Category: Guidance

  • Export Control & Sanctions

    Military end-use controls

    The guidance on the UK’s military end-use controls has been updated to provide more detail on the scope and application of the enhanced control, which was extended in 2022 to cover a wider range of exports to destinations subject to UK arms embargoes.

    Building on the extensive exporter engagement ECJU has undertaken in recent months, this guidance now includes detail on types of exports that have been made subject to the enhanced military end-use control since 2022, updated case studies to help outline indicate whether the control would likely be applicable in different circumstances, and further considerations for businesses and research organisations. 

    These updates are intended to help exporters better understand which items are commonly controlled due to end-use concerns and to anticipate and better meet potential compliance obligations.

    ECJU’s website can be found on GOV.UK

    and here’s that guidance page (HTML only, sorry!):

    Guidance

    Military end-use controls

    When military end-use export controls apply and to which destinations.From:Export Control Joint Unit and Department for Business and TradePublished19 May 2022Last updated19 May 2026 — See all updatesGet emails about this page

    Disclaimer

    This guidance explains the operation of the military end-use controls set out in export control legislation. It does not constitute legal advice. If you are unsure about your obligations in any given case, you should consider taking independent legal advice.

    Military end-use controls

    The purpose of end-use controls is to allow export controls to be imposed, on a case-by-case basis, to goods, software and technology (referred to as ‘items’) which are not specified in the UK Strategic Export Control Lists. In practice, this means that even if the items which you intend to export do not usually require an export licence, you might still require one.

    Circumstance 1: Where the purchasing country or country as of destination is an embargoed destination and the exporter has been informed in writing by the Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU), or is aware, that otherwise non-controlled items are or may be intended:

    • for incorporation into military items listed in Schedule 2 (the UK military list) to the Export Control Order 2008
    • for the use of production, test or analytical equipment and components therefor, for the development, production or maintenance of military items listed in Schedule 2 (the UK military list)
    • for use in any unfinished products in a plant for the production of military items listed in Schedule 2 (the UK military list)

    Circumstance 2: Where the exporter has been informed, or is aware, that otherwise non-controlled items are or may be intended for use as parts or components of military items listed in Schedule 2 (the UK military list) to the Export Control Order 2008, when those military items were originally exported without authorisation or in violation of an authorisation granted by the Secretary of State.

    Circumstance 3: Where the exporter has been informed that otherwise non-controlled items are or may be intended for use by a ‘relevant entity’, which means:

    • any military forces, para-military forces, police forces, security services or government intelligence organisations of an embargoed destination
    • any person or entity involved in the procurement, research, development, production or use of items on behalf of these entities

    Circumstance 3 is commonly referred to as the ‘enhanced military end-use control’.

    The enhanced military end-use control does not apply to:

    • the export of medical goods, including medicines and medical devices for the benefit of the civilian population of a country
    • the export of consumer goods generally available to the public
    • the transfer of software or technology generally available to the public

    The enhanced military end-use control will also only be invoked, and a licence application refused, where it is assessed that the export would be capable of having a ‘relevant consequence’, within the meaning given to that term in the Schedule to the Export Control Act 2002.

    Such consequences include, in summary:

    • a threat to the UK’s national security
    • having an adverse effect on peace, security or stability
    • an act threatening international peace and security
    • an act contravening the international law of armed conflict
    • an act of internal repression
    • an act that breaches human rights
    • an act of carrying out (or of acts which facilitate) acts of terrorism or serious crime

    End-use controls applicable to Weapons of Mass Destruction

    Please note end-use controls also apply to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) related items and technical assistance. WMD end-use controls can be triggered in different ways to the military end-use control. You have an obligation under the export control legislation to notify ECJU if you are aware, have been informed by government, or suspect that your items are, or may be used for, WMD purposes.

    Typical items which could be in scope

    The enhanced military end-use control is not limited to specific technologies, capabilities or sectors, and can be used to control exports of any goods, software and technology as long as their end use could have a ‘relevant consequence’.

    However, the most common types of items made subject to the enhanced military end-use control include (but are not limited to):

    • aerospace and marine (including submersible) vehicle parts
    • biotechnology, including engineering biology or synthetic biology
    • materials analysis equipment
    • quantum computing technology, including enabling technologies for quantum programmes (such as imaging cameras and cryogenic equipment)
    • semiconductor design and manufacturing equipment
    • telecommunications or advanced connectivity technologies

    Note: This list is an indicative list based on licensing data since 2022 but is not exhaustive and may change over time.

    Embargoed destinations

    For the purposes of the military end-use controls, an ‘embargoed destination’ means a destination to which one or both of the following applies:

    • it is subject to an arms embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council or the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
    • it is listed in Parts 1 or 2 of Schedule 4 to the Export Control Order 2008

    As of May 2026, the embargoed destinations are:

    • Belarus
    • Central African Republic
    • China (including Hong Kong and Macao)
    • Democratic Republic of the Congo
    • Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
    • Haiti
    • Iran
    • Iraq
    • Lebanon
    • Libya
    • Myanmar (Burma)
    • Russia
    • Somalia
    • South Sudan
    • Sudan
    • Venezuela
    • Zimbabwe

    What you must do when you are informed of a licence requirement

    You will be ‘informed’ that an export requires a licence under the military end-use control in writing. That letter will also set out the applicable legislation that makes the export licensable.

    A decision to make the export licensable and subject to the controls will be based on an assessment of both the specific items and specific end-user.

    The most common scenarios in which you may be informed an export licence is required are:

    • having submitted an export licence application to ECJU, before you receive a final decision, you may receive an electronic letter via the licensing system advising you that a licence is required – this means that even if you withdraw the application, a licence is still required if you wish to later export the same items to the same end-user
    • having presented goods for export, HMRC or Border Force detain the shipment for checks – if the detaining agency seek advice from ECJU, and we have concerns about the goods being used in an embargoed destination, you will receive a letter advising that an export licence is required, along with guidance on how to apply

    Once you are informed that an export requires a licence, you must then apply for an export licence to proceed with that export. It is a criminal offence to attempt to export items without a licence if you have been informed of the need for a licence by ECJU.

    End-User Advisory Service

    The End-User Advisory Service (EUAS) on Spire enables exporters to seek advice on whether exports to named overseas entities could require a licence because of the WMD or military end-use concerns. This focuses on the end-user and does not consider the types of items being exported and for what purpose.

    This advice is ‘non-statutory’ which means it does not constitute advice on how to follow the law and is no substitute for seeking your own independent legal advice. However, we recognise it is a helpful service to understand how export control rules might apply to complement exporters’ own due diligence.

    For the purposes of military end – use controls, any advice given through EUAS should be treated as a recommendation. It is not the same as being informed that the controls apply and a licence is therefore required for export. As set out previously, if that is the case you will be clearly informed by ECJU separately. Nonetheless, advice from EUAS may be relevant as to whether you are aware the military end use controls might apply.

    Apply for an export licence

    Apply for a standard individual export licence (SIEL).

    What you must do when you are aware of certain military end-uses 

    If you are aware that your items are or may be intended for one or more of the end-uses specified in circumstances 1 or 2, you must contact ECJU who will advise on whether an export licence is required.

    Additional due diligence and compliance guidance

    It is the responsibility of the exporter to fully determine the extent of their specific risk exposure to military end-uses, including risk of diversion, and to develop an appropriate set of safeguards tailored to the organisation’s particular circumstances.

    Staying up to date

    It is therefore important to stay up to date with changes to the UK’s export controls, and to consider how any amendments affect your organisation’s compliance obligations. ECJU regularly provides these updates via notices to exporters. Visit the collection page to see previous notices and to sign up to receive the e-mail alerts.

    Assessing end-users and risks of diversion

    While there is no one size fits all approach, it is also important to consider risks of diversion and whether the ultimate end-user may be – or may be working on behalf of – the military, police or security forces of an embargoed destination before making arrangements for an export or transfer.

    As well as using the EUAS, there are several steps your organisation can take when undertaking a risk assessment. This includes identifying potential red flag indicators of export controls evasion from open-source reporting and implementing an enhanced due diligence model to screen customers and business partners. In general, these practices could also be used to support subsequent licence applications. See guidance on compliance best practice and enhanced due diligence procedures for sanctions and export controls.

    Compliance Code of Practice

    The Compliance Code of Practice includes further guidance and advice on managing risks and ensuring compliance with export controls.

    Licensing process

    We assess all licence applications on a case-by-case basis against the Strategic Export Licensing Criteria. The Criteria provide a thorough risk assessment framework. We will not grant a licence when it is inconsistent with the criteria. Applications for countries subject to sanctions or embargoes are also considered against trade sanctions, arms embargoes, and other trade restrictions.

