As part of Canadas ongoing commitment to keeping the exporting community well-informed, this newsletter will now include periodic information on changes to Canadas export controls. Information on newly enacted sanctions will continue to be included as announced.
This message is to notify exporters that as of 30 days from 31 March, 2026, the January 2026 edition of A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List (the Guide) will enter into force.
The new version of the Guide will bring into force the commitments Canada has made in the various multilateral export control regimes up to January 1, 2026.
The guide is available in sections as opposed to one big PDF:
A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List
A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List identifies the items included on the Export Control List that are controlled for export in accordance with section 3 of the Export and Import Permits Act and for which an export permit is required.
Security Council ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee Adds One Entry to Its Sanctions List
On 26 March, the Security Council Committee pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011) and 2253 (2015) concerning ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities approved the addition of the entry specified below to its ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions List of individuals and entities subject to the assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo set out in paragraph 1 of Security Council resolution 2734 (2024) and adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
A. Individuals
QDi.437 Name: 1: SAMI 2: JASIM 3: MUHAMMAD JAATA 4: AL-JABURI Name (original script): ﺳﺎﻣﻲ ﺟﺎﺳم ﻣﺣﻣد ﺟﻌﺎطﺔ اﻟﺟﺑوري Title: na Designation: na DOB: 1 Jul. 1974 POB: Iraq Good quality a.k.a.: a) Mustafa Adnan al-Aziz ﻣﺻطﻔﻰ ﻋدﻧﺎن اﻟﻌزﯾز (National Identification card no. 9080002892, issued by the Syrian Arab Republic, mother’s name Dahiyah al-Mulhim, DOB: 1 Jan. 1973, POB: Albu Kamal, Syria) b) Mustafa Adnan al-Azeez (Turkish Residency Card no. 4118 issued on 15 Jan. 2019) Low quality a.k.a.: a) Sami al-Ajuz(b) Hajji Hamid Nationality: Iraq Passport no: na National identification no: na Address: Iraq Listed on: 26 Mar. 2026 Other information: Assumed multiples roles within ISIL (Da’esh) listed as Al-Qaida in Iraq (QDe.115), including overseeing ISIL’s finances, material affairs and sources of revenue. He was also a member of the so-called Delegated Committee, which is the decision-making body of ISIL (Da’esh). He also participated in several terrorist operations against security forces while ISIL was controlling territory and was involved in the smuggling of oil derivates. Mother’s name: A’ishah Hasan. Gender:Male, Physical description: eye colour: black; hair colour: black; Photo available for inclusion in the INTERPOL-UN Security Council Special Notice. INTERPOL-UN Security Council Special Notice web link: https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/View-UN-Notices-Individuals.
The ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions List is updated regularly on the basis of relevant information provided by Member States and international and regional organizations. An updated List is accessible on the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee’s website at the following URL: https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/1267/aq_sanctions_list.
The United Nations Security Council Consolidated List is also updated following all changes made to the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions List. An updated version of the Consolidated List is accessible via the following URL: https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/content/un-sc-consolidated-list.
Security Council ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee Adds One Entry to Its Sanctions List
On 26 March 2026, the Security Council Committee pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011) and 2253 (2015) concerning ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities approved the addition of the entry specified below to its ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions List of individuals and entities subject to the assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo set out in paragraph 1 of Security Council resolution 2734 (2024) and adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
A. Individuals
QDi.438Name: 1: ABD EL HAMID 2: SALIM 3: IBRAHIM BRUKAN 4: AL-KHATOUNI Name (original script): عبد الحميد سالم إبراهيم بروكان الخاتوني Title: na Designation: na DOB: 1 Sep. 1970 POB: Iraq Good quality a.k.a.: ABU OMAR AL SARRAF Low quality a.k.a.: na Nationality: Iraq Passport no: na National identification no: na Address: Iraq Listed on: 26 Mar. 2026 Other information: Served as a senior leader in ISIL (Da’esh) listed as Al-Qaida in Iraq (QDe.115) as its financial management officer. Mother’s name: Khadija Hattab Ismail. Gender: Male. INTERPOL-UN Security Council Special Notice web link: https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/View-UN-Notices-Individuals.
The ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions List is updated regularly on the basis of relevant information provided by Member States and international and regional organizations. An updated List is accessible on the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee’s website at the following URL: https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/sanctions/1267/aq_sanctions_list.
The United Nations Security Council Consolidated List is also updated following all changes made to the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions List. An updated version of the Consolidated List is accessible via the following URL: https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/content/un-sc-consolidated-list.
UK email notification, which includes links to the FCDO’s UK Sanctions List designation listings:
Today, Friday 27 March, the UK Government has designated the following 2 individuals under the Isil (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Regime. This reflects the decision to designate these individuals made by the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee pursuant to Resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011) & 2253 (2015) on 26 March.
