Connect with us

Business

Helmsman explains US and EU Sanctions: What is the Difference?

Maureen Poh, a Director of Helmsman LLC, offers plain practical tips on the differences between US and EU Sanctions and shares some thoughts on what companies could do if they are potentially exposed to sanctioned entities.

Admin

Published

on

Maureen Poh final photo

The following article explaining the differences between U.S. and EU sanctions has been written by Maureen Poh, the Director of Helmsman LLC, Singapore. Poh has significant experience with energy-related shipping and commodity-related matters and was cited in Legal 500 as “a key name for charterparty disputes, carriage of goods by sea and cargo claims”:

I am frequently asked about the differences between US and EU sanctions.  For instance, when negotiating sanctions clauses in a contract; or, where the spectre of a breach of sanctions is raised during the performance of a contract.  Commonly asked questions include: if a certain entity is under US sanctions, does it mean that it is similarly caught by EU sanctions?  I am not a US company or citizen, do I have to comply with US sanctions laws?  How will I be penalised for breaching sanctions?  In essence, tell me what I should do in order to comply with sanctions laws.

Unfortunately for businesses (and fortunately for lawyers!), the US-EU sanctions landscape is a minefield, with overlapping and sometimes contradictory sanctions regulations.  The sanctions policies and enforcement of sanctions vary widely between the US and EU.  To illustrate the differences, I discuss below three aspects of sanctions: scope, extra-territorial reach and enforcement.

Scope of Sanctions

For starters, let us look at the scope of sanctions: the list of sanctioned entities differs between the US and the EU.  The US has a far longer list of sanctioned countries, entities and individuals than the EU.  US sanctions may also be implemented relatively quickly, sometimes overnight, by way of Executive Order.  This leads to a situation where a company in a global supply chain may be in breach of one sanctions regime, while at the same time being allowed by another regime to deal with that same entity.  Another example is in respect of sectoral sanctions.  For example, US sanctions against Russia extend to Russia’s oil and gas industries; EU sanctions do not cover most Russian gas projects.

Reach of Sanctions

Another big difference is the reach of sanctions rules: do sanctions laws apply extra-territorially, i.e., do US sanctions laws apply only to US companies and citizens?   US primary sanctions generally restrict or prohibit US companies (including their non-US branches) as well as US citizens, and non-US entities owned or controlled by US persons, from doing business with sanctioned countries, companies or individuals.  This applies regardless of where they are located.  In some instances, US secondary sanctions are more complex, applying to any company or individual in the world that wants to do business in the US, with US companies or individuals, or even non-US persons in possession of or dealing with US-origin goods.  A transaction that involves a US nexus, for instance, the use of the US dollar, might be sufficient for US sanctions to bite.

Contrast this with EU sanctions – EU sanctions generally apply only within the jurisdiction of the EU, i.e., within EU territory; to EU nationals, whether or not they are within the EU; and, to companies incorporated under the laws of an EU Member State whether or not they are within the EU (including branches of EU companies in third countries).  Companies incorporated outside the EU and non-EU nationals are generally not required to comply with EU sanctions, except in respect of business done in whole or in part within the EU.  To add to the complexity of EU sanctions, individual EU Member States may also impose their own domestic sanctions in addition to any imposed by the EU.

Perhaps the most obvious gulf between US and EU sanctions is demonstrated in how the EU tries to block the extra-territorial effect of US sanctions.  In 1996, the EU introduced the “Blocking Regulation” (EC Regulation 2271/96).  It obliges EU residents and companies to refrain from complying with extra-territorial laws that are set out in the Blocking Regulation.  The effect of this is that it allows EU entities to engage in activities with companies and individuals that are lawful in the EU but which might be sanctioned by the US.  In other words, it makes compliance with US sanctions a violation of EU laws.  Little surprise that this only adds to the already confusing situation!

Enforcement of Sanctions

I round off my discussion by touching on another area of difference, which is how breaches of sanctions are enforced.  The US sanctions policy is administered and enforced centrally, by the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).  In the EU, each Member State administers and enforces EU sanctions.  This means that they have their own approach to enforcement: some Member States impose criminal penalties, while others only impose civil or administrative penalties.  In addition, in some EU Member States, companies and individuals have an obligation to report to the authorities if they believe there has been a breach of EU financial sanctions; it is a criminal offence in certain instances if they fail to do so.  This obligation does not exist in other Member States.

What should you do?

So, back to the question: what should businesses do in order to comply with sanctions laws?

The answer is to check and double-check, otherwise it will be checkmate to you mate!

