News
Print Article

JERSEY and GUERNSEY connected to suspected sanction breaches

11/04/2025

In the UK, Since February 2022, property and related services firms reported just over 1% of all suspected breach reports submitted to the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI).

Meanwhile, 7% of all suspected breaches reported to OFSI by other types of firms involved property and related services firms in some capacity. This discrepancy indicates a lack of reporting to OFSI by firms operating in the UK property and associated services sector.

PROPERTY AND RELATED SERVICES THREAT ASSESSMENT [APRIL 2025]

In its Property and Related Services Threat Assessment [April 2025], the OFSI includes JERSEY and GUERNSEY as jurisdictions connected to suspected sanction breaches.

The OSI says that of all suspected breaches involving the UK property and related services sector reported to OFSI since 2022, 22% involved actors in intermediary jurisdictions. These included:

  • Austria.
  • Azerbaijan.
  • the British Virgin Islands (BVI);
  • the Republic of Cyprus.
  • JERSEY.
  • GUERNSEY.
  • Luxembourg.
  • Switzerland.
  • Türkiye.
  • the United Arab Emirates (UAE); and
  • the United States of America (USA).

The figure above is based only on suspected breach reports and does not necessarily mean any breaches have occurred in those jurisdictions.

INTERMEDIARY JURISDICTION RISKS

Typically, an intermediary jurisdiction nexus involves individuals or entities based in those jurisdictions who are directly or indirectly involved in a suspected breach.

The references to intermediary jurisdictions above do not mean that those jurisdictions do not (where relevant) effectively enforce UK financial sanctions. OFSI works closely with the appropriate authorities in these intermediary jurisdictions.

Numerous factors contribute to an intermediary jurisdiction nexus. Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russian DPs typically structured their financial interests, including the ownership and control of assets, through a small number of favoured intermediary jurisdictions.

While some intermediary jurisdictions have historically offered better privacy through their legal and financial systems and different tax regimes than the UK, some do not but have still been attractive to Russian investors for commercial reasons, including the products and services that they provide and/or their links to major markets.

OFSI CASE STUDIES

OFSI encourages vigilance from UK property and related services firms when the red flags above arise in conjunction with an intermediary jurisdiction nexus.

Suspected breaches of UK financial sanctions often involve a nexus with an intermediary jurisdiction (a jurisdiction other than the UK and the jurisdiction to which UK financial sanctions relate, such as Russia) or multiple intermediary jurisdictions.

CASE STUDY 1: A UK property and related services company facilitates breaches of UK financial sanctions on behalf of a Russian DP

CASE STUDY 2: DPs' use of complex corporate structures and enablers to facilitate the sale of a UK property

Whilst none of these individual red flags automatically suggest the activity within the business carried out by the following is illicit, they should trigger increased due diligence.

  • Company M and
  • Company M Sub .

When considering these red flags in context,

  • Agent A has reasonable cause to suspect that
    • Person X, Person Y, Company M and Company M Sub ARE ACTING AS ENABLERS by
    • Facilitating transactions for the benefit of or on behalf of Russian DPs, potentially breaching the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

As a relevant firm defined in legislation,

  • Agent A must report suspected breaches (as the information or other matter on which the knowledge or cause for suspicion came to it while carrying on its business) to OFSI and submit an SAR via the usual reporting channels.

CASE STUDY 3: DPs' use of family members and proxies to move UK property assets

Source

JERSEY GUERNSEY SANCTIONS CASE STUDIES YOUTUBE-IMAGE

The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more

Gallery

View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more

Contact

Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[www.gov.UK/government/publications/copyright-acts-and-related-laws]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email info@comsuregroup.com.