As Russia continues the war in Ukraine, the US and the European Union (EU) together with other countries keep increasing the size of sanctions imposed on Russia.
At the EU summit held on 30–31 May 2022, the European Council agreed on the sixth package of sanctions against Russia that will mainly apply to crude oil and petroleum products supplied to EU member states. Yet the Council of Europe has agreed a temporary exception for crude oil supplied through pipelines. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, has said that the restrictions included in the package will in fact stop around 90% of EU oil imports from Russia by the end of this year.
As the size of the sanctions grows, confused companies are having more and more questions about how to cope with the increasing sanctions burden, whether a company is supervised by particular regulatory bodies, and whether the current sanctions rules and guidelines provide for setting up an internal control system to manage sanctions risk.
Section 13.1 of the International and Latvian Sanctions Act imposes an obligation to carry out a sanctions risk assessment and set up a SICS on subjects that are supervised by the supervisory bodies listed in section 13.1(1), such as the Financial and Capital Market Commission, the State Revenue Service, the Consumer Rights Protection Centre, the Latvian Bar Council, and the Latvian Notaries Council, and are simultaneously subjects of the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Act.
Companies that are liable to set up a SICS will carry out and document an international and national sanctions risk assessment according to their line of business in order to identify and manage sanctions non-compliance risk associated with their operations or customers. To assess sanctions non-compliance risk, the company should assess at least the sanctions risks inherent in its line of business, structure, beneficial owners and legal representatives, as well as sanctions risks inherent in its customers – customer residence country risk, the customer’s organisational structure, beneficial owners and their nationalities, legal representatives, and goods offered by the customer, their export and import markets, and – as far as possible – the customer’s suppliers.
It is advisable for the assessment to give more information on the number of customers from particular jurisdictions, as well as the beneficial owners’ nationalities, supplementing the assessment with an evaluation of risks inherent in the customer’s goods or services and associated with the customer’s jurisdiction, restrictions on the import and export of certain goods or services, and their manufacturer. It is also important to name any agents the customer uses in selling his goods or services.
Based on this assessment, the supervised companies will set up a SICS, including the preparation and documentation of relevant policies and procedures.
Companies that are not supervised by those bodies are advised to set up a SICS, yet this is not a mandatory requirement. Sanctions compliance, however, applies to all subjects – individuals and entities – even if the law does not impose an obligation to set up a SICS. So, if your company does not have minimum sanctions checks in place, you are more likely to face a sanctions breach. The SICS is particularly recommended for companies whose customers or suppliers come from high-risk countries or from sanctioned countries because those companies may represent a higher sanctions non-compliance risk if customers are not checked against the sanctions lists.
Companies that are required or advised to set up a SICS should prepare chapters laying down the following procedures:
AML and sanctions experts commonly receive requests from companies for setting up a SICS when financing has been denied to them or when a credit institution has refused to do business with them or has sent an information request asking about their sanctions supervision procedures before the potential suspension of banking services to them. Credit institutions commonly send such information requests to customers whose account statements show transfers to individuals or companies in high-risk jurisdictions. If your company already knows that some of its non-Latvian customers might come from higher risk countries (Russia, Belarus, Syria, Yemen etc), then it is advisable to begin preparing sanctions review procedures or a SICS early on.
In certain cases, credit institutions will freeze a company’s funds on a particular transaction and expect the company to provide explanations of the substance of the transaction and supporting documents. In that case, the company should verify that the transaction is not in breach of the sanctions, prepare a detailed explanation for the credit institution, and present supporting documents (e.g. a contract and invoices).
If your company has identified potential sanctions risks or you have a question about conducting a sanctions review, PwC and PwC Legal will be happy to consider your question and provide a solution tailored to your situation so you can continue your business without delay.
If a company finds it is governed by the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing (AML/CTPF) Act, it has two priority steps to take: register as an entity subject to the Act after stating a type of activities governed by the Act, and appoint an officer responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act’s requirements under section 10. This appointment must be reported to the relevant supervisory authority such as the State Revenue Service or the Financial and Capital Markets Commission.
Companies often provide various intragroup services for optimisation purposes. Whether such companies are governed by the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Act (the “Act”) is a question that has always come under a great deal of scrutiny. Effective from 12 July 2021, section 3 of the Act contains subsection 6, which prescribes exclusions and answers questions that group companies tend to ask when assessing whether they are governed by the Act. This article explores how intragroup services qualify for statutory exclusions.
We have written earlier about amendments to the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Act (the “Act”), which, among other things, will make it easier for persons that are subject to the Act (“Subjects”) to report suspicious transactions and will set up a common customer due diligence tool. This article explores changes to the requirements affecting the ultimate beneficial owner (“UBO”) of a Subject.
It’s your choice to accept these or not. You can either click the 'I accept all’ button below or use the switches to choose and save your choices.
These cookies are necessary for the website to operate. Our website cannot function without these cookies and they can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.
These cookies allow us to measure and report on website activity by tracking page visits, visitor locations and how visitors move around the site. The information collected does not directly identify visitors. We drop these cookies and use Adobe to help us analyse the data.
These cookies help us provide you with personalised and relevant services or advertising, and track the effectiveness of our digital marketing activities.