EU, UK, and US Sanctions Regimes: A Practical Comparison

Three jurisdictions, three separate sanctions frameworks. They overlap on listed persons but diverge sharply on jurisdiction, enforcement tools, and consequences for businesses. For companies and individuals caught under restrictions from multiple regulators simultaneously, the differences between OFAC, the EU Council, and the UK’s OFSI determine not just the defense strategy — they determine which forum to challenge the designation in. Contact our sanctions attorneys.

Sanctions regimes restrict economic dealings with specific persons, entities, or states. Each regime is shaped by its own legislation, administrative body, and foreign policy objectives. That’s why an EU UK US sanctions comparison is not an academic exercise — it’s a practical necessity for anyone involved in cross-border transactions.

EU sanctions originate from Council decisions adopted unanimously by member states. US sanctions flow from presidential executive orders and Acts of Congress — primarily the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA). UK sanctions, since Brexit, are governed by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. Three sources of law. Three sets of listing criteria. Three administrative procedures.

OFAC operates within the US Department of the Treasury. It maintains the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List), freezes assets, and issues licenses authorizing otherwise prohibited transactions. See the full scope of OFAC sanctions programs.

Secondary sanctions are what separates the US system from everything else. OFAC can pursue foreign companies with no US nexus — no US persons involved, no dollar clearing, no US territory touched — if those companies transact with SDN-listed parties. No EU or UK equivalent exists.

EU sanctions are adopted by the Council under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), then published in the Official Journal of the EU. Enforcement is decentralized: each member state designates its own competent authority. Deutsche Bundesbank in Germany, De Nederlandsche Bank in the Netherlands, Direction générale du Trésor in France.

The EU consolidated list is maintained separately from the SDN List. Listing criteria cover threats to peace and security, human rights violations, destabilizing activities. Overlap with US designations exists — but it’s partial. Being on one list says nothing about the other.

January 31, 2020 — the UK began operating its own sanctions regime. OFSI, part of HM Treasury, administers the UK list, issues licenses, and investigates violations. The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 is one example of program-specific legislation adopted post-Brexit.

At the point of departure, the UK list mirrored the EU list. Since then, both lists have developed independently. New EU designations don’t transfer to the UK automatically. A person removed from the EU list may remain designated in the UK — the reverse is equally possible.

EU sanctions jurisdiction, in extraterritorial terms, is limited. The EU framework covers persons and entities within EU territory, EU nationals wherever located, and transactions conducted in euros. Non-EU companies with no EU connection fall outside it.

US jurisdiction works differently. OFAC asserts authority over all US persons — citizens, permanent residents, US-incorporated entities — regardless of location. Beyond that, secondary sanctions extend US reach to non-US actors through a credible threat: deal with an SDN-listed party, and face designation yourself, or lose access to the US financial system. A European bank that processes a payment involving an SDN-listed party risks OFAC action even if no US person or dollar was involved.

UK jurisdiction tracks closer to the EU model. OFSI applies its framework to UK persons and UK nationals abroad, and to activity connected to the UK financial system. Extraterritorial reach of the US type — absent.

Primary sanctions prohibit US persons from dealing with designated parties. Secondary sanctions go further. They threaten non-US persons with designation — or loss of US market access — if those persons engage in certain conduct with sanctioned countries or entities, even without any US nexus. Iran, Russia, and North Korea programs all contain secondary sanctions provisions. A Turkish trading company, a Swiss bank, an Emirati shipping firm — each can face OFAC action for transactions that never touched the United States.

Neither the EU nor the UK operates secondary sanctions of the US type. EU sanctions bind EU operators. UK sanctions bind UK operators. A non-EU, non-UK company dealing with a person on the EU or UK list doesn’t automatically expose itself to enforcement from Brussels or London — unless the transaction involves EU-currency clearing, EU-based counterparties, or similar jurisdictional hooks.

For European companies, this asymmetry creates a real compliance gap. A transaction may be fully lawful under EU law and still trigger OFAC exposure if it involves SDN-listed parties. OFAC compliance for non-US businesses has become standard practice for this reason — not optional due diligence. Learn more about OFAC compliance obligations.

All three regimes use asset freezes. The mechanics differ.

Under OFAC, a blocking order freezes all property and property interests of the designated person that are in the United States or come within the possession or control of a US person. Blocked funds must be held in a segregated, interest-bearing account. The US person holding the assets cannot release them without an OFAC license. Details on OFAC blocked funds procedures.

EU asset freezes operate under Council Regulations. Financial institutions in member states are required to freeze funds and economic resources of listed persons. Unlike OFAC blocking orders, EU freezes don’t require funds to move into special accounts — the obligation is simply not to make assets available to the designated party.

The UK regime under OFSI functions similarly. Funds are frozen in place; OFSI must be notified; releases require a license from HM Treasury. Civil penalties under the Policing and Crime Act 2017, as amended, can reach the higher of £1 million or 50% of the value of the breach.