    In reaching a decision on an application, the Department for Business and Trade receives advice from several departments, including the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Processing licences for sanctioned, embargoed or highly sensitive destinations is likely to take significantly longer than the standard 20 working day target.

    See further information on the process and requirements for applying for a Standard Individual Export Licence.

    Example scenarios where an export licence may be required

    A. Exporting components for the repair or maintenance of military equipment to an embargoed destination:

    The military end-use control applies to exports of non-listed dual-use items where the items are for incorporation of military items (listed in Schedule 2 of the Export Control Order) or for the development, production or maintenance of military items in an embargoed destination. These apply to any exporter whether they are a business or an academic institution, and whether the export consists of a physical export or a transfer of technology (information).

    Example

    Exporter A is approached to supply commercial spare parts and equipment to an embargoed destination in order to undertake repair of a military aircraft. Exporter A is aware that the items will be used for the repair of military equipment listed in the military list in an embargoed destination. Exporter A therefore has an obligation to contact the ECJU who will advise whether an export licence is required.

    B. Exchanging research with a potential military application (upon being informed that a licence is required):

    The military end-use control may apply to transfers of technology (information) even if the technology is not explicitly intended for a military programme. If your role in a collaborative research project involves sharing technology with organisations (such as universities) in embargoed destinations and those organisations also work on programmes which may have an end-use concern, the military end-use control may apply.

    In this context, universities and research organisations should identify the risks that certain technologies pose to national security or human rights, as they may have applications in programmes of military concern, as well as civilian applications.

    Example

    Academic A works for a UK university and is collaborating on research with Academic B who works in an embargoed destination. Academic A exchanges (imports and exports) technology as part of their work.

    The research is intended to underpin development of civil vehicle technologies for the consumer market. However, Academic B is also working on projects exploring military applications for emerging civil vehicle technologies and the technology being exchanged could be applied to military programmes.

    The military end-use control would apply if Academic A has been informed that a UK export licence is required if it is assessed that the export of technology, in whole or in part, may be used to develop military capabilities of an embargoed destination.

    C. Exporting equipment to a large organisation that undertakes many areas of work (upon being informed that a licence is required)

    The military end-use control may apply to exports of equipment even if the intended end-use appears benign. If you are exporting equipment to an organisation that undertakes many different projects, such as a research organisation, and that organisation is supporting a programme of concern operated by the government or armed forces in an embargoed destination, then there may be a risk that the equipment may be used for purposes other than what is stated.

    Example

    Company A is exporting analytical equipment to a laboratory in a university in an embargoed destination. The laboratory declare that the equipment will be used by their project team to analyse new materials without a particular application, but the university is state-owned and equipment used by the laboratory is also available for use by other teams who undertake research and development (R&D) on behalf of the military.

    The military end-use control would apply if Company A has been informed that a UK export licence is required if it is assessed that the equipment might be used by teams working on military R&D programmes.

    D. Exporting items to a non-embargoed destination which could be diverted for use by an entity of concern in an embargoed destination

    The military end-use control may apply to exports even if the exported items are intended for use in a non-embargoed destination. If you are exporting items, even on a temporary basis, that are at risk of being diverted and used by a ‘relevant entity’ (for example the military) of an embargoed destination, there may be a risk that the equipment may be used for hostile purposes within scope of the ‘relevant consequences’ in the Export Control Act 2002. It is important that your due diligence processes consider all potential end-uses and end-users, including the risk of diversion to an embargoed destination.

    Example

    Company A is exporting underwater survey equipment to a distributor based in a shipyard in a non-embargoed third country. The distributor has a trading partnership with the navy of an embargoed destination, and could install Company A’s survey equipment on board a vessel operated by the navy. The military end-use control would apply where Company A was informed that a UK export licence was required because it is assessed that the vessel is undertaking operations that are a threat to national security of the UK or allies because of its connection with an embargoed destination.

    Further information

    What to do if you are aware that the items are intended for a military end-use in an embargoed destination

    If you are ‘aware’ that your items are or may be intended for one or more of the end-uses specified in circumstances 1 or 2, you must contact ECJU who will advise whether an export licence is required.

    If you are aware (but have not yet been ‘informed’) that the items are or may be intended for use by a ‘relevant entity’ (as described in circumstance 3‘enhanced military end-use control’), you should engage with the ECJU’s end-user advisory service and consider applying for a licence. As part of this process ECJU will determine whether a licence is required for the export and will inform you of this requirement.

    Typical types of end-users or end-uses to look out for

    The military end-use control is not limited to specific technologies, capabilities or programme sectors.

    The application of the control includes equipment with end-uses in many areas and the list of sectors is indicative of these cases.

    The control applies to the 17 embargoed destinations, which since 2022 include China (including Hong Kong and Macao). More specifically, your organisation should consider where your otherwise non-controlled items are or may be intended for use by a “relevant entity”, which means: * any military forces, para-military forces, police forces, security services or government intelligence organisations of an embargoed destination * any person or entity involved in the procurement, research, development, production or use of items on behalf of these entities.

    Considerations to minimise delays in an export licence application to make sure the process is an efficient as possible

    To minimise delays on export licence applications and ensure the most efficient process, you must provide comprehensive and accurate documentation, specifically focusing on clearly defining the items (technical specifications, model numbers, intended design use), as well as the end-user and end-use. In short, providing as much information as you have on your goods, customer and their intended use and the supply chain can help our advisers.

    Incomplete, inconsistent, or incorrect applications are a very common reason for delays, often resulting in requests for more information.

    Considerations for how to manage customer expectations when waiting for a licensing application outcome

    The government seeks to run a responsible export system, that enables UK growth whilst protecting national and global security. ECJU is very mindful of the commercial pressures on businesses, and the need to process licence applications with minimum delay. We strive to meet the public targets to conclude 70% of standard individual export licence applications within 20 working days and 99% within 60 working days.

    Some destinations remain more challenging to assess and therefore take longer, particularly where geopolitical situations are complex. Licence applications under military end-use controls can sometimes take longer to assess than exports caught by the control list.

    In general, we would also encourage exporters to review ECJU’s past processing performance in the licensing statistics we publish on a quarterly basis to help manage customer expectations.

    As with all licence applications, ensuring that you submit accurate and complete applications will help avoid delays. Making amendments to live applications can substantially impact the time it takes ECJU to assess it.  See more information about how to apply for a licence here: Apply to export controlled goods.

    Interaction with military end-use controls for universities when hosting visiting researchers or PhD students from embargoed destinations

    First, consider how other national security risks and regulations apply. The Research Collaboration Advice Team (RCAT) – which is part of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, provide advice to research institutions on the national security risks linked to international research.

    Generally, export controls do not apply to activity conducted wholly within the UK, except in specific cases where the WMD end-use control might apply.

    However, controls – including military end-use controls – could apply to any material the researchers or students send overseas from the UK (including via email and other forms of intangible transfer), or which they take home at the end of their stay.

    See guidance on how export controls can apply to the academic research from the UK.

    Contact ECJU

    General queries about strategic export licensing

    Export Control Joint Unit
    Department for Business and Trade
    Old Admiralty Building
    Admiralty Place
    London
    SW1A 2DY

    Email exportcontrol.help@businessandtrade.gov.uk

    Telephone 020 7215 4594

    Published 19 May 2022

    Last updated 19 May 2026

  • Here is the complete summary:


    What Is This Document?

    This guidance is produced by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), part of HM Treasury, the authority for the implementation of financial sanctions in the UK. It provides financial sanctions guidance for entities and individuals that operate in the sale or trade of high value goods, especially those trading internationally with regions that may be subject to UK financial sanctions restrictions.

    In short: if your business buys, sells, stores, insures, or transports high-value goods — art, luxury cars, precious metals, jewellery, fine wine — this document sets out your legal obligations under UK financial sanctions law.


    Who Does This Apply To?

    High Value Dealers (HVDs)

    A “high value dealer” is defined as a firm or sole trader that by way of business trades in goods (including an auctioneer dealing in goods), when the trader makes or receives, in respect of any transaction, a payment or payments in cash of at least £10,000 in total, whether the transaction is executed in a single operation or in several operations which appear to be linked. This refers to physical cash only and does not include bank transfers or digital payments.

    Art Market Participants (AMPs)

    An art market participant is defined as a firm or sole practitioner who is registered or required to register with HMRC as an art market participant under the Money Laundering Regulations. Their obligations apply when they trade in or act as an intermediary in art sales of £10,000 or more, or store works of art worth £10,000 or more for a single person.

