Shorter Reads

Post-Brexit sanctions and the high net worth individual

Dominic Raab’s vision for a post-Brexit ‘global Britain’ includes the promotion of UK values through what the press repeatedly refers to as a ‘new British sanctions regime.’ But is it the case, as this would suggest, that the UK will take an entirely novel approach to sanctions once it withdraws from the EU? And what impact will this ‘new’ regime have on High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI’s) operating here?

1 minute read

Published 16 June 2020

Authors

Share

Key information

  • Sectors
  • Financial services

The short answer to the first of those questions is no. At its core, the Sanctions and Money Laundering Act 2018 (‘SAMLA’), under which the British regime will operate once the UK has left the EU, is a restatement of the existing position and specific sanctions Regulations (which have already been drawn up under SAMLA but are not yet in force), closely mirror the EU ones currently in place. That said, SAMLA permits the UK government to impose sanctions in a broader set of circumstances than previously, including on people who commit gross human rights violations (the ‘Magnitsky’ amendment) as well as somewhat controversially, for ‘discretionary purposes’ – effectively where the Minister in question believes (and can justify) that there are ‘good reasons to do so.’

In practice, although this extended scope may mean more HNWI’s may find themselves expressly subject to UK sanctions, the impact on them will be largely the same as before. For most targets, (or ‘designated persons’ (DP’s)), this means UK assets will be frozen and their travel to and from the UK monitored or limited. It may also mean restricted access to our financial markets and services.

The impact of such measures on individuals should not be underestimated – they are completely debilitating. Asset freezes provide for all funds and economic resources of DP’s and those associated with them to be frozen and prohibit any dealing with such funds or resources as well as any activity which would circumvent the freezing measures. Most of the key terms will be widely defined to act against the interests of the DP.

The potential for assets of people ‘associated with’ the DP to also be frozen puts family members, close friends and business partners at risk of the full impact of financial sanctions despite not being expressly listed as DP’s themselves.

Nor is it just assets held in the DP’s name that will be affected. Freezes extend to assets held by entities under the DP’s ‘ownership or control’. The UK’s ‘new’ regulations provide a fuller definition of ‘ownership and control’ than was available previously. Again, the result is to cast the net wider. It is no longer just a question of beneficial ownership. Instead, wherever it is ‘reasonable to expect’ that the DP can ensure the affairs of the entity are conducted in accordance with their wishes, the UK assets of that entity will also be frozen. Any company, trust or other entity with links to the DP is therefore also at risk of having its assets frozen.

The net effect on a DP is the effective paralysis of financial functioning within the UK. And there are limited avenues of redress. One key difference to the ‘new’ regime is that post-Brexit, any challenge to a DP’s listing as a sanctions target will be through the UK (rather than EU) courts. SAMLA however prevents application to court unless the DP has first requested revocation of their designation from the Secretary of State. That request invokes an administrative process for which there are no prescribed time limits for the government to respond and no obligation for the government to give reasons for its decisions. Since sanctions are likely to continue unabated in the meantime, there is potential for considerable prejudice to the DP here. Nor is the DP likely to recover damages for losses suffered even if their designation is subsequently overturned since those are only available where the UK government is found to have acted negligently or in bad faith.

This article first appeared on Private Banker International in June 2020.

Related latest updates
PREV NEXT

Related content

Arrow Back to Insights

Shorter Reads

Post-Brexit sanctions and the high net worth individual

Dominic Raab’s vision for a post-Brexit ‘global Britain’ includes the promotion of UK values through what the press repeatedly refers to as a ‘new British sanctions regime.’ But is it the case, as this would suggest, that the UK will take an entirely novel approach to sanctions once it withdraws from the EU? And what impact will this ‘new’ regime have on High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI’s) operating here?

