Writing in NLJ this week, John Gibson of Michelman Robinson reviews a line of influential decisions examining when a company can be treated as controlled by a sanctioned individual. Cases including Mints, Litasco, EuroChem and Tonzip show judges rejecting both speculative assumptions and cosmetic restructuring. The courts have refused to accept that theoretical political influence alone establishes control, but have also looked beyond formal ownership arrangements where economic reality suggests influence remains.
Gibson says the emerging doctrine is grounded in ‘commercial reality’, evidence and practical influence rather than rigid legal form. The approach gives businesses greater clarity when assessing sanctions exposure while preserving the effectiveness of sanctions regimes.
The result, he argues, is a body of law that balances commercial certainty with robust enforcement against attempts to evade restrictions through artificial structures.