    Both categories were added to the list of “relevant firms” subject to financial sanctions reporting requirements from 14 May 2025.


    Why Does This Sector Get Special Attention?

    The UK is a major international hub for the trade of high value goods, including art, antiques, luxury cars, precious metals and gemstones, and for investment in wines and whiskies. In 2023, global art sales were USD $65 billion and the UK had the third largest share at USD $11.05 billion, accounting for 17% of the world market.

    This scale, combined with the sector’s characteristics — high-value, portable, often privately traded — makes it attractive to sanctioned individuals seeking to move or hide wealth.


    How Sanctioned Persons Try to Exploit This Sector

    The guidance identifies several red flags to be aware of:

    Shell companies and intermediaries. Intermediaries and shell companies are often used to source, buy, or sell high value goods, and any associated payments. Such anonymity and obfuscation has been used to conceal the involvement of a designated person in a transaction.

    Asset movement. The movement of assets, including the sale of high value assets that were previously associated with a designated person, by family members or otherwise on their behalf, where funds are then disbursed offshore through secrecy jurisdictions, is an indicator suspected of being used to evade sanctions.

    Unclear payment sources. It may be indicative of sanctions evasion if there is a lack of clarity on the source of payment or funds, a concealment of the ultimate beneficial owner of the goods, transactions being made through offshore accounts, or a change in payment arrangements.

    Difficulty tracing goods. It is commonplace for goods to move between jurisdictions, making such movements less noteworthy when being done for the purposes of sanctions evasion — precious metals and stones in particular are very durable and effectively untraceable.

    Digital assets. Cryptocurrencies and NFTs may be used by designated persons in an effort to circumvent restrictions applied through financial sanctions. Those using, trading in and dealing with cryptocurrencies or NFTs are also subject to these regulations and must apply due diligence.


    What Are Your Main Obligations?

    1. Due Diligence

    The onus is on you to ensure that you have put in place sufficient measures to ensure you do not breach financial sanctions. Enhanced due diligence checks on your customers and payment chains may be needed.

    Practically, this means routinely checking the UK Sanctions List — not just when you start a new client relationship, but at every significant stage of a transaction, since the list is updated continuously.

    2. Reporting to OFSI

    Reporting obligations apply to relevant firms who are required to inform OFSI as soon as practicable if they know or have reasonable cause to suspect a person is a designated person or has committed a breach. When reporting to OFSI you must include the information or other matter on which the knowledge or suspicion is based, and any information you hold about the person by which they can be identified.

    If the suspect person is actually your customer, you must also report how much in funds or assets you are holding for them.

    3. Freeze and Stop

    If you discover a client or counterparty is sanctioned, you must immediately stop dealing with them, freeze any assets you hold on their behalf, and notify OFSI.

    4. Ownership and Control

    An asset freeze and/or some financial services restrictions may apply to entities or individuals which are owned, held or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a designated person. Those entities or individuals may not be designated in their own right, so their names may not appear on the sanctions list. However, those entities and individuals are also subject to financial sanctions.

    The ownership threshold that triggers this is more than 50% of shares or voting rights, or effective control of the entity.


    What Are the Penalties for Getting This Wrong?

    The consequences are serious. OFSI has powers to impose monetary penalties of up to £1 million or 50% of the total value of the breach, whichever is higher. Breaches of financial sanctions are also a serious criminal offence, punishable by up to 7 years imprisonment on conviction on indictment, and up to 12 months on summary conviction in England and Wales.

    Failure to comply with reporting obligations is itself an offence. A person who commits this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine, or both.

    The guidance includes a real-world case study: an investigation that concluded in 2023 found that around £1 million of artwork belonging to a US-sanctioned terrorist financier was being stored in warehouses in the UK. The artwork was seized and later forfeited by law enforcement under the Proceeds of Crime Act, and a man was arrested on suspicion of terrorist financing.


    Financial vs. Trade Sanctions — An Important Distinction

    OFSI deals with financial sanctions and the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) deals with trade sanctions. These different types of sanctions have differing processes, for instance in licensing activity. It is therefore important to consider the relevance of both financial and trade sanctions to your business.

    In practice: OFSI handles the “who” (frozen assets of designated persons), while DBT/OTSI handles the “what” (restricted goods and services). A business in the high-value goods sector may need licences from both.


    ⚠️ What Changed in the May 12, 2026 Update

    The guidance was updated on May 12, 2026 — the day before the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026 came into force — to reflect one substantive legal change:

    The reporting threshold currency switched from euros to pounds sterling.

    Previously, the definitions of “high value dealer” and “art market participant” referenced a threshold of €10,000. Across all UK sanctions regulations, the definitions of high value dealers and art market participants within the relevant firms regulations are being updated so that monetary thresholds are expressed in pounds sterling (£) rather than euros (€). In particular, the €10,000 threshold is being replaced with a £10,000 threshold.

    The guidance now reflects this: the £10,000 figure appears throughout sections 2.1 and 2.2 in place of the old euro amount.

    This aligns sanctions reporting obligations with upcoming changes to the UK’s money laundering regulations, so firms are not reporting in two different currencies. The Explanatory Memorandum describes this as a technical alignment measure rather than a change in policy, though the practical sterling equivalent of the old euro threshold will vary with exchange rates.

    Practical effect for businesses: If your compliance systems and internal policies referenced €10,000 as the trigger for cash-transaction reporting (HVDs) or art transaction/storage reporting (AMPs), they should now reference £10,000.

  • Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation HM Treasury

    Changes to UK sanctions regulations – overview for firms

    We are writing to give you notice of changes made to the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026. The regulations have now come into force.

    What’s changed 

    Changed relevant firms reporting from euros to pounds 

    • Across all UK sanctions regulations, the definitions of high value dealers and art market participants within the relevant firms regulations are updated so that monetary thresholds are expressed in pounds sterling (£) rather than euros (€). In particular, the €10,000 threshold is being replaced with a £10,000 threshold. 
    • This aligns sanctions reporting obligations with upcoming changes to those in the UK money laundering regulations, so firms are not reporting in two different currencies. 

     Electronic notices for licences 

    • The law has been updated to confirm that OFSI and other authorities can send notices for licences electronically without needing consent for this approach. This reflects how communications already work and removes an outdated technical requirement. 

    HM Treasury debt exception 

    • A clarification that the exception for Treasury debt applies to all transfers of funds across the entire payment chain, including intermediaries. 

    Updates to the prior obligations licensing ground 

    • The SI broadens the prior obligations licensing ground, giving OFSI greater flexibility to license legitimate pre-designation obligations in appropriate cases while maintaining safeguards against sanctions circumvention. 

    FAQs updated

     Further information can be found here 

    Here are the updated Frequently-Asked Questions:

    137. If I am a HVD carrying out a transaction over the value of £10,000 via card transaction, am I exempt from reporting requirements?  

    If you are a HVD, the relevant firm reporting requirement applies only when you make/ receive a payment (or payments) in cash of at least £10,000. This therefore does not include payments via bank transfer or digital payments.

    Amended on: 12 May 2026

    138. If I am an AMP carrying out a transaction over the value of £10,000 via card transaction, am I exempt from reporting requirements?  

    If you are an AMP, the reporting requirement applies regardless of how the transaction (or series of linked transactions) is made, where the transaction has a value of £10,000 or more.

    Amended on: 12 May 2026

    and the new one:

    185. The Prior Obligations licensing ground has been amended by The Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026. What has changed in practice?

    The prior obligations licensing ground enables payments or transfers to satisfy obligations that arose before a person was designated under financial sanctions. The Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026 amended this ground so that it is now applicable to a broader range of scenarios.  

    In practice, this expands the range of situations in which OFSI may consider licensing payments to satisfy prior obligations, subject to a case-by-case assessment. The change comes into force from 12 May 2026.  

    Under the amended ground: 

    1. It is no longer a condition that the funds or economic resources used to satisfy a prior obligation must be frozen under UK sanctions. 
    2. The limitations on whose funds or economic resources may be used (generally, those belonging to the DP or owned or controlled entity who owes the relevant prior obligation) have also been amended.  
    • For DPs under UK autonomous sanctions, those limitations have been removed.  
    • For UN DPs, where prior obligations licensing grounds apply, those limitations have been amended to allow the prior obligations of owned or controlled entities to be satisfied using the funds or economic resources of the DP, or of other owned or controlled entities. The assets of owned or controlled entities may also be used to satisfy prior obligations of the DP, as was the case previously. 