Canada is adding 100 more vessels from Russias shadow fleet to its sanctions list. These additional measures further strengthen efforts to counter Russias sanctions evasion.
Todays amendments add five individuals and four entities to Schedule 1 of the Special Economic Measures (Iran) Regulations for their direct or indirect participation in Iran-directed activities that undermine international peace, security or stability. See the backgrounder.
I asked Gemini to compare and contrast “ownership and control” guidance and regulation across the world. Based on the responses I got, I ended up adding FATF, Wolfsberg, Switzerland and Japan to the bodies offering guidance:
This comprehensive analysis compares the “Ownership and Control” guidance across major national and international bodies.
Executive Summary: The “Control” vs. “Ownership” Divide
The central divergence in global sanctions regulation lies in how “Control” is treated:
The “Mathematical” Approach (US): Ownership (50% or more) automatically triggers sanctions. Control without ownership does not automatically trigger sanctions—it is merely grounds for future designation.
The “Status-Based” Approach (EU, UK, Canada): If a sanctioned person controls an entity (even with 1% ownership), that entity is automatically treated as sanctioned by operation of law. This shifts the burden of identifying “shadow control” onto the private sector.
1. Comparative Matrix: Global Ownership & Control Rules
Jurisdiction
Ownership Threshold
Aggregation Rule
Does “Control” Automatically Sanction?
Key Differentiator
USA (OFAC)
50% or more (≥ 50%)
YES
NO (See FAQ 398)
Strict mathematical application; Control is a designation criteria, not an automatic trigger.
EU (Council)
50% or more (≥ 50%)*
YES
YES
Recent 2024 update aligned EU with US. Burden is on operators to detect “dominant influence.”
UK (OFSI)
More than 50% (> 50%)
NO (Unless acting in concert)
YES
Higher threshold (>50%); Aggregation is rare; “Control” test is extremely broad.
Canada (GAC)
50% or more (≥ 50%)
Implied
YES (“Deemed Ownership”)
“Deemed ownership” legally conflates control and ownership into one trigger.
Australia (ASO)
“Owned or Controlled”
Silent(Principles-based)
YES
Less prescriptive; relies on “due diligence” to determine if assets are “indirectly” controlled.
Japan (MOF)
“Substantial Control”
Case-by-Case
YES (Permission required)
Uses a “Permission System” for payments rather than “Blocking” assets.
Switzerland
50% or more
De Facto Yes
YES (Indirect Prohibition)
Subsidiaries aren’t “blocked” per se, but paying them is “making funds indirectly available.”
UN (Security Council)
Varies by Regime
N/A
Varies
No global standard; relies on Member State implementation.
2. Detailed Jurisdictional Analysis
United States: The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
The US provides the most “bright-line” guidance, prioritizing clarity over catch-all nuance.
The “50% Rule”: If Blocked Persons own 50% or more, individually or in the aggregate, the entity is blocked.
Aggregation: Explicitly required. If SDN A owns 25% and SDN B owns 25%, the entity is blocked.
The “Control” Gap: OFAC explicitly states (FAQ 398) that an entity controlled by an SDN (but owned <50%) is not automatically blocked.
Why? OFAC prefers to name and shame. If they want a controlled entity sanctioned, they will list it.
Applicability: Applies to all OFAC regimes unless specified otherwise (e.g., Sectoral Sanctions).
European Union: Council & Commission
The EU has moved aggressively to close loopholes, resulting in complex “control” tests.
Ownership Update (July 2024): The EU updated its “Best Practices” to align with the US, changing its test from “more than 50%” to “50% or more.”
The “Control” Trigger: If a Designated Person (DP) has “dominant influence” (e.g., right to appoint board majority, use of assets), the entity is sanctioned.
Burden of Proof: Unlike the US, EU operators must assess control themselves. If you trade with a subsidiary of a Russian oligarch, and the EU later decides the oligarch “controlled” it, you are liable for a breach, even if the subsidiary was never listed.
United Kingdom: Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI)
The UK is unique for its rejection of automatic aggregation and its slightly higher ownership threshold.
Threshold: Strictly “more than 50%.” A 50/50 Joint Venture is not automatically sanctioned in the UK (unlike US/EU).
Aggregation: OFSI does not aggregate ownership of different DPs unless there is evidence they are parties to a “joint arrangement” (acting in concert).
Broad “Control” Definition: The UK test asks if it is “reasonable to expect” that the DP can achieve their desires regarding the entity’s affairs. This is a functional, outcome-based test.
Canada: Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Canada uses a unique legal mechanism called “Deemed Ownership.”
Concept: Property is “deemed” to be owned by a DP if the DP “controls” it directly or indirectly.