The OFAC SDN List is searchable at the US Treasury’s website. The EU consolidated list is available through the European External Action Service (EEAS) portal. OFSI publishes the UK financial sanctions list on GOV.UK. Cross-checking all three is necessary — presence on one list says nothing about the others.

OFAC listings are made by the Secretary of the Treasury, often in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, based on criteria set out in the relevant executive order or statute. The standard applied is not a criminal burden of proof. Designation can follow from reasonable grounds to believe the criteria are met.

EU listings require a proposal from a member state or the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, followed by unanimous Council approval. The General Court of the EU and the Court of Justice review contested listings under Articles 263 and 275 TFEU. The Court asks whether the listing rested on a sufficiently solid factual basis — a standard applied strictly in cases like Kadi and more recent Russia-related litigation.

UK listings under the Sanctions Act require the Secretary of State to have reasonable grounds to suspect the criteria are met. Challenges go to the High Court of England and Wales, with judicial review as the primary route.

Coordinated designations — where OFAC, the EU Council, and OFSI act simultaneously — occur regularly, particularly in Russia and Belarus-related programs. The person then faces asset freezes across multiple jurisdictions, travel bans across the EU and UK, and full blocking of any US-connected assets. Each designation must be challenged separately, before the appropriate forum, under its own procedural rules. There is no single proceeding that resolves all three at once.

OFAC civil monetary penalties under IEEPA can reach $368,136 per violation, or twice the transaction value — whichever is greater. Criminal prosecution carries fines up to $1 million and imprisonment up to 20 years. OFAC publishes enforcement actions publicly. Reputational damage is immediate and lasting.

EU enforcement sits with member states. Penalties vary by country: in the Netherlands, violations are prosecuted under the Economic Offences Act; in France, under the Monetary and Financial Code. No centralized EU enforcement body exists. Application across the 27 member states is uneven as a result.

OFSI civil penalties can reach the higher of £1 million or 50% of the funds involved. Criminal prosecution in the UK carries up to 7 years imprisonment under the Sanctions Act. Since 2022, OFSI has had authority to impose penalties without ministerial approval — a significant shift from the prior regime.

Procedures for sanctions delisting differ substantially. So do the timelines.

OFAC delisting follows a formal administrative reconsideration process. The designated person submits a request to OFAC’s Office of Global Targeting, providing evidence that the designation criteria are no longer met — or were never satisfied. No statutory deadline applies. In practice, the process runs well beyond 12 months. Parallel judicial review in US federal district court is an option, but litigation adds complexity rather than speed. Learn about OFAC SDN list removal.

EU delisting is pursued before the General Court under Article 263 TFEU. The applicant challenges the Council Regulation or Decision listing them — arguing insufficient factual basis, procedural error, or both. Successful annulment removes the person from the EU consolidated list. Courts have annulled designations in cases where the Council failed to provide adequate reasons or evidence.

UK delistings go through judicial review in the High Court, or through a statutory review mechanism before the Secretary of State under the Sanctions Act. The Court quashes a designation if it was made unlawfully or on insufficient grounds.

OFAC issues specific licenses — authorizations for particular transactions — and general licenses, which cover categories of transactions without individual application. Specific license applications go to OFAC with supporting documentation. Processing times range from weeks to over a year depending on the sanctions program and the complexity of the request. Details on the OFAC license process.

EU Council Regulations include built-in derogations — exemptions permitting certain transactions, covering humanitarian purposes, legal fees, and basic needs. Member state competent authorities handle derogation requests at the national level. Approval in one member state does not carry across all 27.

OFSI issues licenses under the relevant statutory instrument for each UK sanctions program. Categories include basic needs, legal expenses, and prior obligations. OFSI targets a 40-working-day response time for most applications. Complex cases take longer.

Sanctions exposure rarely announces itself clearly. A blocked wire transfer, a compliance flag on a payment, a counterparty appearing on the SDN List — these are often the first visible signs of a problem with serious legal consequences.

An attorney with OFAC and international sanctions experience is needed when assets have been blocked and a license application must be filed; when a business receives an enforcement inquiry from OFAC or OFSI; when a client or supplier appears on any of the three lists; when secondary sanctions exposure arises from dealings with SDN-listed parties; or when a designated person seeks removal from the SDN List, EU consolidated list, or UK financial sanctions list.

The interaction between the three regimes is not intuitive. A transaction cleared under EU law may still trigger OFAC exposure. A license from OFSI does not satisfy OFAC requirements. Coordinated delisting across all three jurisdictions requires parallel proceedings before different authorities under different legal standards — handled separately, not jointly.

Our firm represents clients in OFAC licensing, SDN list removal proceedings, blocked funds matters, and sanctions compliance across US, EU, and UK frameworks. We handle both administrative and judicial proceedings and advise businesses on exposure to secondary sanctions. Contact us to discuss your situation.