    Other limitations may apply, so it is important to check a specific regime to understand what may be permitted. For example, some regime-specific amendments have been made to the Iran Nuclear, Libya and DPRK regimes. Likewise, some regimes like Afghanistan do not have a prior obligation ground at all.  

    The changes do not mean that all payments relating to prior obligations will be permitted. OFSI retains discretion to refuse to grant a licence which falls within the relevant prior obligations ground even when the conditions are met, or to licence only a proportion of that obligation. For more information on OFSI’s licensing processes, please refer to our guidance.

    Added on 12 May 2026

    Here’s where those other links lead:

    , ,
  • OTSI header

    Sanctions End-Use Controls

    Yesterday, legislation was laid before Parliament to introduce Sanctions End-Use Controls into specified trade sanctions regimes. These powers will come into force on 12th May 2026

    To assist businesses, OTSI has published guidance on how these controls will be used. 

    OTSI’s website can be found on GOV.UK

    And here’s that guidance:

    Guidance

    Sanctions End-Use Controls: guidance for businesses

    Published 22 April 2026

    1. Disclaimer

    This guidance is set out to support UK businesses potentially affected by Sanctions End-Use Controls. It does not constitute legal advice. Any party in doubt about its legal position should seek independent legal advice.

    2. Foreword

    Sanctions End-Use Controls form part of the wider approach of the government to tackling the circumvention of trade sanctions. This publication is intended to help UK businesses understand Sanctions End-Use Controls that have been introduced in relevant sanctions legislation containing export prohibitions, and to support exporters to third countries where there is a high risk of diversion of goods and related technology to a sanctioned destination or person. It sets out the key features of the controls, what exporters can expect if ‘informed’ by the government that their goods or related technology may pose a sanctions diversion risk, and how to respond in practice. It also provides clarity on the intended operation of Sanctions End-Use Controls and outlines best practice around compliance, record keeping, and risk awareness. This guidance will be updated as necessary.

    3. Sanctions End-Use Controls (SEUC)

    Sanctions End-Use Controls constitute a new licensing requirement for export to a non-sanctioned third country where the exporter has been informed by the government that there is a risk of ultimate diversion of the goods or related technology, via that route, to a sanctioned destination. These controls build upon current ‘making available’ prohibitions, that make it an offence to make available restricted goods and technology to a sanctioned destination by direct or indirect means.  

    This measure will only apply to goods, or technology related to the export of a good, that are not otherwise subject to strategic export controls (i.e., items that are not included on the UK’s strategic control lists for military and dual-use items, or subject to the UK’s WMD or Military End-Use Controls).  

    Sanctions End-Use Controls are designed to: 

    • prevent sanctioned goods and related technology from reaching sanctioned jurisdictions and end users 
    • complement existing circumvention provisions under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA) 

    The government will apply this control where there are concerns around sanctions diversion risks with the end user of the good or technology.

    4. Purpose of the measure

    Trade sanctions include prohibitions on supplying specific goods and related technologies to specific locations and people. The government has seen sanctioned countries go to great lengths to circumvent our trade sanctions by purchasing sanctioned goods and related technologies via intermediaries in third countries. 

    Prior to the introduction of Sanctions End-Use Controls, in situations where the government suspected specific shipments were at risk of being diverted to sanctioned destinations, HMRC and DBT were able to advise the exporter of the risk. Once advised of the risk, it was at the discretion of the exporter whether to continue with the export.  

    Once a good has left the UK there are limited options for the government to prevent onward diversion to sanctioned people and destinations. If a sanctions breach has occurred, this is a criminal offence. However, enforcement action of such an offence takes place after the breach has occurred and cannot prevent the transfer occurring in the first place.  

    Sanctions End-Use Controls give the government the power to impose a licensing requirement on UK exporters who wish to progress specific exports, once they have been informed by the government of a high risk of the goods and related technologies being diverted to a sanctioned person or destination. This applies where such exports are not otherwise subject to export controls. Ultimately this will allow the government to assess and, where necessary, prevent exports where there is a credible risk of diversion of an item subject to sanctions to use by a sanctioned person or in a sanctioned destination. This is an important tool to tackle circumvention of trade sanctions at source.

    5. Goods covered by Sanctions End-Use Controls

    Sanctions End-Use Controls apply to all trade sanctions regimes where restrictions extend beyond arms embargoes (where the military end-use control already applies). Currently this means it applies to goods and related technologies sanctioned under the following sanctions regimes: 

    However, the requirement to obtain a licence under Sanctions End-Use Controls only applies following a process where the government ‘informs’ an exporter that their goods or related technologies and, if applicable, related technology may be at risk of diversion to a sanctioned end user, intermediary, or jurisdiction.  

    Once an exporter has been informed, it becomes a criminal offence to export those goods or related technologies without first obtaining an appropriate licence to export. Exporters who have not been ‘informed of the need for a licence should continue as normal. These regulations do not establish a blanket requirement for licensing types of goods or technologies. Exporters will be notified if the government deem a licence is necessary.

    6. What to do when you get ‘informed’

    Sanctions End-Use Controls are designed and intended to be used in a targeted way, where the government has identified a specific sanctions diversion risk linked to the good or exporter, the route, end user or intermediary. 

    If you are informed by the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), which may come through HMRC’s national clearance hub or through direct contact with DBT (through the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, OTSI), that your export is at risk of sanctions circumvention you will receive a written informing notice which will: 

    • identify the shipment or transaction in scope, 
    • set out that an export licence is required before the goods or technologies can be exported 

    From the point you are informed, you must not proceed with export of the goods or technologies covered by the notice unless a licence is granted. If you choose not to apply for a licence and still seek to export the goods or technologies after being informed, you will be in breach of UK sanctions law and subject to enforcement action. 

    If the goods have already been intercepted at the border, HMRC may: 

    • detain the goods while a licensing decision is made 
    • allow the goods to be returned to the exporter, pending the outcome of the licence application 

    When you are informed, you will be given information on how to apply for a licence, and any evidence you should provide to help DBT assess the risk of diversion.  

    OTSI is currently not accepting advance sanctions end-use controls licence applications. You should wait to be informed before applying for a licence. OTSI will keep this approach under consideration.

    7. When goods may be stopped at the border

    Sanctions End-Use Control powers apply to all goods and related technologies within the sanctions regimes outlined in section 3, where these are not otherwise controlled under strategic export control legislation.  

    As a general rule, the government will seek to apply Sanctions End-Use Controls to address exports that have been identified and publicised to exporters as of potential concern. the government will always endeavour to publicise known risks to assist businesses in understanding higher risk goods and transactions. 

    Currently, the highest risks identified by the government are related to circumvention of our Russia regime. The government has published guidance on the highest risk goods and export destinations in our Countering Russian Sanctions Evasion: Guidance for Businesses, which is kept up to date as patterns of circumvention change and will inform OTSI’s application of sanctions end-use controls. You can also check the Russia Common High Priority List, an internationally agreed list of Western items critical to Russian weapons systems and its military development. 

    The government uses a range of sources to inform and prioritise which exports are most at risk of circumvention. This includes, but is not limited to, publicly available sanctions evasion typologies and data indicating increased risk. Exporters are strongly encouraged to do the same as relates to their products and end users. 

    The requirement for a licence only applies where the exporter has been ‘informed’. Goods will only be subject to a licensing requirement where the government has informed’ you in writing of a specific diversion risk. This risk will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.  

    OTSI does not intend to impose blanket licensing requirements for a specific type of good going to a specific destination but reserves the right to do so, should the need arise.

    8. How to apply for a licence

    If you are informed under Sanctions End-Use Control powers, you must apply for a licence before proceeding with the export of the goods or technologies covered by the informing notice. 

    Find out how to submit a licence application to the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation (OTSI)

    Applications will be assessed on a case-by-case basis by DBT, working closely with other departments as needed. Factors that could be considered include: 

    • the nature of the good or related technology and its potential uses 
    • the diversion risks associated with the customer, route or end-user 
    • the exporter’s compliance history and due diligence processes 
    • any additional intelligence available to HM Government 

    Possible outcomes include: 

    • the licence is granted, and the export may proceed subject to any licence conditions 
    • the licence is refused, and the goods or technologies may not be exported to the end-user or route identified 

    The complexity of the case and the availability of information will affect how long it takes to reach a decision. Exporters are encouraged to submit detailed, complete and accurate applications as early as possible after receiving an ‘informing’ letter to minimise potential delays.