Published 16 June 2020

Associated sectors / services

  • Banking & financial disputes
  • Tax disputes & investigations
  • UK trusts, tax and estate planning
  • Financial services

Authors

The short answer to the first of those questions is no. At its core, the Sanctions and Money Laundering Act 2018 (‘SAMLA’), under which the British regime will operate once the UK has left the EU, is a restatement of the existing position and specific sanctions Regulations (which have already been drawn up under SAMLA but are not yet in force), closely mirror the EU ones currently in place. That said, SAMLA permits the UK government to impose sanctions in a broader set of circumstances than previously, including on people who commit gross human rights violations (the ‘Magnitsky’ amendment) as well as somewhat controversially, for ‘discretionary purposes’ – effectively where the Minister in question believes (and can justify) that there are ‘good reasons to do so.’

In practice, although this extended scope may mean more HNWI’s may find themselves expressly subject to UK sanctions, the impact on them will be largely the same as before. For most targets, (or ‘designated persons’ (DP’s)), this means UK assets will be frozen and their travel to and from the UK monitored or limited. It may also mean restricted access to our financial markets and services.

The impact of such measures on individuals should not be underestimated – they are completely debilitating. Asset freezes provide for all funds and economic resources of DP’s and those associated with them to be frozen and prohibit any dealing with such funds or resources as well as any activity which would circumvent the freezing measures. Most of the key terms will be widely defined to act against the interests of the DP.

The potential for assets of people ‘associated with’ the DP to also be frozen puts family members, close friends and business partners at risk of the full impact of financial sanctions despite not being expressly listed as DP’s themselves.

Nor is it just assets held in the DP’s name that will be affected. Freezes extend to assets held by entities under the DP’s ‘ownership or control’. The UK’s ‘new’ regulations provide a fuller definition of ‘ownership and control’ than was available previously. Again, the result is to cast the net wider. It is no longer just a question of beneficial ownership. Instead, wherever it is ‘reasonable to expect’ that the DP can ensure the affairs of the entity are conducted in accordance with their wishes, the UK assets of that entity will also be frozen. Any company, trust or other entity with links to the DP is therefore also at risk of having its assets frozen.

The net effect on a DP is the effective paralysis of financial functioning within the UK. And there are limited avenues of redress. One key difference to the ‘new’ regime is that post-Brexit, any challenge to a DP’s listing as a sanctions target will be through the UK (rather than EU) courts. SAMLA however prevents application to court unless the DP has first requested revocation of their designation from the Secretary of State. That request invokes an administrative process for which there are no prescribed time limits for the government to respond and no obligation for the government to give reasons for its decisions. Since sanctions are likely to continue unabated in the meantime, there is potential for considerable prejudice to the DP here. Nor is the DP likely to recover damages for losses suffered even if their designation is subsequently overturned since those are only available where the UK government is found to have acted negligently or in bad faith.

This article first appeared on Private Banker International in June 2020.

Associated sectors / services

  • Banking & financial disputes
  • Tax disputes & investigations
  • UK trusts, tax and estate planning
  • Financial services

Authors

Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.

    Subscribe

    Please add your details and your areas of interest below

    Specialist sectors:

    Legal services:

    Other information:

    Jurisdictions of interest to you (other than UK):



    Article contributor

    Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?

    Subscribe to our articles

    Message us on WhatsApp (calling not available)

    Please note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.

    I accept Close

    Close
    Scroll up

    Find out about Business

    Find out about Dispute Resolution

    Find out about Individuals & Families

    Find out about Real Estate

    We are Collyer Bristow - The law firm for those that
    value individuality, creativity and collaboration.

    Legal & Pricing info Regulatory InformationAccessibilitySitemapPricing and service information

    Listen to our latest podcast: Budget Miniseries: Impacts on Families with US Connections (Part 1)

    Listen to our latest podcast: Cracking the Code on Directors’ Service Agreements

    Read our latest article: Economist, or just economical with the truth? How can employers respond to ‘fake claims’ on a CV?

    Listen to our latest podcast: Autumn Budget 2024 Special (Part 2)

    Read our latest article: ‘Promoting the integrity of the register’: The new Companies House approach to non-compliance

    ExpandNeed some help?Toggle

    < Back to menu

    I have an issue and need your help

    Scroll to see our A-Z list of expertise

    Get in touch

    Get in touch using our form below.



      Business Close
      Private Wealth Close
      Hot Topics Close