Multi-Jurisdictional Sanctions Defense — US, EU & UK
When a client is designated under more than one sanctions regime — OFAC’s SDN List and the EU Consolidated List, or OFAC and UK OFSI — the case stops being a single-jurisdiction matter. Each regime runs on its own procedure, its own timeline, and its own evidentiary standard. Worse, a position taken to satisfy one authority can actively undermine the client’s position with another. Coordinating a defense across US, EU, and UK sanctions frameworks requires counsel who understands how these systems interact — not just how each one works in isolation.
When Sanctions Hit Across Multiple Jurisdictions
Designation under one sanctions regime rarely stays contained to that regime. Banks and counterparties outside the United States frequently sever relationships with a client the moment secondary sanctions risk becomes apparent — regardless of whether that client has any direct US nexus. Parallel designations under OFAC’s SDN List and the EU Consolidated List have become standard practice in sanctions actions tied to Russia and Belarus, often issued on or near the same date.
Situations we regularly advise on include:
- Simultaneous designation in the US and EU on the same or overlapping dates, requiring coordinated — not duplicated — legal responses;
- Asymmetric delisting, where a client secures removal from one list while remaining designated under another, creating ongoing operational and reputational complications;
- Secondary sanctions exposure for non-US companies that continue to transact with SDN-listed counterparties, often without realizing the extent of their exposure;
- Conflicting positions across proceedings — an argument submitted to the EU Council in support of delisting can later be used as evidence against the same client in a US administrative or judicial proceeding.
Effective multi-jurisdictional defense means mapping these interactions before filing anything, not discovering the conflict after the fact.
Financing of Proliferation and High-Risk Jurisdictions
Two areas deserve special attention due to their explosive risk for international business.
Financing of Proliferation These are charges related to providing funds or financial services for the development, acquisition, or transportation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems. These charges are often associated with violations of export control regimes (dual-use goods). FATF (Financial Action Task Force) pays special attention to this issue (Recommendation 7). Charges of financing proliferation almost always lead to aggressive financial restrictions and a high risk of criminal prosecution.
Work in High-Risk Jurisdictions These are countries listed in the FATF “grey” or “black” lists, or jurisdictions under broad territorial sanctions (Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba). Any company operating in high-risk jurisdictions or private individuals holding assets there automatically come under heightened scrutiny by banks. Our task is to help such clients structure their activities, ensure maximum transparency of operations, and prepare an evidence base for banking compliance to avoid “de-risking.”
Secondary Sanctions and Cross-Border Exposure
Secondary sanctions are the mechanism that brings non-US companies into OFAC‘s reach even absent any direct US presence. A foreign company doing business with an SDN-designated party can find itself cut off from the US financial system, correspondent banking relationships, and USD-denominated transactions — often without ever being directly designated itself.
We advise non-US clients on:
- Assessing exposure before it materializes, through transaction and counterparty screening tailored to secondary sanctions risk;
- Responding to de-risking by banks and payment processors triggered by a counterparty’s SDN status;
- Structuring wind-downs or exits from relationships that have become sanctions-exposed;
- Distinguishing genuine secondary sanctions risk from overly cautious compliance decisions by financial institutions.
This is frequently the entry point for companies that have never interacted with OFAC directly but suddenly find their banking relationships at risk because of a client, supplier, or shareholder.
Sanctions and Interpol Notices — Coordinated Threats
Sanctions designations and Interpol Red or Diffusion Notices sometimes arise from the same underlying allegations and can be pursued in parallel by different authorities. A client facing both must account for the fact that submissions made in one process — a sanctions delisting petition, for instance — may be read or relied upon in the other. Coordinating strategy across both fronts is essential; addressing them independently risks creating inconsistencies that either process can exploit.
Why Work With Us on Multi-Jurisdictional Sanctions Matters
Coordinating a defense across the US, EU, and UK requires more than filing the same arguments three times. It requires understanding how OFAC, the EU Council, and UK OFSI each evaluate evidence, what precedent from one proceeding is admissible or persuasive in another, and where a well-intentioned move in one jurisdiction can create liability in a second or third.
- Cross-border experience — we have represented clients facing simultaneous or sequential designations under multiple sanctions regimes, and we build strategy around how these processes intersect, not just how each one works in isolation;
- Coordinated case strategy — every submission is reviewed for how it could be used in a parallel proceeding before it is filed, not after;
- Direct engagement with regulators — we communicate with OFAC, the relevant EU authorities, and UK OFSI as needed, rather than treating each as a separate, disconnected track;
- Discretion — sanctions matters are sensitive by nature; we handle them accordingly.
If you or your company is facing designation, delisting, or exposure across more than one sanctions regime, the sooner counsel is engaged, the more options remain available. Early coordination — before conflicting positions are locked in — is often the difference between a manageable outcome and a self-inflicted complication.
For a confidential consultation regarding multi-jurisdictional sanctions exposure, designation, or delisting, contact our office directly. We can advise on US, EU, and UK sanctions matters and coordinate a unified defense strategy across jurisdictions.
FAQ
What are secondary sanctions?
These are extraterritorial measures primarily applied by the USA (OFAC). They mean that sanctions can be imposed on a non-American company (for example, European or Asian) for conducting significant transactionsu with a person from the SDN list. It is precisely the threat of secondary sanctions that forces banks and companies worldwide to sever ties with sanctioned individuals.
My company/I have been added to the OFAC SDN list. What should I do first?
Immediately cease any transactions in US dollars. Contact specialized lawyers. Do not attempt to bypass sanctions, transfer assets, or create new companies — this will be regarded as deliberate evasion and will result in criminal liability. Your first task is to obtain legal representation to assess the situation and develop a defense strategy.
Are sanctions and Interpol notices connected?
Very often. The state initiating the prosecution (for example, on charges related to fraud or money laundering) can use several tools simultaneously. It may request an Interpol Notice for your arrest and extradition while also initiating your inclusion in sanctions lists to freeze assets. This is a double blow. We have experience working with both directions, coordinating defense both with the CCF (Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files) and OFAC/EU.
What is the difference between OFAC, EU and UK sanctions?
OFAC is a U.S. Treasury division enforcing sanctions under U.S. law, with its own SDN List and licensing system; the EU enforces sanctions through Council regulations implemented by national authorities in each member state; and the UK, since leaving the EU sanctions framework, runs an independent regime administered by OFSI. While the three often target overlapping individuals, entities, and countries, each has separate designation lists, different legal standards for what counts as a “block,” and its own process for licenses, exemptions, or delisting — so being cleared under one regime does not automatically resolve exposure under another.
Can I challenge international sanctions simultaneously?
Yes, and in cross-border cases it’s often necessary, since a single transaction or designation can trigger restrictions under multiple regimes at the same time. Filings to OFAC, the relevant EU national authority, and OFSI are independent legal processes with separate deadlines and documentation requirements, so they must be pursued in parallel rather than sequentially — coordinating them together also helps ensure consistent facts and legal positioning across jurisdictions.