    9. Information needed for a licence application

    Further information on applying for a trade sanctions licence can be found at the following link: 

    10. Record keeping and due diligence requirements

    Sanctions End-Use Controls do not change your record keeping or due diligence expectations. If exporting goods or related technologies, you are expected to conduct adequate due diligence to demonstrate compliance with UK sanctions. If you are informed, you may be asked to supply details of your due diligence and a licence for export will be granted if you can satisfactorily demonstrate that your goods are not ultimately destined for a sanctioned destination. 

    For more information on due diligence please read our countering Russian sanctions evasion – guidance for businesses. While this guidance is Russia-specific, much of the advice can be applied to other UK trade sanctions regimes.

    11. Penalties for non-compliance

    Failure to comply with the licensing requirement pursuant to a notice issued under Sanctions End-Use Controls is a breach of trade sanctions and may result in enforcement action. 

    Possible consequences include: 

    • detention or seizure of goods by HMRC at the border 
    • revocation or refusal of existing and future export licences 
    • being publicly named under OTSI’s powers to name companies who breach sanctions  
    • a report about the breach being published by OTSI 
    • OTSI imposing a monetary penalty 
    • criminal investigation and potential prosecution 

    HMRC is responsible for the enforcement of trade sanctions within its role as the UK customs authority. This applies to goods that cross the UK border and strategic goods and technology (as well as services ancillary to those movements). HMRC also criminally investigates relevant breaches referred by other agencies. OTSI leads on the civil enforcement of sanctioned services, as well as trade in sanctioned goods, technologies and services outside the UK, where a UK person is involved. OTSI can refer cases to HMRC to consider criminal investigation.  

    In some circumstances, monetary penalties may be imposed on a strict liability basis. This means that a monetary penalty can be imposed even where the person did not know or have reasonable cause to suspect that they were in breach of sanctions.  

    Exporters are encouraged to cooperate fully with any enquiries by HMRC, OTSI or other enforcement authorities and to seek legal advice where appropriate.

    12. Case studies

    Sanctions End-Use Controls apply to exports to non-sanctioned destinations where the exporter has been informed by the government that the export is at risk of diversion to a sanctioned destination. During the licensing process it may be determined that this risk is minimal and therefore the government is content with the onward export of these goods or related technologies. In these circumstances, a licence will be issued for the export of these goods or related technologies. If, however, the exporter ignores the informing letter and proceeds with the export without applying for a licence, this would constitute a criminal offence.

    12.1 Case Study 1: Licence refused after being ‘informed’

    For example:

    A UK company exporting industrial cooling systems to a Central Asian third country distributor is informed by DBT that the goods are likely to be re-exported to a sanctioned Russian entity. The goods were stopped at port by HMRC and the details referred to DBT for assessment. The company then receives a letter requiring them to apply for a licence under the Sanctions End-Use Controls. The goods are either held or can be returned to the customer pending a decision. These goods cannot be exported to the end user until the outcome is determined. The application is refused due to diversion concerns. The company updates its due diligence procedures and stops trading with that distributor.

    12.2 Case Study 2: Licence granted after being ‘informed’ 

    For example:

    A UK trader applies for a licence to export precision electronics to a Middle Eastern country after being stopped at customs and informed. During the licence review, the exporter provides clear information on the end use of the products that indicates a reduced risk of diversion. The exporter is issued with a licence for these goods, and the export can continue its onward journey. 

    12.3 Case Study 3:  Continuing with an unauthorised export after having been ‘informed’  

    For example:

    A freight forwarder receives an informing letter about a consignment of bearings due for export to a company in the Caucasus region, raising diversion concerns. The letter makes clear that an export licence is required before proceeding. The forwarder overlooks the letter and exports the shipment. The company is investigated for breach of Sanctions End-Use Controls, and risks enforcement action as set out in section 8.

    13. Further information

    13.1 Goods are not being banned for export

    Sanctions End-Use Controls are a targeted mechanism that only apply once you are informed of specific risk factors. If informed, you must apply for a licence before exporting. 

    13.2 Differences between SEUC and existing catch-all controls

    The UK’s existing end-use export controls apply where there are specific risks that an item might be used for the production of WMD or for a military end use in a country subject to a full or partial arms embargo. Sanctions End-Use Controls focus on goods and related technology not subject to these controls (e.g. where they are not for export to a country subject to a full or partial arms embargo), but where there is an identified risk of circumvention of an export subject to sanctions for use in a sanctioned destination or by a sanctioned person.  

    13.3 Comparison of UK sanctions end‑use controls and the EU catch‑all provisions

    The UK SEUC are similar to the EU’s “catch-all” provision in that they both provide powers to impose licensing conditions on goods to prevent circumvention, however, sanctions end-use controls apply across all sanctioned goods in all sanctions regimes, whereas the EU’s “catch-all” provision applies only to the highest risk goods within their Russia sanctions. 

    13.4 Applying for a licence where there is a risk of diversion

    If you believe your goods are at risk of diversion to a sanctioned destination , you should consider not carrying out the transaction. You are strongly encouraged to undertake further due diligence before proceeding and you may also wish to seek legal advice. Sanctions regulations prohibit direct and indirect supply, so you may be at risk of a breach of sanctions regulations if you proceed with a transaction where you have reason to believe the goods are ultimately intended for a sanctioned jurisdiction or person. 

    OTSI is not currently accepting advance licence applications but will keep this under review. You should wait until you are informed before submitting a licence application. If you suspect that your export may be in scope of Sanctions End-Use Controls and have determined that you wish to proceed.  In any event, the licensing process should not be used as a replacement for substantive due diligence. To speed up the process you are encouraged to provide as much information as possible during the licensing process. For more information please read our guidance on applying for a licence from OTSI.

    14. Contacts and further information

  • Here’s a summary of the new guidance:

    Summary: Canadian Sanctions Guidance for the Aerospace & Defence Sector

    Source: Global Affairs Canada (last updated April 20, 2026). No additional sources were used.


    What This Is

    This is a guidance document from Global Affairs Canada aimed at helping Canadian aerospace and defence organizations understand and comply with Canadian sanctions laws. It is not a legal opinion — the government recommends that organizations maintain their own internal compliance program and consult legal counsel when needed.


    Who It Applies To

    When Canada imposes sanctions, all persons in Canada and Canadians abroad face restrictions on dealing or collaborating with sanctioned countries, or with specific listed individuals and entities. This includes aerospace and defence companies involved in importing, exporting, or providing services related to goods and technologies.


    Export and Import Controls

    In some situations, a transaction may legally require both an approved export control permit and a separate sanctions permit. Even if you hold a valid export permit, a transaction involving a listed person is still prohibited without a sanctions permit. Similarly, if the destination country is subject to sanctions — even if none of the parties involved are listed — a sanctions permit may still be required.

    Dual-use goods (items that can serve both civilian and military purposes) receive particular attention. Certain dual-use goods and technologies may be prohibited under specific sanctions regulations.

    Russia and Belarus are specifically highlighted. Regulations targeting Russia and Belarus prohibit the sale or supply of many goods and technologies (regardless of whether they could be used to make weapons), services related to aviation and aerospace, and research or technical assistance.

    Canada is also a member of the Global Export Control Coalition (GECC), which monitors battlefield-bound goods through a Common High Priority Items List (CHPL). Canada has incorporated these items into its Russia sanctions regulations.


    Arms and Related Material

    Under Canadian sanctions law, “arms and related material” broadly covers weapons, ammunition, military equipment (including military vehicles), paramilitary equipment, and their spare parts.

    When assessing whether something qualifies, the guidance says to consider: whether the good is specially designed or modified for military use; whether its intended end use supports a military program; whether it is going to a military entity or defence contractor; and whether the transaction might benefit a listed person with military connections.

    Related service prohibitions may also apply, including financial services, insurance, and other services tied to the manufacture and export of prohibited goods.


    Due Diligence

    Sanctions in Canada change frequently. Companies are encouraged to:

    • Screen proposed engagements against the UN Security Council Consolidated List and Canada’s Consolidated Autonomous Sanctions List.
    • Look beyond direct dealings — under most relevant legislation, it is prohibited to facilitate a transaction related to a listed individual or entity, even indirectly through a third party that may not be Canadian and may be located outside Canada.
    • Ask questions such as: Does my client have ties to listed persons, through family members, subsidiaries, or intermediary banks? Does this activity benefit a listed person in any way?

    Red Flags

    Some individuals and entities may attempt to circumvent Canadian sanctions. If a transaction raises red flags, companies should ask: Can the red flags be explained? Can you confirm the legitimacy of the parties and the transaction? If doubt remains, legal advice is strongly recommended.


    Enforcement

    Information on reporting sanctions violations and penalties for non-compliance is available through Global Affairs Canada’s sanctions enforcement guidance. Questions can be directed to the Global Affairs Canada Sanctions Bureau.


