Guidance

Transport sanctions: civil monetary penalties

Published 13 September 2024

Preface

Following the United Kingdom’s (UK) departure from the European Union, it became responsible for implementing its own autonomous sanctions framework. The UK’s sanctions framework (including its sanctions obligations established under various UN resolutions) is implemented pursuant to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (referred to as ‘SAMLA’ for the purposes of this guidance).

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, there has been a significant and increased emphasis on sanctions as an effective means of addressing violations of international law. In response, His Majesty’s government (HMG) has introduced several new provisions and enhanced the domestic arrangements for sanctions in a relatively short period.

This includes the introduction of the Trade Aircraft and Shipping Sanctions (Civil Enforcement) Regulations 2024 (TASSCER). TASSCER was made pursuant to regulation making powers set out in SAMLA and establishes the statutory framework for the Secretary of State for Transport (via the Department of Transport (DfT)) to take civil enforcement action in response to breaches of UK aircraft and shipping sanctions. This includes a power to impose civil monetary penalties (CMPs) if satisfied (on the balance of probabilities) that a person has breached an aircraft or shipping prohibition or failed to comply with an obligation imposed by or under a relevant UK sanctions framework.

TASSCER also creates a new duty which requires a ‘relevant person’ to inform the Secretary of State if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a person has breached a prohibition or failed to comply with a requirement under aircraft or shipping sanctions regulations.

TASSCER also provides the Secretary of State with additional information gathering powers. This includes a general power to request any person to provide information that may reasonably be required for certain purposes,^{[footnote 1]} as well as a power to request any person acting under an aircraft or shipping licence to provide information about any matter to which the licence relates for certain purposes.^{[footnote 2]}  

In this guidance, DfT sets out:

• a summary of the compliance and enforcement approach
• the process DfT will use to assess whether to apply a CMP
• requirements for reporting obligations and the information request powers
• the process DfT will use to decide the level of CMP
• an overview of the procedure involved, including the right to ask for an internal review and appeal such a review to the Upper Tribunal
• an explanation of when DfT will use its powers to publish information about breaches and the extent of that information

As aircraft and shipping sanctions under SAMLA place prohibitions on the movement, ownership, and registration of ships and aircraft, this guidance is primarily aimed at those in the maritime and aviation industries, as they are the most likely to encounter the relevant circumstances. However, this guidance, and the CMP regime for sanctions breaches, apply to everyone.

DfT will periodically review this guidance as DfT utilise these powers and will update it as necessary.

1. Introduction

Aircraft and shipping sanctions

The relevant regulations that enable the UK to make aircraft and shipping sanctions are found in SAMLA sections 1, 6 and 7.  

Section 1 of SAMLA provides a general power to make sanctions regulations for a number of purposes. These include making regulations for the purposes of complying with international obligations, in the interests of national security, to:

• further international peace and security
• further a foreign policy objective of HMG
• promote the resolution of armed conflict
• promote respect for democracy

Sections 6 and 7 of SAMLA provide for these powers to be exercised in relation to aircraft and shipping respectively and allow for the imposition of relevant prohibitions or requirements on them.

These prohibitions and requirements include detaining aircraft and ships, preventing overflying the UK or docking in the UK and controls on ownership and registration.

Each relevant sanctions regime is contained in its own separate set of regulations. There may therefore be differences between each separate regime and so the correct set of regulations must be consulted. See the list of current UK sanctions regimes for more information.

As of 2024, the following UK sanctions regimes contain aircraft and/or shipping sanctions:

• The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
• The Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
• The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
• The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
• The Libya (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
• The Iran (Sanctions) Regulations 2023

For the purposes of this guidance, specific references to any of the above sanctions regimes are made using an appropriate shorthand name (for example, the Russia regulations or the Belarus regulations). Furthermore, references to ‘transport sanctions’ are (for the purposes of this guidance) references to aircraft and shipping sanctions.

It is an offence to breach transport sanctions prohibitions. Sanctions offences are punishable by up to 7 years imprisonment or by the imposition of a fine. Following the implementation of TASSCER, breaches of aircraft and shipping sanctions are also enforceable in civil law via the imposition of a CMP.

Enforcement of breaches of transport sanctions prohibitions, or failures to comply with a relevant requirement under relevant sanctions regulations, via the imposition of a CMP is the focus of this guidance. A person and/or entities who may be affected by the operation of aircraft or shipping sanctions are responsible for ensuring that they comply with all relevant prohibitions or requirements imposed by, or under, aircraft and shipping sanctions regulations. To ensure compliance, persons and/or entities are encouraged to seek their own legal advice and to refer to current versions of the relevant aircraft and/or shipping sanctions to understand what is required.

What are aircraft sanctions?

Aircraft sanctions apply to aircraft that fall within scope of aircraft sanctions prohibitions set out in relevant UK sanctions regulations. For example, under the Russia regulations, aircraft which are registered in Russia, or which are owned, chartered, or operated by (i) persons designated for the purposes of transport sanctions or (ii) who are ‘connected with’ Russia^{[footnote 3]} are subject to the UK overflight prohibition set out in regulation 57J of the Russia regulations.

Aircraft sanctions can also apply to aircraft registered in a country, or which originate from a country that is subject to UK aircraft sanctions. It is important to consult the relevant UK sanctions regulations to determine the scope of specific aircraft sanctions as prohibitions can vary depending on the subject of the sanction.

Aircraft sanctions generally allow for the following:

• detaining disqualified aircraft within the UK
• controlling the movement of disqualified aircraft within the UK and the airspace over the UK
• preventing aircraft from being registered in a country which is subject to transport sanctions
• preventing aircraft from being registered in the UK owned by a person subject to sanctions

Aircraft are disqualified aircraft for the purposes of UK aircraft sanctions if they fall within the relevant definitions in an operative sanctions framework for ‘disqualified aircraft’. The provisions of the relevant operative sanctions frameworks are: regulation 57J(10) of the Russia regulations and regulation 29A(7) of the Belarus regulations.

What are shipping sanctions?

Shipping sanctions apply to ships that fall within scope of shipping sanctions prohibitions set out in relevant UK sanctions regulations. For example, under the Russia regulations, ships registered in Russia, or which are owned, controlled, chartered, or operated by (i) persons designated for the purposes of transport sanctions or (ii) who are ‘connected with’ Russia are (among others)^{[footnote 4]} subject to the port entry prohibition in regulation 57A of the Russia regulations.