Ambiguity: The definition includes any situation where the DP can “direct the entity’s activities.” This creates significant gray areas for compliance teams, as “influence” is often conflated with “control.”
Australia: Australian Sanctions Office (ASO)
Australia utilizes a “principles-based” approach rather than strict mathematical formulas.
Guidance: “Control” is defined as a question of fact—whether someone has “command or direction” over an asset.
Differentiation: Australia does not publish a “50% Rule” document comparable to OFAC. Instead, it relies on the prohibition against “making assets available to” a DP. If a DP owns a company, paying that company is effectively paying the DP.
Japan: Ministry of Finance (MOF) & METI
Japan operates a “Permission System” under the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act (FEFTA).
Mechanism: Rather than “blocking” an entity, Japan prohibits payments to DPs without “permission” (which is never granted).
Substantial Control: Restrictions apply if a DP holds a majority of shares OR exercises “substantial control” (e.g., dispatching executives).
End-User Lists: Japan places heavy reliance on METI’s “End User List.” If a subsidiary is not on the list, Japanese firms often presume trade is permitted unless “control” is glaringly obvious.
Switzerland: SECO
Switzerland aligns autonomously with the EU but maintains legal distinctiveness.
“Making Available”: Swiss law does not always “block” the subsidiary of a DP. Instead, it prohibits “making funds available” to the DP.
Interpretation: Paying a subsidiary is viewed as “indirectly” making funds available to the parent.
Differentiation: In the Popov case, Swiss courts demanded high evidence of control. However, 2024 guidance has aligned Switzerland closer to the EU’s broad “control” presumption to prevent circumvention.
United Nations (UNSC)
No Global Standard: The UN designates individuals/entities but leaves “ownership/control” interpretation to Member States.
Regime Specific: Some resolutions (e.g., DPRK) include specific language on “entities owned or controlled by” designated persons, but the implementation of what “controlled” means (e.g., 50% vs 25%) is decided by national authorities (OFAC, OFSI, etc.).
The “25% Gap”: FATF recommends a 25% threshold for identifying beneficial owners for AML screening.
Conflict: This creates a disconnect. Compliance teams screen at 25% (for FATF/AML) but block at 50% (for Sanctions). FATF guidance on “Proliferation Financing” urges countries to look beyond legal ownership to “ultimate effective control” to prevent evasion.
The Wolfsberg Group
Guidance: Represents global banking best practices.
Recommendation: Wolfsberg explicitly notes that the “50% Rule” is a legal baseline, not a risk management ceiling.
Control Risk: They advise that relying solely on lists is insufficient in “Control-based” jurisdictions (UK/EU). They recommend screening for Beneficial Owners (at 10-25%) to identify “aggregation” risks that might sum up to >50%.
Summary of Practical Implications
The “Joint Venture” Trap: A 50-50 JV with a sanctioned party is Blocked in the US/EU, but Allowed in the UK (statutorily, though high risk).
The “Minority Owner” Risk: A company 25% owned by a sanctioned oligarch who appoints the CEO is Safe in the US (unless listed), but Radioactive in the EU/UK (due to “Control”).
The “Aggregation” Headache: Three sanctioned individuals each owning 20% of a company results in a Block in the US/EU (60% total), but No Block in the UK (unless they are proven to be working together).
Source List for “Ownership and Control” Analysis
The following is a curated list of the primary government and regulatory source documents used in the comparative analysis.
Document:Update of the EU Best Practices for the Effective Implementation of Restrictive Measures (July 3, 2024)
Description: The critical update that aligned the EU ownership threshold (“50% or more”) with the US and clarified the “Dominant Influence” control tests.
Document:OFSI General Guidance – UK Financial Sanctions
Description: See specifically Chapter 4 (Ownership and Control), which details the “reasonable to expect” test and the rejection of automatic aggregation.
Outside the US, what governments issue sanctions-related guidance, advisories, frequently-asked questions and other publications which clarify sanctions legislation and regulation? pease describe the types of publications and their level of detail and specificity for each government, and compare and contrast each country’s set of such documents, Do not limit yourself to English-language texts. And please quote all sources, with URLs when available.
The response:
The United States (via OFAC) is often viewed as the “gold standard” for volume and specificity of sanctions guidance. However, owing largely to the complex sanctions landscape post-2022 (Russia/Ukraine), other major economies have rapidly developed their own detailed interpretive infrastructure.
The following is an analysis of non-US government publications that clarify sanctions legislation, organized by jurisdiction.
1. United Kingdom: Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI)
Since Brexit, the UK has developed a sanctions infrastructure that rivals the US in complexity and specificity. OFSI is the primary issuing body.
Types of Publications:
General Guidance: The “Standard Bearer” document. It covers the UK’s definition of ownership and control, licensing processes, and reporting obligations.