    Confidence Check

    Everything in this summary is directly supported by the source page. No claims were extrapolated or inferred beyond what the document states. I did not use any additional sources. One important caveat: this is a summary of government guidance, not legal advice — the page itself notes that organizations should consult private legal counsel for their specific situations.

  • so, I asked Gemini to build the story of sanctions evasion-related advisory and guidance documents. Its response:

    The latest advisory from March 31, 2026, titled “Guidance on Sham Transactions and Sanctions Evasion,” signals a new frontier in the U.S. government’s efforts to stop illicit actors from hiding their wealth. By reviewing this document and the history of OFAC’s guidance, we can see a clear evolution: sanctions have moved from simple “do not trade with this person” lists to complex “detective manuals” that require companies to spot sophisticated lies.


    Part 1: Summary of Today’s Advisory (March 31, 2026)

    Verified Document: Guidance on Sham Transactions and Sanctions Evasion.

    The core message of this document is that a “paper trail” is no longer enough to prove a transaction is legal. OFAC is warning that blocked individuals—such as sanctioned Russian oligarchs or international drug kingpins—are using “Sham Transactions” to pretend they no longer own their luxury assets (like private jets, yachts, or companies).

    Key “Red Flags” for Sham Transactions:

    • Family Transfers: A sanctioned person “sells” or transfers an asset to a spouse, child, or close associate shortly before or after being sanctioned.
    • Below-Market Deals: Selling a multi-million dollar asset for a tiny fraction of its value, or on terms that don’t make business sense.
    • Invisible Control: The sanctioned person “sells” their private jet but continues to use it for personal travel, meaning they still effectively own it.
    • Unnecessary Complexity: Using layers of shell companies in “tax haven” countries to hide who really benefits from the property.

    Part 2: The Evolution of Sanctions Evasion Guidance

    Over the last decade, OFAC’s guidance has evolved through four distinct “generations.”

    1. The “Who” Era (Foundational / Pre-2019)

    In this era, compliance was relatively simple: don’t do business with anyone on the SDN List (Specially Designated Nationals).

    • The Big Rule (2014): OFAC clarified the “50 Percent Rule,” stating that if a sanctioned person owns 50% or more of any company, that company is also automatically sanctioned—even if its name isn’t on a list.
    • The Evasion: People began splitting ownership into 49% chunks to stay “under the radar.”

    2. The “How” Era (2019: The Framework)

    OFAC realized that companies needed a “playbook” to avoid making mistakes.

    • Key Document: A Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments (May 2019).
    • Evolution: This established the “5 Pillars” of a good compliance program: management support, risk assessment, internal controls, testing, and training. It told companies: “We won’t just look at who you trade with; we will look at how hard you tried to follow the rules”.

    3. The “Behavioral” Era (2020: Global Maritime Advisory)

    Sanctions evasion moved to the high seas, where bad actors began using “Deceptive Shipping Practices” (DSPs).

    • Key Document: 2020 Global Maritime Advisory.
    • Evolution: Guidance shifted from “Lists” to “Patterns”. Companies were told to watch for ships turning off their GPS (AIS), “spoofing” their location, or transferring cargo between ships in the middle of the ocean (STS transfers) to hide the cargo’s origin.

    4. The “Detective” Era (2023–2026: Shadow Fleets and Sham Deals)

    The current era is defined by the war in Ukraine and the “Russian Oil Price Cap”.

    • The “Shadow Fleet”: Guidance now focuses on “Ghost Ships”—older, poorly maintained vessels with fake insurance used to bypass oil price limits.
    • “Know Your Cargo” (2023): A landmark “Quint-Seal” note (issued by five agencies) told companies they must now verify the cargo, not just the customer.
    • The Latest Step (Today): The 2026 “Sham Transactions” advisory completes the circle. It warns that even when the person looks clean and the ship looks clean, the legal paperwork might be a lie.

    Summary for Non-Experts: How the “Rules of the Game” Changed

    Old Way (2016)New Way (2026)
    “Check the List”: If the name isn’t on the SDN list, you are probably fine.“Check the Vibe”: Even if the name is clean, you must ask: “Does this deal make sense? Why is this ship’s GPS off?”.
    “Simple Ownership”: Just check if a sanctioned person owns 51% of a business.“Ultimate Control”: Check if they secretly control it through a trust, a shell company, or their spouse.
    “Bank Responsibility”: Mostly banks and financial firms had to worry about this.“Industry Responsibility”: Insurers, ship captains, freight forwarders, and luxury goods dealers are now on the front lines.

    Today, OFAC treats every company as a “mini-detective agency.” If you ignore a red flag—like an oligarch suddenly “giving” his yacht to his wife for $1—the government can hold you responsible for “sham” activity.

    So, what do you think? The inclusion of the Framework Document seems a bit of a curveball (certainly I didn’t expect that to pop up), but it seems to follow a certain logic….

  • While this seems pretty basic, for those of us who have been in financial crime compliance for a while, it’s always good to publish this as a reminder for those new to the field or those caught up in the day-to-day who could use a refresher….

  • As part of Canada’s ongoing commitment to keeping the exporting community well-informed, this newsletter will now include periodic information on changes to Canada’s 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.

    For more information, please see Export and Import Controls.

    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.

    Date of entry into forceLast day in forceBackgrounderNon-official HTML versionOfficial PDF version
    May 1, 2026 Backgrounder – May 2026A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – May 2026A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – May 2026 (pdf)
    July 1, 2025April 30, 2026Backgrounder – May 2025A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – May 2025A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – May 2025 (pdf)
    May 2, 2024June 30, 2025Backgrounder – January 2024A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – January 2024A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – January 2024 (pdf)
    July 1, 2023May 1, 2024Backgrounder – January 2023A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – January 2023A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – January 2023 (pdf)
    December 21, 2022June 30, 2023Backgrounder – December 2021A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – December 2021 (html)A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – December 2021 (pdf)  
    July 24, 2021December 20, 2022A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – December 2020 (html)A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – December 2020 (pdf)
    May 1, 2020July 23, 2021Backgrounder: December 2018A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – December 2018 (html)A Guide to Canada’s Export List – December 2018 (pdf)
    May 17, 2019April 30, 2020Backgrounder: December 2016A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – December 2016 (html)A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – December 2016 (pdf)
    August 11, 2017May 16, 2019A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – December 2015 (html)A Guide to Canada’s Export Control List – December 2015 (pdf)

    Date modified: 2026-03-18

  • UK Gov logo, 50% resolution.png

    Summaries for sanctions regimes

    To make guidance on UK sanctions regimes clearer and more accessible, we’ve published summaries of prohibitions under each regime. These new summaries will enable readers to see an overview of what sanctions apply in a regime.

    Each summary gives a quick overview of the sanctions in place under the regime, covering, where applicable:

    • the regime’s scope
    • what applies to designated persons and specified ships
    • wider financial and trade sanctions
    • sanctions on goods and services 
    • additional sanction types

    Regime summaries are not comprehensive and are not a replacement for the statutory guidance or the regulations themselves.

    You can open the summary and the refreshed statutory guidance for each regime directly from the Current UK sanctions regimes page using the regime’s ‘guidance’ link.

    Regimes listed by country

    Afghanistan sanctions: guidance

    Republic of Belarus sanctions: guidance

    Bosnia and Herzegovina sanctions: guidance

    Central African Republic sanctions: guidance

    Democratic Republic of the Congo sanctions: guidance

    Democratic People’s Republic of Korea sanctions: guidance

    Guinea sanctions: guidance

    Republic of Guinea-Bissau sanctions: guidance

    Haiti Sanctions: guidance

    Iran sanctions: guidance

    Iran nuclear sanctions: guidance

    Iraq sanctions: guidance

    Lebanon sanctions: guidance

    Lebanon (Assassination of Rafiq Hariri and others) sanctions: guidance

    Libya sanctions: guidance

    Mali sanctions: guidance

    Myanmar sanctions: guidance

    Nicaragua sanctions: guidance

    Russia sanctions: guidance

    Somalia sanctions: guidance

    South Sudan sanctions: guidance

    Sudan sanctions: guidance

    Syria sanctions: guidance

    Syria cultural property sanctions: guidance

    Venezuela sanctions: guidance

    Yemen sanctions: guidance

    Zimbabwe sanctions: guidance

    Regimes listed by theme

    Chemical weapons sanctions: guidance

    Counter-terrorism sanctions: guidance

    Counter-terrorism international sanctions: guidance

    Cyber sanctions: guidance

    Global anti-corruption sanctions: guidance

    Global human rights sanctions: guidance

    Global irregular migration and trafficking in persons sanctions: guidance

    ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida sanctions: guidance

    Unauthorised drilling activities sanctions: guidance

    , ,
  • Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation HM Treasury

    Reasonableness in licensing – updated approach

    OFSI has today published a blogpost, Reasonableness in licensing – updated approach. It provides more clarity on the evidence we require to support licence applications under the legal services and routine holding and maintenance licensing grounds, helping applicants to submit complete, well‑evidenced applications. The blogpost should be read alongside OFSI’s earlier blogpost, Reasonableness in licensing.

