News
Print Article

UK Lawyers Sanctions Non-Compliance Largely Attributed to OFSI Licence Breaches

26/06/2025

It has revealed that most sanctions non-compliance by UK legal services providers is due to breaches of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) licence conditions.

OFSI’s newly published legal services threat assessment report revealed that, since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the legal services sector has

  • Submitted 16% of the suspected breach reports,
  • Second only to the financial services sector (65%).

Solicitors’ firms and barristers’ chambers submitted 98% of these reports. OFSI said it was “highly likely” that UK trust and company services providers have not self-disclosed all suspected sanctions breaches.

While Russia remained a priority and the leading cause of reports, other sanctions regimes where OFSI has recently identified threats to compliance included those relating to Libya, global human rights, Belarus, global anti-corruption, Myanmar and South Sudan.

While reports from lawyers were typically timely, there were “significant delays” in some cases, particularly arising from the Myanmar and Libyan regimes.

OFSI judged it “almost certain” that most non-compliance by UK legal services providers has occurred due to breaches of the conditions of an OFSI licence—these conditions allow people to carry out an act that would otherwise contravene sanctions.

While most reports made by providers concerned suspected breaches by clients operating in other sectors,

  • “OFSI has observed areas where sanctions compliance by legal services providers could be strengthened”.

Specific issues included billing sanctioned clients (SO-CALLED DESIGNATED PERSONS, OR DPS) more than the value limits set in their licence, or after the licence has expired, and how firms wound down their operations in Russia – top City firm Herbert Smith Freehills was last month fined £465,000 for this.

The report said:

  • “OFSI has also observed legal services providers failing to adhere to asset freeze prohibitions,
  • Including through delays in freezing funds belonging to DP clients and transferring frozen funds into accounts other than those specified in specific OFSI licences.”

OFSI also highlighted how complex corporate structures, including trusts, linked to Russian DPs and their family members “have obfuscated the ownership and control of assets which could be frozen under UK financial sanctions,” making lawyers’ jobs of assessing this more difficult.

It encouraged providers to report suspected breaches from non-designated individuals or entities dealing with frozen assets held through these complex structures.

Relatedly, Russian DPs were likely to have transferred the ownership and control of assets to non-designated individuals and entities, which could, in some cases, breach sanctions.

The report highlighted a series of red flags for lawyers to watch out for, especially when an “intermediary jurisdiction” was involved, most notably the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, Guernsey, and Switzerland.

  • “OFSI has also observed links between suspected breaches involving UK legal services providers and the Isle of Man, Jersey, Cayman Islands, Austria, and the United Arab Emirates.”

The report said that, in providing services to DPs, “legal services providers are uniquely positioned to identify suspected breaches”.

SOURCE

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/ofsi-lawyers-sanctions-failures-mainly-down-to-licence-breaches

 

UNITED KINGDOM SANCTIONS

The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more

Gallery

View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more

Contact

Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[www.gov.UK/government/publications/copyright-acts-and-related-laws]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email info@comsuregroup.com.