Shipping sanctions generally allow for the following:

• prohibiting port access
• powers to direct ships in scope of sanctions regulations (for example, to leave or enter a port or to go to a specific location)
• powers to detain disqualified or specified ships within the UK
• preventing ships from being registered in the UK which are owned by a person who is subject to sanctions

For the purposes of shipping sanctions, disqualified ships are ships which fall within the relevant definitions in an operative sanctions framework. This includes ships which are owned, controlled, chartered or operated by persons who are designated for the purposes of shipping sanctions or persons ‘connected with’ a country which is subject to shipping sanctions.

Disqualified ships can also include ships that are:

• crewed by persons ‘connected with’ a country subject to shipping sanctions^{[footnote 5]}
• registered in a country subject to shipping sanctions
• flying the flag of a country subject to shipping sanctions
• originate from a country subject to shipping sanctions

It is important to consult the relevant UK sanctions regulations to determine the scope of specific shipping sanctions as prohibitions can vary depending on the subject of the sanction. For example, while the relevant UK sanctions regulations each contain powers to ensure that disqualified ships or specified ships do not enter, or must leave the United Kingdom, those powers are exercised differently depending on which operative sanctions framework is relevant.

Shipping sanctions also apply to ‘specified ships.’ Depending on the operative framework, specified ships are those ships the government has reasonable grounds to suspect have been, or are likely to be, involved in a relevant activity prohibited by the sanctions regulations. What amounts to a ‘relevant activity’ differs depending on the operative sanctions framework. Like designated persons, the list of specified ships is set out in the UK Sanctions List, further guidance on transport sanctions is available.

Application and terminology

The UK’s aircraft and shipping sanctions (including the provisions under TASSCER) apply to all persons within the territory and airspace above the UK and its territorial sea and to all ‘United Kingdom persons’^{[footnote 6]} or legal entities established under UK law, wherever they are in the world.^{[footnote 7]}

Pursuant to section 9(5) of SAMLA, references to ‘persons’ in the context of sanctions (and this guidance) includes an individual, a body of persons corporate or unincorporate and any association or combination of persons. In the context of a breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation, this means that DfT may (depending on the circumstances) take enforcement action (including via the imposition of a CMP) against an individual, body corporate or both.

Furthermore, references to ‘designated persons’ in this guidance are to persons who the Secretary of State has designated for the purposes of transport sanctions using a sanctions designation power under a relevant UK sanctions regime (for example, under regulation 5 of the Russia regulations). The list of persons currently designated for the purposes of transport sanctions is set out in the UK Sanctions List.

References to ‘relevant persons’ are to persons who are subject to an obligation under TASSCER to report a suspected breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with a requirement imposed by or under aircraft or shipping sanctions. Persons who are a ‘relevant person’ for the purposes of aircraft and shipping sanctions are set out in regulation 16(4) of TASSCER.

2. DfT’s approach to case assessment

This chapter provides a summary of DfT’s approach to assessing potential enforcement action in response to suspected breaches of transport sanctions prohibitions and/or failures to comply with obligations. The guidance in this chapter applies to all cases where the potential breach took place on or after 00:00, 10 October 2024. Breaches that may have occurred before 10 October 2024 are not subject to civil monetary penalties.

This part sets out the case assessment process DfT will use. It provides an overview of the case assessment process to assist persons who may be affected by the operation of transport sanctions to understand broadly what DfT will consider when DfT assess potential enforcement action in response to a potential breach of aircraft or shipping sanctions. It will also enable that person to make relevant and targeted representations if called upon to do so.

Standard of proof

DfT will consider potential breaches of transport sanctions on the ‘balance of probabilities,’ which is the civil standard of proof. This means DfT will assess whether the fact(s) that gave rise to the suspected breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation, whether the facts are such to confirm that the suspected breach or failure to comply is ‘more likely than not’ to have occurred.

Pursuant to regulation 7(2) of TASSCER, in respect of the imposition of a CMP, DfT will assess any potential breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation on a strict liability basis. This means DfT will ignore any requirement imposed by or under aircraft or shipping sanctions for a person to have known, suspected or believed any matter, or to have acted without reasonable excuse.

Overview of DfT’s approach to enforcement

Once DfT becomes aware of a suspected breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with a relevant obligation (or both), the department will assess all available factual matters to establish whether the suspected breach or failure to comply has occurred.

DfT anticipates that some breaches of transport sanctions may be factually complex or involve complicated structures or relationships. As a result, in conducting assessments, DfT may seek to obtain additional information or particulars from persons including pursuant to DfT’s information gathering powers set out in regulations 19 and 20 of TASSCER.

In each case, DfT will take a fair and proportionate approach to its assessments of conduct and consider each potential breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation on a case-by-case basis. All available evidence will be assessed to determine a fair and proportionate outcome that is consistent with the purpose and objectives of the relevant UK sanctions regimes.

DfT will consider various factors, including strategy, policy, guidance, and processes, as well as the specific circumstances of the case. DfT may also seek legal and law enforcement advice.

DfT will also consider the factual severity of a suspected breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation. This may include an assessment of the behaviour of any persons involved in the suspected breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with a relevant obligation.

Depending on the circumstances, DfT may consider the following potential enforcement options:

• impose a CMP
• publish information relating to a breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation, (including in circumstances where some other enforcement action is taken simultaneously), if it is in the public interest (which DfT may refer to as a ‘disclosure’ and is dealt with in more detail in chapter 11)
• if relevant, refer the incident to a regulator
• issue a written warning or a compliance letter with recommendations to consider
• refer the case to law enforcement agencies for criminal investigation and/or potential prosecution

DfT will base any potential enforcement action (including the imposition of a CMP) on an assessment of relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. Broadly, the more aggravating factors DfT see, the more likely DfT are to determine that a serious breach has occurred, impose a CMP and disclose the facts of the case. Mitigating and aggravating factors are dealt with in detail in chapter 4.

The more serious the breach and the worse the conduct of the person or persons involved in it the higher any CMP is likely to be.

Mitigating factors may contribute to a reduction in any potential CMP DfT imposes or leads us to take different enforcement action, or even not to take enforcement action at all. DfT will take all mitigating factors which DfT is aware of, and which have been demonstrated to be present on the balance of probabilities, into account when deciding how to proceed with a case.

Where DfT is considering imposing a CMP on a person, DfT will provide the proposed CMP recipient an opportunity to make representations in respect of the proposed CMP and before DfT publish any information on the case. Representations are dealt with in more detail in chapter 8, imposition of a CMP (process).

3. DfT’s enforcement approach: CMPs

When can a CMP be imposed?