    The updated guidance:

    Reasonableness in licensing – updated approach

    In June 2021, OFSI published a blogpost, Reasonableness in licensing”, which set out how we assess “reasonableness” when considering licence applications under UK financial sanctions regimes.  

    This blogpost, “Reasonableness in licensing – updated approach”, updates that guidance and applies across all UK financial sanctions regimes.  

    You should read this alongside our existing guidance, including the June 2021 Reasonableness in licensing blogpost and OFSI’s general guidance

    Legal services: Costs Draftsperson’s Reports (CDPRs) 

    OFSI regularly receives applications under the legal fees licensing ground which relate to legal services provided on ongoing and complex matters. Some of these applications request permission for payment of fees in the millions of pounds. It is for the applicant to demonstrate to OFSI that the legal fees and expenses they are requesting payment for are reasonable.  

    To support OFSI’s assessment of reasonableness in these cases, OFSI will now require an independent Costs Draftsperson’s Report (CDPR) to be submitted as part of the licence application in certain circumstances. 

    Applicants may also choose to provide a CDPR proactively even where the relevant threshold has not been met but there are other factors which increase the complexity of the application. This may assist OFSI’s assessment of reasonableness.  

    When a CDPR is required 

    OFSI will require an independent CDPR in the following cases: 

    Law firms – where within any six-month period: 

    • total legal fees and Counsel fees (where instructed via solicitors), including expenses, to be licensed exceed £2,000,000.00 (inclusive of VAT) 

    Counsel (instructed directly) – where within any six-month period: 

    • Counsel related costs, including disbursements, to be licensed exceed £1,000,000.00 (inclusive of VAT). 

    How the thresholds apply  

    These thresholds: 

    • apply per UK law firm or per Counsel,  
    • are assessed in relation to each designated person, and 
    • are cumulative across all specific licences and applications in relation to that designated person from the law firm or Counsel. 

    Applications covering periods longer than six months 

    Where a single licence application covers a period longer than six months, OFSI will apply the relevant threshold pro rata to reflect the length of the period covered. 

    For example, an application covering 18 months of legal services would have threshold caps of: 

    • £6,000,000 (inclusive of VAT) for a UK law firm (i.e., £2,000,000 per six-month period); and  
    • £3,000,000 (inclusive of VAT) for Counsel (instructed directly) (i.e., £1,000,000 per six-month period). 

    What to include in your application 

    When submitting an application, please indicate clearly whether the criteria above apply. For example, you may wish to include a statement such as: “The legal costs exceed £2 million (including VAT) and a CDPR is attached.” 

    Anticipated (future) costs 

    OFSI recognises that applicants may seek licences for work already done and also work anticipated in the future. Where legal work is anticipated but not yet incurred, OFSI will accept a CDPR that assesses anticipated costs. 

    For  long-running legal matters, where it is not feasible to obtain a CDPR covering anticipated costs, applicants are encouraged to consider applying for licences on a quarterly basis, with an enclosed CDPR covering costs incurred during the relevant period. 

    OFSI will seek to help applicants understand the licencing process, including by directing them to relevant guidance.   

    Disbursements 

    Where the threshold requiring a CDPR has been met, OFSI may, on a case-by-case basis and in extenuating circumstances, agree to assess disbursements (excluding Counsel fees or other legal services) without the provision of a CDPR separately in advance of the assessment of the wider legal fees element of the application. Examples include where a disbursement must be paid on a time‑critical basis to avoid prejudice to legal proceedings, and the applicant can provide clear evidence for that disbursement even though the CDPR for the wider legal fees is not yet available.  

    This is at OFSI’s discretion, and applicants should provide clear supporting evidence for the disbursements in question. 

    Independence and qualification of the Costs Lawyer 

    CDPRs must be produced by independent practising Costs Lawyers who: 

    • are regulated by, and hold a current practising certificate issued by, the Costs Lawyer Standards Board (CLSB); 
    • comply with the CLSB’s Code of Conduct; and  
    • are not part of the legal team undertaking the work covered by the OFSI licence application. 

    How OFSI uses the CDPR and assesses reasonableness 

    A CDPR is one part of the evidential package that OFSI will consider when assessing whether legal fees and expenses are reasonable. We will look at the CDPR alongside other material you provide. 

    However, even where a CDPR concludes that costs are reasonable, OFSI may still determine that reasonableness has not been fully demonstrated; license a lower amount than requested; or decline to license certain costs altogether. 

    OFSI will also continue to assess legal fees in line with our existing guidance and policy, including but not limited to the Reasonableness in Licensing blog and the Permitted travel expenses for sanctions licence applications

    Costs of obtaining a CDPR 

    The costs of obtaining a CDPR may be licensed under the legal services licensing ground, subject to the normal reasonableness test. These costs can be included within the main legal services application or sought via a separate licence application. 

    You may apply for CDPR costs before you submit the primary application, at the same time as an application, or as a separate application after the primary application has been considered. In all cases, OFSI will assess the CDPR costs in the same way as any other legal fees and reasonableness must be demonstrated. 

    Legal services: Administrative and other additional fees 

    OFSI sometimes receives legal services licence applications that include an additional administration or similar fee applied as a percentage uplift to the total of fee earners’ charges. 

    To assess the reasonableness of any such fee, OFSI requires applicants to provide: 

    • a clear, itemised breakdown of what the administration (or similar) charge covers; and 
    • supporting evidence demonstrating the basis for, and level of, those costs. 

    Where this information is not provided, OFSI will not be able to assess the fee as reasonable and may refuse to license it. Applicants should therefore provide this information at the outset, as it is likely to enable a quicker assessment. 

    Maintenance of frozen funds and economic resources licensing ground: independent expert reports 

    For applications under the maintenance of frozen funds and economic resources licensing ground, applicants are encouraged to submit an independent expert report where the requested payments are high value, novel, or complex. For example, this could be payments related to a niche asset (such as a superyacht or racing car) for which expertise is required to determine the maintenance required; or for extraordinary payments which are not routinely required (for example, significant construction works to prevent a building falling into disrepair).   

    Where an expert report is not provided, OFSI may on a case-by-case basis and at OFSI’s discretion, request one where it is needed to support our assessment of the necessity and reasonableness of the proposed costs. 

    Type and qualification of the independent expert 

    The independent expert should have demonstrable and relevant expertise in the area to which the costs relate. This expertise may be demonstrated through relevant experience and/or appropriate professional accreditation. 

    Examples include, but are not limited to: 

    • Maritime assets – a marine surveyor or naval architect accredited by a recognised professional body. 
    • Aviation – an aircraft engineer or aviation asset manager with appropriate professional registration. 
    • Technical infrastructure / industrial assets – an engineer with chartered status (or equivalent) in the relevant discipline and experience of maintaining comparable assets. 

    The expert should: 

    • be  independent of the applicant and any service provider benefiting from the payments; 
    • have no financial interest in the proposed works or services, beyond standard professional fees for preparing the report; and 
    • provide a  signed report, prepared and presented in line with the relevant professional/industry standards, setting out the basis for their opinion on the proposed costs and their necessity.  

    How OFSI uses the report and assesses reasonableness 

    As with CDPRs, OFSI will treat any independent expert report as part of the overall evidential package. Even if the report supports the proposed costs, OFSI may conclude that costs are not fully justified and license a reduced amount or decline certain costs. 

    Cost of obtaining independent expert reports  

    As with CDPR fees, the costs of obtaining an independent expert report may be licensed under the relevant licensing ground, subject to the normal reasonableness test. Applicants may include these costs within the main application or request them via a separate licence application. 

    OFSI will assess the reasonableness of independent expert fees case-by-case, taking account of the scope, complexity, location, and urgency of the works. 

    To assist OFSI’s assessment, applicants should provide (as applicable): 

    • A clear scope of services: what the expert will do, deliverables, and the time period covered. 
    • How the fee is calculated: whether a fixed fee (and what it covers), or hourly rates and estimated hours (including any fee cap). 
    • Evidence of market reasonableness: multiple quotes/tenders, or an explanation of why a single provider was selected. 