Sector-Specific Guidance: Detailed guidance for Maritime shipping (oil price cap), Charity/NGOs, and Financial Services.
FAQs: Extensive Q&A covering specific regulations (especially the Russia regulations).
Blog/Alerts: OFSI uses its blog to publish “Red Alerts” on evasion typologies (e.g., gold, artwork).
General Licences: Unlike the US, the UK publishes “General Licences” (GLs) with accompanying explanatory notes that act as effectively binding guidance on what is permitted.
Level of Detail & Specificity: High.OFSI provides very specific interpretive guidance. For example, they define “ownership and control” in granular detail (e.g., examining “dominant influence” over a board of directors). They are one of the few bodies outside the US that publishes enforcement actions (monetary penalties) which serve as case-law-like guidance for the industry.
2. European Union: European Commission & Council of the EU
The EU issues sanctions at the bloc level, but enforcement is done by member states. To ensure uniformity, the Commission has become extremely prolific in issuing interpretive guidance.
Types of Publications:
Consolidated FAQs: The primary vehicle for EU guidance. Since 2022, the Commission has published hundreds of pages of FAQs specifically on the Russia/Belarus regimes.
“Best Practices” Guidelines: High-level documents from the Council of the EU detailing how to implement asset freezes or identifying beneficial ownership.
Commission Opinions: Formal legal opinions on how to interpret specific articles of Council Regulations (e.g., whether “transfer” of goods includes transit).
Level of Detail & Specificity: High (but Legalistic).EU guidance is often drafted by lawyers for lawyers. It focuses heavily on statutory interpretation (e.g., “Does Article 5aa prohibit X?”). It is less operational than US/UK guidance but provides definitive answers on scope, such as the exact calculation of “50% ownership” and whether it applies to aggregation of shares.
3. Australia: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) & Australian Sanctions Office (ASO)
Australia has moved toward a user-friendly, toolkit-based approach for the private sector.
Types of Publications:
Sanctions Compliance Toolkit: A consolidated PDF designed for businesses/universities to build their own compliance programs.
Guidance Notes: Thematic papers on specific high-risk sectors (e.g., “Conflict Minerals,” “Maritime Shipping,” “Ransomware”).
Advisory Notes: Alerts on specific evasion risks.
Level of Detail & Specificity: Medium.Australia’s guidance is excellent on process (how to assess risk, how to apply for a permit) but arguably offers fewer specific interpretive rulings on complex financial scenarios than the UK or EU. It relies heavily on “due diligence” principles rather than prescriptive rules.
Historically, Canada provided very little guidance beyond the legislative text. This has changed significantly in recent years with the release of formal interpretive documents.
Types of Publications:
Sanctions Guidance: A formal document released to clarify “Deemed Ownership” (a unique Canadian concept where any entity in a sanctioned country might be “deemed” owned by that state).
Thematic Guidance: Specific papers for the Financial Sector and Academic/Research Sector.
Sanctions Notices: Updates notifying the public of new listings.
Level of Detail & Specificity: Medium-Low.While improving, Canada’s guidance is often broader and less scenario-based. For example, while the definition of “property” is clarified, the specific application to complex financial instruments is often left to the “judgment” of the operator compared to the detailed FAQs of the EU.
Japan’s guidance differs culturally; it is often integrated into broader trade control and anti-money laundering (AML) frameworks rather than standing alone as “sanctions guidance.”
Types of Publications:
Trade Control Policy (METI): Detailed lists of controlled items and end-user lists (the “Foreign End User List”) which function as de facto sanctions lists.
AML/CFT Guidelines (JFSA/MOF): Guidelines for financial institutions that include sections on asset freezing and screening.
Q&A on Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act: Technical Q&A on how to process payments to sanctioned jurisdictions.
Level of Detail & Specificity: High (Technical).The guidance is highly technical regarding trade classifications (goods codes) and payment processing permissions. It is less focused on “sanctions evasion typologies” in the Western sense and more on administrative compliance with the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act.
6. Singapore: Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)
Singapore issues sanctions guidance strictly through its financial regulator, focusing on Financial Institutions (FIs).
Types of Publications:
MAS Regulations & Notices: Legally binding notices prohibiting transactions with specific countries (e.g., DPRK, Iran, Russia).
“Red Flag” Indicators: Publications highlighting suspicious transaction indicators related to proliferation financing or sanctions evasion.
FAQs: Specific Q&As for Financial Institutions regarding asset freezing implementation.
Level of Detail & Specificity: Medium.The guidance is precise but narrow; it targets FIs almost exclusively. It is highly specific regarding the mechanics of freezing funds but offers less guidance for non-financial corporates (e.g., exporters, manufacturers) compared to the EU or UK.