Under TASSCER, the Secretary of State may impose a CMP on a person if satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the person has breached a prohibition, or failed to comply with an obligation by or under aircraft or shipping sanctions regulations. Furthermore, certain ‘relevant persons’ are under an obligation to report an actual or suspected breach of aircraft or shipping sanctions and TASSCER also permits the Secretary of State to enforce breaches of reporting obligations via the implementation of a CMP. It is worth noting that where a relevant person fails to report their own breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with a relevant obligation (such as an information request), they may be liable for more than one CMP.

Under TASSCER, the Secretary of State also has powers to request that any person provide certain information (see regulations 17, 18 and 20). It is an offence for a relevant person to breach a reporting obligation and for any person to fail to comply or cooperate with an information request.^{[footnote 8]} Under TASSCER, the Secretary of State may also consider enforcing breaches of reporting obligations, or failures to comply with information requests, via the imposition of a CMP.

DfT also issues licences to permit acts that would otherwise breach prohibitions imposed by transport sanctions. Individual licences set out their own reporting requirements. If a person fails to comply with the reporting requirements of a DfT licence or otherwise breaches the terms of a licence, this may be an offence and DfT may also consider enforcing breaches by imposing a CMP.

Breaches of the terms of a transport licence can also result in a criminal penalty. This is viewed as a serious offence and carries a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment. For further details about licences, see chapter 12.

Where DfT determines that a CMP is the appropriate enforcement mechanism, DfT will impose a CMP that reflects the seriousness of the breach of the prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation. In cases where there have been multiple breaches, CMPs will be imposed separately DfT will consider totality when doing so and ensure the overall CMP is reasonable and proportionate.

CMP decision process

The CMP decision process consists of 3 stages:

• a decision relating to whether it is appropriate in the circumstances to enforce a breach of a prohibition and/or a failure to comply with an obligation via a CMP
• assessment of the potential maximum CMP that could be imposed
• recommendation as to the final level of CMP

Determination to enforce via CMP

Where DfT has established (following a case assessment), on the balance of probabilities, that a person has breached an aircraft or shipping sanctions prohibition, or has failed to comply with an obligation, DfT will determine the appropriate enforcement action to take.

DfT will normally determine whether it is appropriate to enforce a breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation via a CMP during the case assessment process. DfT will determine whether a CMP should be imposed on a case-by-case basis, although relevant factors that may be considered include (but are not limited to):

• whether a disqualified aircraft was used in connection with the suspected breach or failure to comply
• whether a disqualified or specified ship was used in connection with the suspected breach or failure to comply
• if a relevant person has failed to report a suspected breach or failure to comply or has not complied with the terms of a licence or direction issued by the Secretary of State
• if a person has not complied with a requirement to provide information, and/or
• whether DfT considers that a CMP is the appropriate and proportionate mechanism for enforcement in that case

While DfT has the discretion to impose a CMP, it may consider other enforcement actions to be more appropriate (including referring the matter to law enforcement for investigation of potential criminal enforcement).

The CMP assessment process – how it works

When DfT determines that a breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation has occurred and should be enforced via a CMP, DfT will assess the appropriate CMP using the criteria set out in TASSCER.

Regulation 10 of TASSCER sets out the criteria for calculating the potential maximum CMP that could be levied in an individual case. In cases where DfT can estimate the value of a transport asset involved in a breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with a requirement imposed by transport sanction regulations, the permitted maximum value will be the greater of £1 million and 50% of the estimated value of the transport asset used in connection with the breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation.

In any other case (including where DfT is unable to establish the value of a transport asset), the permitted maximum is £1 million. DfT expects this to be rare.

The ‘estimated value’ means the estimated value of the aircraft or ship at the time of the breach or failure to comply. It is also important to note that the statutory criteria in regulation 10 of TASSCER do not establish the level of a CMP that might be imposed in any case. Rather, it provides a framework for DfT to determine the maximum potential CMP, which may or may not be imposed in full depending on the circumstances of each case.

Ascertaining the value of an asset

Where DfT has determined that it is possible to estimate the value of a transport asset involved in a suspected breach of a prohibition or a failure to comply with an obligation, DfT will attempt to identify the estimated value of that asset.

To do this, DfT will conduct all reasonable enquiries with persons and/or entities (including via the use of the Secretary of State’s information gathering powers under TASSCER) who DfT considers may be able to confirm or provide relevant information to assist in confirming the estimated value of an asset.

For the purposes of this guidance, the following methodology demonstrates how DfT may seek to determine the estimated value of an asset. This methodology is not exhaustive of the approach DfT might take to confirm the estimated value in each case:

• where a recent pre-existing independent valuation is provided or recorded for whatever purpose, for example, to insure the asset, DfT will take this valuation as its estimate
• if no pre-existing valuation exists, DfT will seek a valuation from a third party (DfT will not routinely seek to create valuations itself)
• DfT reserves the right, on a case-by-case basis, to seek any pre-existing valuation from any relevant, appropriate and reliable third-party source
• DfT will seek to establish the asset’s estimated value at the time of the suspected breach or failure to comply with an obligation

Determining the final value of a proposed CMP

The following guidance applies equally to cases where it is possible to estimate the value of a transport asset involved in a suspected breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation as well as any other case.

After establishing the potential maximum CMP, DfT will assess all the circumstances of a case (including whether any aggravating and/or mitigating factors apply) and recommend a final CMP amount.

Any mitigating factors will then be balanced against any potential aggravating factors which, if considered serious enough, may warrant an increase to the mitigated potential CMP. Once DfT has taken account of the aggravated and mitigating factors, DfT will decide on the overall seriousness of the breach and decide what level of CMP is fair, proportionate, and reasonable. ^{[footnote 9]} The levels of seriousness are explained in detail in chapter 5.

In considering a final CMP amount, DfT may apply the following CMP matrix if:

• DfT assesses a case as ‘less serious’ DfT may make up to a 50% reduction in the final CMP amount to a person who gives a prompt and complete voluntary disclosure of a breach of transport sanctions
• DfT assesses a case as ‘serious’, DfT may make reductions of up to 50% for voluntary disclosure but this will be at DfT’s discretion
• DfT assesses a case as ‘most serious’, DfT may consider reductions of up to 30% for voluntary disclosure but this will be at DfT’s discretion

CMP recommendation

If DfT recommends that it intends to impose a CMP, this will be communicated to the person on whom it intends to impose the CMP. This person will have a right to make representations. The representations may include details on why the CMP should not be imposed, or why the value of the CMP is disputed. (representations are covered in more detail in chapter 8 of this guidance).

