header-logo header-logo

20 February 2019
Issue: 7829 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Brexit impact on sanctions

‘Significant divergence’ on the horizon

The impact of Brexit on UK sanctions laws could be ‘far-reaching’ and lead to more red tape for businesses in the future, a leading trade lawyer has warned.

Hogan Lovells partner Aline Doussin, who heads the firm’s UK trade team, said this week that the UK government, post-Brexit, will be able to adopt sanctions ‘separately and independently’ from what the EU does.

‘Going forward, one cannot exclude a significant divergence in the future of UK sanctions from what the EU will do on its own,’ she said in an article posted on Hogan Lovells’ website.

‘This could lead to additional compliance burdens for businesses and financial institutions, which will have to deal with multiple and increasingly complex sanctions regimes.’

In the past few weeks, secondary legislation has been put before Parliament to replace references in sanctions laws to member states and the EU with references to the UK, and to replace references to the competent authorities with references to the UK Treasury. This means existing aspects of the financial sanctions regimes against countries such as Afghanistan, Burma, Iran and Venezuela will continue.

Consequently, Doussin said, ‘we do not expect any gaps in implementing existing sanctions regimes’. Post-Brexit, the UK will be required by international law to implement UN sanctions in UK domestic law and will carry over all EU sanctions at the time of departure.

After that, however, the UK will ‘have the powers to adopt other sanctions under the Sanctions Act, separately and independently from what the EU does,’ Doussin said.

‘In this, the impact of Brexit on UK sanctions laws is far-reaching.’

Prime Minister Theresa May flew to Brussels this week for further talks with the European Commission and heads of EU member states, hoping to secure concessions over the backstop. However, EU leaders continue to emphasise that they will not renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.

Issue: 7829 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll