposed a fine of €8.23m for breaches of the EU’s sanctions and a fine of €1.06m for breaches of Lithuania’s Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing.

The company fined is UAB Payeer. The press release notes that the company did not cooperate with the investigation and did not provide responses to questions raised.

The investigation commenced after an inspection in 2023 that was conducted after Payeer commenced its operations in Lithuania.

Payeer operated a crypto exchange at Payeer.com which allowed customers to make transfers to or from Russian banks that were designated under EU sanctions.

The AML fine relates to the failure to conduct KYC and the failure to report suspicious transactions.

The press release notes that Payeer had revenues of more than €164m during the 1.5 years of its breaches, but does not note what proportion of this came from prohibited activity.

 

Latvia – corporate fine for import of possible Russian timber

The Latvian State Forest Service (VMD) has fined a company €10,000 in relation to timber which may have been sourced from Russia.

The fine was imposed on the basis of the EU’s Timber Regulation and the failure of the company to properly conduct due diligence on timber that may have been Russian in origin which would render the timber as illegally sourced.

It is being reported that the VMD has taken the view that the importer needs to be able to positively exclude the possibility that the timber is of Russian, or Belarusian, origin.

Germany – fine for the captain of distressed vessel which took Russian timber into German port

Further to our earlier posts about the detention and subsequent release of the vessel the Atlantic Navigator II which carried, amongst other cargo, birch timber of Russian origin into the German port of Rostock.

It is now being reported that the Captain of the vessel has received a fine which he was directed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to pay to the charity Human Rights Watch.

The fine was €8,000, which no doubt reflects the fact that the vessel only entered German waters after experiencing technical difficulties.

Poland – sanctions enforcement statistics including 20 fines to date

As part of the press article (behind a paywall) on the recent fines against Novatek Green Energy and Geleo (see our post here), the Polish authorities have also provided an update on their enforcement activity more broadly.

      • Total administrative proceedings commenced: 48
      • Final decisions to date: 33
      • Declination or waiver of fine or finding of no breach: 13
      • Fines imposed to date: 20
      • Ongoing proceedings: 15
      • Total fines to date: 4.8m zloty (c. $1.2m)

Certainly the figure for total fines does not include the fine against Novatek Green Energy (which was 12 million zloty), but it is also a little unclear whether or not the figure includes the fine against Geleo (which was 4m zloty).

The report also notes that most of the 20 penalties have been imposed in 2024, with only two imposed by the end of 2023 for a combined total of 71,000 zloty (c. $17,700).

These enforcement actions appear to relate to a mix of EU and the separate Polish sanctions.

No information has been provided as to the conduct which gave rise to the fines, or who the fines were imposed on.

Poland – fines imposed on two companies for circumvention of Russian sanctions

Now updated from the post first published on 28 June.

It is being reported (behind a paywall) that the Malopolska Customs and Tax Office of Krakow has imposed fines of 12 million zloty (c. €2.78m) against Novatek Green Energy and 4 million zloty (c. €927,000) against employee-owned company Geleo.

The fine against Geleo was imposed on 31 May. It was for breach of the relevant asset freeze and for circumvention of Polish sanctions. The transaction in question was the purchase, for €1, of 100% of the shares in Novatek Green Energy from the Swiss company Novatek Gas and Power GmbH, which in turn is a direct subsidiary of the Russian company OAO Novatek.

The fine against Novatek Green Energy was imposed on 25 June, and was imposed for multiple transactions in breach of the imposed asset freeze.

With particular thanks to Dr Marcin Łukowski who provided a copy of the relevant article.

Switzerland – publishing the 10 fines for breaching sanctions imposed by SECO: Part 4 – cases 9-10

This is the fourth and final instalment of making public the final administrative criminal decisions imposed by SECO in relation to breaches of the Swiss sanctions against Belarus and Russia.

9. Final administrative criminal decision dated 20 November 2023

Original: 2023-11-20 – I.65 – Strafbescheid

Translation: 2023-11-20 – I.65 – Strafbescheid_Translated to English

The company in question imported a dismantled wooden sauna, and accompanying parts, from a Belarusian company via Kyrgyzstan valued at €3,000. Geneva Rive-Droite customs stopped the importation.

An investigation was commenced on the basis that the products met the criteria for wood products (customs code 4418.9900) rather than the customs code used by the importer which related to prefabricated building structures (customs code 9406).

SECO obtained a ruling from the Federal Customs Office that the goods did indeed fall under the code for wooden products with the other parts being irrelevant as they had no impact on price, and that the customs code for prefabricated buildings was not relevant to a sauna which was to be installed internally rather than as a stand alone structure.

SECO took the view that the breach was negligent and resulted from a breach of the duty to conduct “additional checks on the classification of products prior to the conclusion of a purchase contract with a company based in Belarus” rather than deliberate and given the low value of the goods imposed a fine of CHF 1,000 plus CHF 580 in costs.

Comment: The use of the prohibition against importing “wood products” from Belarus to cover finished items made from wood is noteworthy.

10. Final administrative criminal decision dated 15 January 2024

Original: 2024-01-15 – I.73 – Strafbescheid

Translation: 2024-01-15 – I.73 – Strafbescheid_Translated to English

The company in this case sought to export polyethylene products some of which were prohibited (customs code 3920.10) and some of which were not (*customs code 3916.10) from export to Russia. The value of the prohibited goods was €5,373.

The shipment was stopped by customs at Zürich airport. An investigation was started and the company admitted the facts stating that it had “not even considered that the delivery of polyethylene sheets could fall under the Ukraine Regulation“.

SECO accepted that the breach was negligent and not intentional, and in light of the early cooperation, the low value of the breach, and the provisions of Swiss law permitting the corporation to pay a fine of CHF 5,000 or less rather than investigators seeking to identify culpable individuals, the fine imposed was CHF 2,500 plus costs of CHF 1,260.

Comment: In this case the company gave the name of “the person responsible for the alleged facts”. SECO, however, took the view that this admission was insufficiently detailed to be relied upon for the purpose of imposing personal criminal liability and a fine on that individual.

United Kingdom – HMRC corrects/changes description of earlier fine to withdraw reference to Russian sanctions

Back in April we posted about a Compound Penalty imposed by HMRC on a company for breaching the UK’s Russian Sanctions Regulations.

The company was fined £1,058,781.79.

HMRC has today issued a changed Notice to Exporters about this fine. The changed description removes any reference to the UK’s Russian sanctions regulations and replaces it with:

March 2024 – £1,058,781.79 was paid relating to the unlicensed exports of dual use goods controlled by Retained Regulation 428/2009“.

No explanation for the change is given.

© 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