4. Case factors (aggravating and mitigating factors)

When DfT considers it appropriate to enforce a suspected breach or failure to comply with an obligation via the imposition of a CMP, DfT will consider various aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the final value of a CMP. The presence of one or more aggravating or mitigating factors will be relevant to determine what, if any, potential reductions could be made to the final value of a CMP.

This chapter sets out some likely areas of focus that, depending on the conduct in each case, may give rise to aggravating or mitigating factors. These focus on providing general guidance only and the fact that a particular type of aggravating or mitigating factor is not described as part of these focus areas does not mean that DfT will not consider them.

Intention, recklessness, negligence and mistake

Where there is evidence that a breach of aircraft and/or shipping sanctions was intended and deliberate, DfT will likely assess such conduct to be an aggravating factor at the highest level of seriousness.

Where a person was reckless as to a breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation, DfT will likely assess such conduct to be an aggravating factor, but likely lower in seriousness than intended or deliberate actions.

Cases where a person failed to appreciate the risks of their behaviour and was careless as to the possible result might still constitute an aggravating factor depending on the facts. In such a case, a failure to appreciate risk is likely to be considered lower in seriousness than reckless or intended/deliberate actions.

Where a breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation is because of a legitimate mistake, then DfT may take this into account.

Concealment

In cases where a person takes steps in advance to conceal (or to attempt to conceal) a breach of a prohibition or a failure to comply with an obligation, or to obfuscate who was responsible or to hide relevant facts or evidence, DfT will likely assess this to be an aggravating factor and at the highest level of seriousness.

In cases where attempts have been made to conceal a breach of prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation after the fact, to obfuscate who was responsible or to hide relevant facts or evidence, DfT will also likely assess this to be an aggravating factor. DfT will likely consider such conduct to be at the highest level of seriousness, particularly if the person involved is a ‘relevant person’ for the purposes of the reporting obligations under TASSCER.

DfT may also elect to refer concealment matters to the National Crime Agency (NCA). The NCA will be responsible for considering whether the matter warrants further criminal investigation. These types of cases may not always be suitable for a CMP, and in such cases, DfT will assess whether the conduct is better investigated by law enforcement authorities. However, should DfT determine that such matters can be enforced via a CMP, these cases will likely warrant the highest level of CMP.

Knowledge of sanctions and compliance systems

DfT will also consider how much knowledge of transport sanctions a person has, including how much knowledge they ought to have considering their position, risk exposure, and experience.

It is likely to be an aggravating factor if DfT assesses that the person who breaches a prohibition or fails to comply with an obligation knew or ought to have known about the transport sanctions regime before a breach took place.

Although DfT does not need to prove knowledge in cases which are dealt with by a CMP, it will be a mitigating factor if, taking account of the circumstances, it is clear the person did not have (whether by way of personal or occupational circumstances) the requisite knowledge of the breach or the transport sanctions system or both and could not be expected to have had such knowledge. In respect of persons likely affected by the operation of transport sanctions, DfT does not expect to see this arise often.

DfT expects all persons likely to be affected by aircraft or shipping sanctions to conduct their affairs with an appropriate level of due diligence and have appropriate systems and/or programmes in place to facilitate compliance with all relevant prohibitions and obligations.

Undermining the sanction regime’s objectives

DfT will also assess whether a suspected breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation may have harmed (or could harm) or otherwise undermined the purposes and/or objectives of the UK’s transport sanctions framework.^{[footnote 10]} If DfT determines that the conduct has harmed (or could have harmed) these objectives, then this will be considered an aggravating factor. The level of seriousness of this aggravating factor will likely depend on DfT’s assessment of the extent of harm the conduct has caused.

Voluntary disclosure

DfT will take account of and encourage voluntary disclosure. Depending on the circumstances of each case, voluntary disclosure of a breach (or suspected breach) or failure to comply with an obligation under aircraft or shipping sanctions is likely to be considered a mitigating factor when DfT assess the seriousness of the case.

DfT expects any voluntary disclosures to be made as soon as practicable after it has come to the person’s attention. DfT also expects voluntary disclosures to be proactive. DfT would prefer to see partial disclosure at an early stage rather than full disclosure at a later stage as this provides DfT with the opportunity to begin its own investigation. However, DfT is aware that persons may need to take legal advice before making a disclosure. In such circumstances, DfT will attempt to accommodate delays in voluntary disclosure, but only insofar as any delay has not frustrated the ability to investigate the breach and act in relation to it.

DfT also values cooperation with investigations into suspected breaches of prohibitions or failures to comply with obligations. Voluntary assistance or the provision of information in this context is likely to be considered as a potential mitigating factor.

DfT will not ordinarily consider a disclosure about a suspected breach or failure to comply with an obligation to be voluntary if DfT independently becomes aware of the matter. Similarly, disclosures will not be treated a voluntary if it is made in response to a request for information, in response to DfT commencing an investigation or if the disclosure was prompted by any other matter.

Where voluntary disclosure is being relied upon, DfT would ordinarily require this to be evidenced in a person’s representations so DfT can make appropriate checks of DfT records. A person should not expect the information about a voluntary disclosure to automatically be available to those investigating a sanctions breach without them being made aware it is an issue in the particular case.

If a series of breaches have been assessed and only some were voluntarily disclosed to DfT, this will be taken into account and is unlikely to be considered a mitigating factor. This is because emphasis is placed on voluntary disclosure and the benefit of making voluntary disclosures in all cases.

If a voluntary disclosure is made on the basis that the person believes DfT is already aware of what they are about to disclose, a reduction to the CMP may not apply. If the person is not forthcoming with further information requested by DfT, a reduction to the CMP may not apply.

Individual circumstances

DfT will also consider the individual circumstances of the person/s involved in a suspected breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation. Such circumstances may include, but are not limited to:

• in the case of businesses and/or entities, the size, function and complexity of the business and/or entity: - will sometimes be relevant, however, all entities are expected to have conducted proper due diligence in relation to their business and risk exposure - if the entity in question is large with a broad exposure to sanctions risk, there should be a well-developed sanctions compliance programme in place which could include elements of checks and controls, staff training, assigned sanctions risk compliance officers, clear reporting to management etc - if the entity is a small or limited operation with a lower exposure to sanctions risk, DfT may consider whether it is proportionate to expect them to have such a sophisticated due diligence programme

• sanctions history – repeated, persistent or extended breaches: - an obvious aggravating factor will be if a person is responsible for persistent or repeated breaches of transport sanctions. DfT will take account of any known history of breaching any other UK Sanctions regimes (not limited to aircraft or shipping sanctions) and take account of a lack of response to previous warnings or enforcement action - has the person committed previous sanctions breaches? Is this breach part of a pattern? Were previous warnings issued to the entity?

• behaviour and conduct: - DfT will also consider the behaviour (including the extent of cooperation) by persons under investigation for a suspected breach of a prohibition or failure to comply with an obligation - a person’s behaviour is capable of being either a mitigating factor or an aggravating factor. If a person is cooperative, DfT will likely take this into account as a mitigating factor. Equally, if a person is obstructive or deceitful this will be taken into account as a potential aggravating factor

• has the person taken remedial steps to avoid future breaches? - has the person taken steps to mitigate the risk of potential future breaches or the involvement of any counterparts as far as practicably possible? Such steps could include (but are not limited to) implementing revised processes and/or procedures to enhance due diligence, proactively engaging in or providing appropriate training and awareness of sanctions and a clear plan of action to implement this).

DfT reserves the right to consider any factor if, in its view, it is material and relevant, to ensure that all facts, even in novel situations, can be properly assessed in determining the value of a potential CMP.

5. Case factors (seriousness assessment)

This chapter sets out how DfT will assess the overall seriousness of individual cases in order to ensure there is consistency of approach.

Overview

When balancing the mitigating and aggravating factors of each case and assessing appropriate enforcement action, DfT will be guided by the following principles to ensure that the outcome is:

• proportionate to the seriousness of the breach
• considerate of the person’s ability to pay any proposed CMP whilst noting this will not mean that persons of wealth will automatically receive larger penalties than those with lesser means for committing the same breach
• fair, in that it has considered all available mitigating and aggravating factors and evidence related to the case to arrive at a holistic assessment of the seriousness of the incident
• consistent with other CMP decisions
• supportive of sanctions compliance and future compliance

Possible responses to a breach include DfT determining to:

• impose a CMP
• publish information relating to the breach, even when no CMP is issued, if it is in the public interest(which DfT may refer to as a ‘disclosure’ and is dealt with in more detail in chapter 11)
• if relevant, refer the incident to a regulator
• issue a written warning or a compliance letter with recommendations to consider
• refer the case to law enforcement agencies for criminal investigation and/or potential prosecution

Where DfT assesses breaches of prohibitions or failures to comply with obligations it will seek to place them in one of the following categories:

• less serious
• serious
• most serious

DfT will consider the factual details of the breach, its seriousness and the conduct of those involved.

DfT may select one or more of the options available to us depending on the circumstances of the case, balancing the rights of persons with the public interest and having regard to the proportionality of the sanctions.

CMP levels and case categories

The final value of a CMP will depend on the specific circumstances of individual cases. This means that the most appropriate and proportionate CMP might be higher or lower than other similar cases. Insofar as it is appropriate, DfT will endeavour to provide full reasoning when a person is notified of the initial decision (chapter 8 sets out the relevant procedure).

The below sets out the likely CMP level or case outcome that DfT would expect to apply in most cases.

Less serious

Depending on the circumstances, in less serious cases DfT may decide to issue a CMP. DfT anticipates that any CMPs issued in less serious cases are likely to be towards the lower end of the applicable potential maximum CMP, but this will be fact dependent in each case. In less serious cases, DfT may also decide to issue a warning or compliance letter (either in lieu of or in conjunction with another enforcement mechanism) or to publish a report about the case.

Serious

Depending on the circumstances, in serious cases, DfT is likely to determine that a CMP is an appropriate enforcement mechanism. DfT anticipates that any CMPs issued in serious cases are likely to be towards the higher end of the applicable potential maximum CMP, but this will likely depend on the extent of aggravating and/or mitigating factors in each case. DfT may also decide to issue a warning or compliance letter (either in lieu of or in conjunction with another enforcement mechanism or to publish details about the case.

Most serious

In the most serious cases, DfT will very likely determine that a CMP is the most appropriate enforcement mechanism. DfT anticipates that CMPs issued in the most serious cases are likely to be the highest in value (potentially up to the applicable statutory maximum), but this will depend on a range of factors, including the extent of aggravating and/or mitigating factors in each case and the value (if discernible) of the transport asset/s used in an individual breach or failure to comply.

It is very unlikely in the most serious cases that DfT will issue a warning or compliance letter. Given the implications of the most serious instances of transport sanctions breaches, it is likely that DfT would seek to publish reports about such cases.

Assessing the level of seriousness

DfT will assess each case individually on how to categorise an individual breach or non-compliance with an obligation.

DfT will take all relevant factors into account including aggravating and mitigating factors (as set out in chapter 4) and the public interest in the proper and efficient enforcement of non-compliance with sanctions to reach a decision. Seriousness assessments will endeavour to be proportionate, reasonable and also consistent with achieving the objectives and purposes of the UK’s sanctions framework.

Chapter 4 provides an overview of likely common case factors that DfT may take into account. This does not mean these are the only factors DfT will consider. If other factors are relevant to the assessment of the seriousness of a breach, DfT will take them into account.

Chapter 6 contains examples of the case factors DfT expect to be more commonly present. This does not mean these are the only factors DfT will consider. If other factors are relevant to the assessment of the seriousness of a breach, DfT will take them into account.

CMP outcomes

Once a CMP has been determined as appropriate for a case (see chapter 2) and the level of seriousness has been assessed, DfT will communicate the initial outcome (as set out in chapter 8).

DfT will endeavour to ensure, insofar as is reasonable, that the initial outcome of the case clearly explains what the level of CMP is, how that level has been assessed, and how it is in line with the principles set out in this chapter.

If DfT has sufficient information at this stage, it will explain how it is considerate of the person’s ability to pay.

Any representations made in accordance with the procedure set out in chapter 8 will be considered prior to DfT determining an outcome.

Revisions to case-assessment process

DfT will update this guidance when DfT makes a substantial change to the way DfT approach these cases. Where changes have been made, DfT will apply the guidance that was in force at the time of the breach.

