UK – HMRC imposes three compound penalties for exports

The UK’s HMRC has today announced three new compound penalties imposed on experts for unlawful exports.

The first penalty was £67,000.31 imposed for the attempted export of goods in breach of the UK’s Russian sanctions. The person or company involved was not named.

The second penalty was for £1,000 and the attempted unlicensed export of dual-use goods. Again the penalised company was not named.

The third penalty was for £9,088.99 for exporting dual-use goods without a licence. This too was anonymised.

United Kingdom – law firm fined for sanctions controls

A law firm which self-reported itself to the legal regulator in relation to three real estate transactions has been fined £101,357 by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The transactions did not actually involve sanctioned persons or entities, but screening had not been conducted at the time of the transactions and subsequently a possible link between one of the transactions and a designated person was identified.

UK’s FCA publishes review of sanctions compliance

The UK’s financial services regulator has today published a report based on its review of sanctions compliance by a sample of 90 regulated firms.

The FCA emphasised the importance it places on compliance with sanctions and the proactive approach it intends to take to enforcement.

The FCA also published examples of what it considers to be good practice and bad practice. The examples of bad practice include:

(i) insufficient information given to management on sanctions risks, and insufficient management attention;

(ii) global sanctions policies that are insufficiently attuned to the specifics of the UK’s regime;

(iii) over-reliance on third-party screening tools without sufficient oversight or attention to the detail and calibration of such tools;

(iv) insufficient contingency planning in advance of anticipated changes to sanctions;

(v) insufficient resources applied to sanctions compliance resulting in significant backlogs; and

(vi)  insufficient and inappropriate calibration of of screening tools allowing either too many false positives, or gaps in screening hits.

UK’s OFSI enforces and gives Wise words of compliance advice

The UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) has announced its most recent enforcement action, coupled with changes to its Guidance on its attitude to enforcement.

On 29 June 2022 a new person was added to the UK’s sanctions list as a “Designated Person”. At 4am the next morning a debit card in that Designated Person’s name, but relating to a separate company (albeit one owned or controlled by the Designated Person) was used to withdraw £250. OFSI’s published action relates to Wise Payments Limited (Wise), the regulated financial services firm with which the account was held. While Wise had reacted to the designation of its customer by blocking transfers into or out of the account, its policy was not to stop debit cards on the basis that it often had a lot of false positives with sanctions screening and that it had a duty to its customers as well. The debit card was not blocked until the after the weekend as its sanctions team did not work on the weekend. No further withdrawals were made over this period.

OFSI’s view in its notice is that blocking debit cards while ascertaining if a screening match is genuine is a wholly proportionate policy for managing sanctions risk. Further, not having a sanctions team to review screening hits over the weekend was insufficient.

Thus while the value of the breach was low, and Wise self-reported promptly and co-operated, OFSI applied its “severity” test and determined that Wise’s actions amounted to a moderately severe breach. It was on this basis that OFSI has published the details of this breach, albeit it did not impose a civil penalty nor propose a criminal prosecution. This is the first time that OFSI has used its new “disclosure” power in this way.

The other noteworthy factor is that Wise’s conduct was treated as “making available” assets to a designated person. Wise’s role was passive – it took no step to transfer or give assets to the Designated Person. Nonetheless, the failure to block the debit card was interpreted as itself amounting to “making available” what should be frozen assets to a designated person. This is helpful in clarifying the breadth of the view taken by OFSI on what can amount to “making available”.

UK’s FCA investigating 100 suspected sanctions breaches

The UK’s financial services regulator, the FCA, has published its annual report today for the year ending 31 March 2023.

Included in the report the FCA states that: “We reviewed nearly 100
suspected sanction breaches. We have also introduced a data-led approach to proactively supervise firms to ensure they have appropriate sanctions systems and controls, we also conducted 38 proactive assessments looking at firms’ systems and controls”.

UK – company pleads guilty to unlawful export of chemicals

It has been announced today that a British company has pleaded guilty to one count of the attempted export of a controlled chemical which is classified as a dual use good.

The company was fined just £600 plus £2,659.5 in costs.

While HMRC did not name the company, it is being reported that the company was VWR International Limited, and that the export was bound for Pakistan.

For an earlier fine imposed on VWR see our previous post.

 

© 2009- 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