    Evidence to demonstrate reasonableness 

    OFSI will continue to assess reasonableness in line with our existing guidance and policy (see Reasonableness in Licensing).  

    Evidence submitted to demonstrate reasonableness should be recent and as a general rule, OFSI considers evidence dated within the past 6 months to be appropriate (in relation to the application).  

    Where evidence is older than 6 months, applicants must provide a clear explanation of: 

    • why more recent evidence could not be obtained; and  
    • why the older evidence remains a reliable basis for assessing reasonableness (for example, due to the nature of the market or stability of pricing). 

    Further information 

    These updates are intended to enhance transparency around OFSI’s assessment of reasonableness, and to help applicants prepare complete and well evidenced applications. This should support more efficient processing of applications and clearer outcomes. 

    For further information, you should consult: 

    • OFSI’s Reasonableness in licensing blogpost; 
    • the relevant regime-specific and thematic guidance on GOV.UK; and 
    • the terms of any applicable General Licences. 

    If you are unsure how these updates affect your application, you can contact OFSI using the details provided on GOV.UK. 

    and the original post, from June 2021:

    Reasonableness in licensing

    If you are applying for a licence from OFSI to release otherwise frozen funds for legal fees or the maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources, you will likely come across the term “reasonableness”.

    When issuing a licence to enable the payment of professional fees and expenses for the provision of legal services, OFSI is legally obliged to ensure that those fees and expenses are “reasonable”.

    OFSI’s Introduction to licensing blog, which was published in April 2021, set out the key changes to licensing under the Sanctions and Anti Money Laundering Act (the Sanctions Act) that came into effect from 23.00 on 31 December 2020. The following changes to reasonableness now apply:

    • Under the legal fees licensing ground, reasonableness now also applies to expenses
    • A reasonableness test has been applied to the maintenance of frozen funds and economic resources licensing ground.

    OFSI receives many applications where applicants have not provided sufficient evidence of reasonableness or with no evidence at all. This could be because the applicant may not understand the full policy intention behind the regulations that need to be considered in parallel, or the justification submitted may be one-sided in the applicant’s favour. However, OFSI requires a significant level of evidence when scrutinising the reasonableness threshold. This is because the Sanctions Act which gives us the power to issue these licences, also stipulates that legal fees and maintenance of frozen funds should be ‘reasonable’. When we don’t receive the level of detail that we need, we will need to engage with the applicant for these further details. This can invariably cause delays in processing such licence applications and, in some cases, may result in the refusal of the licence application if further information is never provided. OFSI does not want to cause delays to the consideration and issuance of any of our licences, so this blog is aimed at setting out what information we need to consider when identifying if an application is “reasonable”.

    Financial sanctions are a foreign policy tool. In the UK they are implemented through UK legislation (which sometimes applies restrictions imposed through the UN) in order to achieve a specific foreign policy or national security objective. Financial sanctions are generally imposed to:

    • coerce a regime or individual to change their behaviour;
    • constrain a target by denying access to key resources to continue their offending behaviour;
    • signal disapproval; and
    • protect the value of assets that have been misappropriated from a country until these assets can be repatriated.

    As the competent authority for the implementation of financial sanctions in the UK, OFSI has to ensure that any permitted release or use of frozen funds maintains the integrity of the financial sanctions regime, supports the foreign policy ambition and that the  decision to release remains in line with its legal duty under UK law. The term ‘reasonable’ is written in to the Sanctions Act which means there is a legal requirement both for OFSI to assess this and for applicants to provide evidence of why a payment is reasonable.

    If you are in possession of an OFSI licence that permitted the use of frozen funds for the payment of legal fees/maintenance under the previous EU regulations,  you may need to provide a new explanation for reasonableness, if that licence requires an amendment. In addition, if you were granted a licence that has now expired after only being partially used, or not used at all, any new application will need to meet the new requirements as set out under the Sanctions Act for the regime. This should include explaining and/or evidencing the reasonableness of the payments. Licence extensions under derogations that have reasonableness written into them will need to undergo ‘reasonableness’ assessments again. This can be done by providing evidence such as previous invoices against the licence to assist OFSI in its determination that the costs remain reasonable and whether all of the licence is being used in the same way  that it was when the licence was initially granted.

    The two licensing derogations under the Sanctions Act that include a ‘reasonableness’ test are ‘legal services’ and ‘maintenance of funds or frozen resources’. We have broken them down below and have outlined the types of questions that applicants may wish to consider when applying under these specific licensing grounds.

    Legal Services

    It is for the applicant to demonstrate to OFSI that the legal fees and expenses they are requesting payment for are reasonable. OFSI considers that the Solicitors’ guideline hourly rates or the sums that could be expected to be recouped if legal costs were awarded following civil court proceedings, provide a useful starting point for assessing the reasonableness of legal fees and expenses. If you seek fees of a level above those set out in the guideline, you need to demonstrate why those increased fees are reasonable in the given case. Whilst we will consider rates that vary from the guideline, it is a useful benchmark in the assessment of reasonableness.

    When applying to for a legal fees and expenses licence, you should consider addressing the following in your application form:

    1. Whether the work has already taken place or if it is anticipated work;
    2. What the work will involve/has involved;
    3. Which fee earner(s) will be/have been involved in the work (and their position(s)/role(s) within the firm, including relevant level of experience);
    4. The fee earner(s)’ hourly rate;
    5. How many hours each fee earner(s) will be estimated to spend/has already spent on each workstream;
    6. Any supporting evidence as to why the involvement and/or the number of hours of the particular fee earner(s) is reasonable and/or proportionate to the nature and complexity of the work;
    7. Any expenses that are expected and have been paid out; and
    8. If any expenses are expected, why are they necessary.

    If you are requesting a licence amendment to permit an increase in the hourly rate of fee earner(s) you should provide a detailed explanation. For example, this may be a breakdown and evidence of the firm’s running costs to explain the proposed increase. When OFSI reviews such amendments, it is not enough to cite for example, “an engagement letter between the DP and the law firm” which provides for an annual increase, nor that it is a “common practice amongst law firms”. As set out in OFSI’s guidance, legal services may be provided without a licence, but any payments for legal services provided, do require a licence.

    In terms of legal professional privilege (LPP), OFSI expects legal professionals to carefully ascertain whether LPP applies and which information it applies to. It is not generally considered that fees notes and narratives of work (in generic terms) are privileged as they do not constitute the giving or obtaining of legal advice. OFSI may challenge a blanket assertion of LPP where it is not satisfied that such careful consideration has been made. For example, simply providing the cost of a workstream without providing a breakdown due to LPP is not satisfactory. This is because OFSI is unable to undertake a reasonableness assessment without having a breakdown of the individual legal cost for each area of work.

    Maintenance of funds and frozen resources

    Under the derogation of ‘Maintenance of funds and frozen resources’, licences may be issued for a number of purposes. These can range from the supply of Covid-related personal protective equipment, to property maintenance. When a licence application or amendment request is submitted under this derogation, sufficient evidence will need to be included for OFSI to make a decision. When applying, you should consider the following in your application form:

    1. Provide evidence when submitting your licence application. Appropriate evidence will vary based on what you are applying for.
    2. Explain why the proposed activity is necessary. You may wish to explain what the outcome would be should you not receive a licence.
    3. Where appropriate, consider obtaining quotes from more than one supplier to ensure that the fees can be demonstrated as reasonable and that you are receiving value for money.
    4. If a quote is unable to be obtained, provide an evidence-based estimate. If you are a property management company looking to obtain a licence for a commercial building, you may wish to use quotes from similar-sized commercial buildings as evidence for reasonableness.
    5. Provide a breakdown of the proposed payment/work. If you are requesting a licence to pay £100,000 for a change of windows, provide a breakdown of the payment – this could include the exact number of windows you are looking to change, cost of personnel and/or material etc.
    6. If you are applying for a licence extension, you will be required to undergo the reasonableness assessment again. This may include reviewing your licence to ensure it is being used.

    For any applicant that is submitting a licence application under a derogation that has ‘reasonableness’ written in to the regulations, you should use your own best judgement and not assume OFSI understands the process and practice of the profession when providing your response. We understand that reasonableness may have different meanings in different contexts and applicants should note that just because a payment has been licensed on a previous case, does not automatically mean that it will necessarily be licensed again. This is why OFSI considers each application on a case by case basis and the above pointers serve as a guideline of best practice when engaging with us.

    For further information on licensing and financial sanctions implementation, please refer to OFSI’s general guidance.

    , , ,