6. Imposition of a CMP (process)

Before imposing a CMP on a person, the Secretary of State is required to inform the person of his or her intention to do so. DfT will do this in the form of a formal notice of intention to impose a CMP, which will:

• explain the grounds for imposing the CMP
• specify the amount of the CMP
• explain that the proposed CMP recipient is entitled to make representations in response to the proposed CMP
• specify the period within which such representations must be made

In explaining the above and grounds for imposing the CMP, DfT will explain how it is:

• proportionate to the seriousness of the breach
• considerate of the person’s ability to pay any proposed CMP, while noting this will not mean that persons of wealth will automatically receive larger penalties than those with lesser means for committing the same breach
• fair, in that it has considered all available mitigating and aggravating factors and evidence related to the case to arrive at a holistic assessment of the seriousness of the incident
• consistent with other CMP decisions
• supportive of ensuring ongoing sanctions compliance

Representations

DfT aims to ensure the procedure for making representations is fair, reasonable and efficient. A person may provide representations on any relevant matter in respect of the proposed CMP, such as legal issues, the facts, DfT’s findings on the facts, adherence to its procedures, ability to pay and the appropriateness and proportionality of the CMP.

Additionally, persons may express their views on how the publication of the details of the breach, or the CMP imposed, or both would affect them or their business.

DfT will disregard representations that DfT judges are frivolous or irrelevant. If DfT disregards a representation, DfT will explain why in the response.

Representations must be in writing and the preferred format is:

• a summary of each point
• an explanation of the relevance of each point
• any evidence relied upon
• copies of relevant documents (preferably highlighted to show the relevant parts)
• an explanation of what, if DfT accept the representations, DfT should do

DfT will ordinarily only accept representations as to a proposed CMP in writing so these can be stored and recorded properly. DfT will not normally allow representations to be made orally. However, if a proposed CMP recipient considers that they are unable to make representations in person, then they may specify this to DfT in an application stating their reasons. DfT does not guarantee that a person can provide representations in a manner other than writing.

Representations may be made by the person receiving the CMP or a representative or agent. DfT will require written evidence of appointment before DfT will disclose information to a representative to protect the privacy of the proposed CMP recipient.

Representations from third parties will not ordinarily be considered.

The time limit for making representations is 28 days, which will be advised to a proposed CMP recipient in DfT’s notice of intention to impose a CMP. DfT may extend this period at its discretion and requests for extensions are not guaranteed. DfT will expect any requests for extensions to be made before the expiry of the 28-day period.

If an extension request is made outside the 28-day period, DfT would only consider extending in exceptional circumstances. DfT will particularly consider whether prior notice of the deadline had been given, although this will not be determinative.

Where a proposed CMP recipient provides representations, DfT will endeavour to decide whether to formally impose the proposed CMP within 28 days of receipt of the representations. However, in some cases, it may be reasonable to extend this period to ensure adequate time is available for a fair assessment of the representations. DfT will explain this and will respond as soon as DfT is able to. Where no representations are made, DfT will decide whether to formally impose the CMP as soon as practicable after the expiration of the 28-day period for representations.

Where DfT decides (having considered any representations made) to formally impose a CMP, DfT will inform the CMP recipient of that decision via a formal CMP notice. The CMP notice will also explain that the recipient is entitled to seek a review of that decision by the Secretary of State, as well as provide details of how and where to make payment.

If the initial 28-day period has passed, or if representations have been made and a CMP remains payable, DfT will issue the formal CMP notice which becomes due for payment at this point. Details about how to make the payment will be set out in the formal CMP notice.

Chapter 7 explains the process of seeking a further review once a CMP notice has been issued.

Where to send representations

Representations must be made in writing (unless otherwise agreed). Electronic submission of representations is preferred and should be sent to:

Email: transportsanctions@dft.gov.uk.

Include ‘CMP representations’ in the subject line.

Alternatively, representations may be mailed to DfT (by prior arrangement) to:

CMP review requests
FAO Centre for Transport Sanctions
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London, SW1P 4DR

7. Secretary of State review of decisions to impose a CMP (process)

This chapter explains the right of additional review by the Secretary of State and provides details on the procedure.

Process for review

When DfT informs the person of its final decision to impose a CMP, a CMP notice will be issued. The notice will also set out the person’s entitlement to a review of the decision by the Secretary of State.

There will be a further 28 days in which a person can make such a request.

Requests for the Secretary of State to review a decision to impose a CMP must be made in writing within 28 days of receipt of a formal CMP notice and must include:

• a clear statement indicating a review is sought
• an explanation (including grounds) of why a review is sought

Any review requests will be dealt with by a different team within DfT than the team that dealt with the original decision to issue a CMP notice. When a review request is received, DfT officials will prepare a summary accompanied by all the material DfT holds. At this point, the requirement to pay a CMP under a CMP notice issued by DfT will be paused.

The decision maker in the review process: the Secretary of State, delegated minister or senior official within DfT will carry out the review and decide the outcome.

The decision maker may seek clarity or ask questions of the officials who prepared the review. The material provided will not make a recommendation, the outcome will be left entirely for the review decision maker in the review process to conclude, who is independent of the original decision maker in the case.

DfT will aim for most reviews to be concluded within 8 weeks. However, this period may be extended if extra time is required. DfT will let the person seeking the review know if this applies to their case, explain the reasons why the period has been extended and provide an estimate of the length of the extension.

Once the case has been reviewed by the Secretary of State, a minister or a senior official they will make a decision. This will either be the decision to:

• impose the original CMP and its amount is upheld
• impose the CMP is upheld but a different amount is substituted
• impose the CMP is cancelled

The review decision will be communicated in writing.

If after this review process the person is still liable to pay a CMP at the same or an altered amount, the CMP is then payable.

Where to send a request for a review

Representations must be made in writing (unless otherwise agreed). Electronic submission of representations is preferred and should be sent to:

Email: transportsanctions@dft.gov.uk.

Include ‘CMP representations’ in the subject line.

Alternatively, representations may be mailed to DfT (by prior arrangement) to:

CMP review requests
For the attention of: Centre for Transport Sanctions
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London, SW1P 4DR

Procedural failings or mistakes

Despite best endeavours, it is possible that DfT may fail to adhere to part of the process set out in this guidance. If this happens DfT will always seek, where possible, to return the process to the point at which the issue arose and will then continue the process.

DfT will not cancel a CMP or change a decision simply because there has been a mistake or failure in the process set out in this guidance. When DfT becomes aware there has been a mistake or failure, DfT will always review internally whether that mistake or failure means DfT should have made a different decision.

DfT will ensure, so far as is reasonable, that a person will not be prejudiced by a mistake or failure: equally DfT will ensure the response to such an incident does not create an advantage.

8. Appeal to the upper tribunal

Where a person has requested a review, and the outcome is that the decision to impose the CMP or the amount of the CMP is upheld and the person remains dissatisfied, they may appeal the decision to impose the CMP to the Upper Tribunal.

