No interest and no goodwill—the struggle to challenge sanctions designations (Dana Astra v FCDO)
Corporate Crime analysis: The claimant company (Dana Astra) brought a challenge, pursuant to section 38(1) of the Sanctions and Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA 2018), against the decision of the Secretary of State to designate it for the purposes of the asset freeze sanctions under the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the 2019 Regulations). This case provides, for the first time, a judicial determination of the territorial scope of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (A1P1 ECHR) in the context of sanctions decisions pursuant to regulations made under SAMLA 2018. The court held that where a foreign person with no property nor presence in the UK is designated, that designation is not an exercise of UK jurisdiction sufficient to engage the ECHR, even where the designation may affect the person’s ‘interests’. The decision also provides valuable lessons on the operation of the regime in practice more generally, particularly in the context of proportionality challenges. Written by Rachel Barnes KC, Nicholas Yeo KC and Charlotte Branfield, barristers at Three Raymond Buildings.