The court procedure for such an application is set by The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, not by DfT.

See the Upper Tribunal procedure rules for more information.

An application to the tribunal must be made one month after notice of the decision was sent to the person.

The Upper Tribunal may quash the decision to impose the CMP or uphold the decision but alter the amount of the CMP.

9. Reporting obligations

This chapter sets out the obligations certain persons have to report breaches, or suspected breaches of transport sanctions, to DfT, and how to voluntarily disclose breaches to the department.

Reports regarding breaches or suspected breaches should be submitted to DfT via: transportsanctions@dft.gov.uk.

Reporting obligation

The obligation to report applies to a ‘relevant person’, which is defined as:

• a pilot in command of an aircraft
• an operator (in relation to an aircraft)
• an airport operator
• a person who charters an aircraft or ship by way of business
• a master or pilot of a ship
• a harbour authority

Relevant persons must report any breach (or suspected breach) of aircraft and/or shipping sanctions^{[footnote 11]} to the Secretary of State as soon as practicable when the information or matter on which this is based comes to the relevant person in the course of:^{[footnote 12]}

• chartering an aircraft or ship by way of business
• carrying on business in connection with acting as an airport operator or harbour authority
• carrying on activities, whether paid or unpaid and whether for business or leisure, in connection with acting as:
  • a pilot in command or an operator (in relation to aircraft), or
  • a master or pilot (in relation to a ship or fishing vessel, as the case may be)

‘As soon as practicable’ is not defined within the legislation, however, DfT recognises that a person may need a period of time to establish the facts of the case before contacting the department in relation to a breach or suspected breach (or failure to comply with an obligation). However, it should be noted if DfT becomes aware of the incident first, DfT will not be able to factor in voluntary disclosure (see above) as a mitigating factor in the investigation of the case.

These reporting obligations apply unless they would cause a breach of data protection laws or contravene client lawyer privilege. A number of factors around reporting affect how DfT deal with a case, as explained below.

As noted in chapter 3, a relevant person who fails to report a breach of a prohibition or a failure to comply with an obligation that the person knows or has reasonable cause to suspect to have happened is an offence punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment or a fine (unlimited in England and Wales or level 5 in Scotland and Northern Ireland) or both. TASSCER also permits DfT to enforce breaches of reporting obligations via the implementation of a CMP. In such circumstances, DfT will impose a CMP that reflects the seriousness of the failure to report.

Data protection

All information provided to DfT will be protected and handled according to UK data protection legislation.

10. Information powers

This chapter deals with requests for information made by DfT.

General requests

Regulations 17 and 19 of TASSCER set out the Secretary of State’s powers to request certain information. The Secretary of State can request information from any person they believe will have the information required. This includes a power to ask for specified documents or documents of a specified description (see regulation 20).

The information that can be requested is anything that is reasonably required for the purpose of:

• carrying out functions under the sanctions legislation
• monitoring compliance with or detecting evasion of sanctions
• investigating a suspected breach of a prohibition or a suspected failure to comply with an obligation

When DfT requests information, DfT may specify a timeframe and the format in which to provide the information. If a timeframe is not specified, DfT expects the information to be provided within a reasonable time.

There is an expectation the person subject to the request will keep DfT updated on their progress in obtaining the information specified in a request.

DfT may also require you to keep us updated for a specified period of time if the information provided changes.

Under the powers detailed above, DfT can request any information from a person, including (in addition to an individual and a body of persons corporate or unincorporated) any organisation and any association or combination of persons, if it reasonably requires it for carrying out DfT’s functions under the transport sanctions regime. By way of example, this may include seeking information about the ownership structure of a ship or an aircraft or assisting in obtaining a valuation of an asset at the time of a breach.

Licences and directions requests

DfT can also request a person acting under an aircraft or shipping licence to provide information about any matter to which the licence relates, for purposes set out in relation to ‘general requests’ (see above) or for monitoring compliance with or detecting evasion of, any condition of, the licence.

DfT can also request a person subject to an aircraft or shipping direction to provide information about any matter to which the direction relates, for the purposes set out in relation to ‘general requests’ (see above) or for monitoring compliance with or detecting evasion of, the direction.

Failure to comply with an information request

Failure to comply with a request for information without reasonable excuse within the set timescales or, if no timescale is set, within a reasonable timescale is a criminal offence.^{[footnote 13]} Non-compliance with an information request obligation is also enforceable via a CMP.

Knowingly or recklessly providing information or providing any document in response to a request for information (as described above) that is false, is an offence.

Destroying, mutilating, defacing, concealing or removing any document with the intention of evading a request for information is an offence.

Otherwise intentionally making it more difficult (obstructing) the Secretary of State’s ability to exercise powers in relation to information requests is an offence.

These offences are all punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine or both (Fines are unlimited in England and Wales or Level 5 In Scotland and Northern Ireland).

Data protection

All information provided to DfT will be protected and handled according to UK data protection legislation.

11. Publication of penalties/breaches

The guidance in this chapter sets out DfT’s approach to publishing details of breaches of transport sanctions in accordance with the regulations (see regulation 13).

Under TASSCER, DfT may publish reports in respect of CMPs imposed for breaches or failures to comply with obligations under transport sanctions where the Secretary of State determines that it is appropriate to do so.

DfT will ordinarily publish information about all civil monetary penalties it imposes under the transport sanctions regime. The information concerning the imposition of a CMP will be set out in a report summarising the case.

The summary will include the following information:

• who the CMP has been imposed on (persons, companies, entities)
• the facts of the case, including the type of breach, the regulation broken and if there was a voluntary disclosure
• the details of the assets that are in breach of the regulations and why DfT has imposed the CMP
• if an application had been made for a transport sanctions licence
• other information required to give an understanding of the case and DfT’s consideration of it

Publishing reports details increases awareness, deters future non-compliance and promotes good practice.

DfT may also publish reports where a CMP has not been imposed but the Secretary of State considers it appropriate and is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a person has breached a prohibition or failed to comply with an obligation imposed by or under transport sanctions.

A report will not usually make public more than a summary of the case. Any information that has not been published via a summary may be exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI). DfT will review and consider any FOI request on its own merits.

DfT has the discretion to determine if it is appropriate to publish a report. For example, there may be circumstances where DfT determines that it is not in the public interest to publish a report or (in exceptional cases) where the impact of publishing a report may be disproportionate. It is for the person to whom a potential publication of a report relates (during the representation process) to inform DfT of any impact or issues publication of a report may have and DfT will consider this on a case-by-case basis.

DfT expects to publish a report where it is in the public interest to do so, therefore the bar for not doing so will be high. DfT understands there may be different publication considerations where the breach has been carried out by an individual person.

Timing of publication where a CMP is imposed

The intention to make a report will be communicated to the person when we notify them of the CMP to be imposed (in a CMP notice).

DfT will not ordinarily publish a report where a CMP has been imposed until after the person has had the opportunity to make representations or exercised (and exhausted where a decision to impose a CMP is upheld) their right to a review. Once a review is complete, then DfT will publish its report.

If the person subsequently appeals to the Upper Tribunal, and if the tribunal subsequently amends or quashes the CMP, DfT will publish an amended report setting this out in place of the original report.

Timing of publication where no CMP is imposed

In cases where no CMP is imposed and DfT intends to publish a report identifying a person, DfT will, prior to publication, inform the person who DfT has assessed to have committed a breach of its intention to publish a report naming the person in the disclosure. DfT will provide the person with 28 working days from this date in which to make any representations in relation to the finding of a breach and intended publication of a report. Persons or their representatives can request an extension if reasons are provided with the request. Where DfT intends to publish a report but does intend to name the person who committed the breach, DfT will inform the person of its intention to publish a report but will not invite representations.

Following consideration of any representations made, DfT may decide:

• to publish details of the case
• to publish details of the case, but details of what DfT had intended to publish may be changed
• not to publish details of the case

If, following representations, DfT upholds its decision to publish details of the case, DfT may share the written report in advance of publication for the purpose of ensuring factual accuracy only.

In cases DfT believes illustrates issues or contains lessons for industry DfT may choose to make a report without naming the person involved and will anonymise this insofar as is possible.

Any reports will be published on DfT’s website.

12. Compliance and licencing

Compliance

All transport sanctions, both shipping and aircraft-related, can be found in the relevant regulations which are available to consult online. DfT will ensure these remain available as DfT believes making them readily accessible in this way will encourage compliance.

When deciding whether to impose a CMP, DfT will take account of the levels of compliance DfT see evidenced generally. If there are specific areas of the transport sanctions regime where DfT feels compliance is poor, DfT will attempt to determine why this is.

If DfT finds there are low levels of compliance and this seems to be something DfT can remedy, DfT will do so by engaging the public and stakeholders and through various methods in order to ensure the prohibitions and requirements are understood.

DfT intends, so far as possible, to use CMPs to respond to non-compliance in a proportionate way and in order to promote good practice.

Licensing

DfT issues licences for time-limited specific actions to take place which would otherwise be prohibited by sanctions legislation.

Information on the transport sanctions licence application process and the regulations under which an application can be made is found on GOV.UK.

DfT will acknowledge receipt of your application within 5 working days and will aim to respond within 4 weeks of the notification. In the event an application for a licence is successful, the prohibited activity must be carried out within the time limit prescribed by DfT when granting the licence and in accordance with any conditions the licence sets. The licence will specify who may carry out the activity and may impose reporting requirements on the licence holder.

The Secretary of State may request a licence holder, or a person connected to a licence holder, to provide information about any matter relating to the licence. This type of request may be made to monitor compliance or to review documentation held relating to the licence.

A breach of a licence is an offence and DfT will consider whether the seriousness of the breach warrants a CMP. Depending on the circumstances of each case, the National Crime Agency (NCA) may consider whether criminal penalties are warranted.

See the transport sanctions guidance for further details regarding DfT’s licencing regime and how to apply for a licence.

1. These purposes are (i) exercising functions under the regulations (ii) monitoring compliance with or for detecting evasion of sanctions regulations and (iii) investigating a suspected breach of a prohibition or a suspected failure to comply with an obligation imposed by or under sanctions regulations. ↩

2. These purposes are: any of the purposes for which the Secretary of State may generally request information be provided (see footnote 1 above) or to monitor compliance with or detect evasion of any condition of, that licence. ↩

3. The definition of ‘person connected with Russia’ for the purpose of Aircraft sanctions is set out in regulations 57O(3) of the Russia regulations. Those provisions confirm that a person is to be regarded as ‘connected with’ Russia if the person is: (a) an individual who is, or an association or combination of individuals who are, ordinarily resident in Russia, (b) an individual who is, or an association or combination of individuals who are, located in Russia, (c) a person, other than an individual, which is incorporated or constituted under the law of Russia, or (d) a person, other than an individual, which is domiciled in Russia. ↩

4. The definition of ‘person connected with Russia’ for the purposes of shipping sanctions is set out in regulation 57I(5) of the Russia regulations and mirrors the meaning given in regulation 57O(3) noted above. Ships flying the flag of Russia, or specified ships are also subject to the port entry prohibition in regulation 57A of the Russia regulations. ↩

5. For example, see regulation 71(5)(c) of the DPRK regulations. ↩

6. Under SAMLA, ‘United Kingdom person’ means (a) a United Kingdom national, or (b) a body incorporated or constituted under the law of any part of the United Kingdom. ↩

7. This is pursuant to the scope of the application of UK sanctions regimes as set out in section 21 of SAMLA. ↩

8. Under TASSCER, offences punishable by way of a magistrates’ maximum sentence and a fine (unlimited in England and Wales or level 5 in Scotland and Northern Ireland). ↩

9. For the purposes of this guidance, ‘reasonable’ means an ordinary person would regard the proposed CMP as appropriate to the offence. ‘Proportionate’ refers to the relationship between the level of a proposed CMP and an assessment of all other factors present in the case. This includes consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors. ↩

10. Those objectives are set out in the relevant sanctions regulations, which describe what activities the regime aims to prevent or encourage – for example, to protect human rights, prevent the traffic or arms, promote the resolution of armed conflict etc. The greater the harm or risk of harm to the regime’s objectives, the more seriously DfT are likely to regard a case. ↩

11. Where a relevant person informs the Secretary of State of a known or suspected breach of a prohibition or a failure to comply with an obligation, the person should (where possible) state the relevant prohibition the person knows or suspects has been breached, or the obligation the person knows or suspects has not been complied with.   ↩

12. Pursuant to regulation 16(4) of TASSCER, airport operator, operator, pilot in command, harbour authority, master and pilot have the meanings given to them in sections 6 and 7 of SAMLA. ↩

13. Pursuant to regulation 22 of TASSCER, A person who commits an offence under regulation 21(1) (information offences) is liable (a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine (or both), (b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both) or (c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both). ↩