While the reality is that no one will be able to ensure compliance with 100% of oftentimes vague, complex and conflicting sanctions laws 100% of the time, you still have to try your best to keep on top of the different global sanctions regimes.

Due diligence is key – companies should check, and monitor, their customers, suppliers and all counterparties, including the end user of the product or service, together with their financiers’ requirements, as financial institutions usually have pretty stringent sanctions compliance regulations.  Due diligence should be carried out not only before the deal but also constant monitoring during the performance or lifetime of the contract.

You should pay attention not only to trading with counterparties who are sanctioned entities, but also companies who are alleged or found to breach sanctions laws, for instance, by trading with a sanctioned third party.  You might in turn be potentially exposed to penalties. It all depends on the type of sanctions – UN mandatory sanctions or unilateral sanctions by individual countries – that the company has breached while taking into consideration the place of incorporation of that company, your jurisdiction of incorporation and where your business is carried out.

Faced with a situation like that, is imperative that you quickly seek legal advice from multiple jurisdictions.  As a rule of thumb, consider the following:

  • the jurisdiction where the breaching company is charged with or convicted of breaching sanctions laws;
  • place of incorporation of that company, if different from the former;
  • the jurisdiction where your business is incorporated. Where it involves a parent company and foreign subsidiary, the countries of incorporation of both parent and subsidiary;
  • the countries where your directors are from; and/or
  • the place where the relevant trade or service is, or is supposed, to be performed.

Appropriate due diligence processes, together with legal advice from relevant jurisdictions are your essential tools to navigate the ever-shifting international sanctions environment.

Maureen Poh can be contacted at:

Phone: +65 6950 8667
E-mail: [email protected]

 

Photo credit: Helmsman LLC
Published: 17 November, 2020

Continue Reading

Winding up

Singapore: High Court to hear Norvic Shipping Asia winding up application on 31 July

Application for the winding up of Norvic Shipping Asia Pte Ltd was filed by Netherlands-registered Mur Shipping BV on 8 April, according to Government Gazette notice.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED singapore high court

An application for the winding up of Norvic Shipping Asia Pte Ltd was filed by Netherlands-registered Mur Shipping BV on 8 April, according to a Tuesday (21 July) notice on the Government Gazette.

It noted the winding up application is directed to be heard before the Judge sitting in the General Division of the High Court at 10am on 31 July.

Any creditor or contributory of the company desiring to support or oppose the making of an order on the winding up application may appear at the time of hearing by himself or his counsel for that purpose.

A copy of the winding up application will be furnished to any creditor or contributory of the company requiring the copy of the winding up application by the solicitors of the applicant’s, Oon & Bazul LLC, on payment of the regulated charge for the same.

The Applicant’s address is Hiridostraat 5, Gebouw Prismatrium, 1101CW Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

The Applicant’s solicitors are Oon & Bazul LLC of 103 Penang Rd, #04-04/05/06 Singapore 238467. 

Queries on the winding up application may be directed to the following email addresses: [email protected] and [email protected].

 

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 22 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Methanol

World Fuel and partners complete first green methanol bunkering of car carrier in Shanghai

Operation involved the delivery of approximately 2,800 MT of green methanol to “Arctic Tern” via a ship-to-ship transfer using SIPG Energy’s dedicated methanol bunkering vessel “M/V Hai Gang Zhi Yuan”.

Admin

Published

on

By

World Fuel and partners complete first green methanol bunkering of car carrier in Shanghai

Marine fuel provider World Fuel on Tuesday (21 July) said it successfully completed the first green methanol bunkering of M/V Arctic Tern, with EUKOR Car Carriers and SIPG Energy at the Port of Shanghai. 

Arctic Tern is the first vessel in the new Shaper Class series of car carriers. 

The operation involved the delivery of approximately 2,800 MT of green methanol to Arctic Tern via a ship-to-ship transfer using SIPG Energy’s dedicated methanol bunkering vessel M/V Hai Gang Zhi Yuan, the largest vessel of its kind in operation. 

The bunkering operation was carried out at Haitong Terminal, Waigaoqiao Port Area, Shanghai Port, with cargo handling operations conducted simultaneously during bunkering.

This marks EUKOR Car Carriers’ first green methanol operation and the first time Arctic Tern has bunkered methanol since its delivery on 9 July. The operation marked the first bunkering at Shanghai Port of green methanol produced locally in Shanghai for an international PCTC operator. 

It also demonstrated the city’s integrated green methanol value chain, spanning local production, storage and bunkering, and established a replicable “Shanghai Model” for green methanol supply.

World Fuel arranged the supply and delivery of the fuel on behalf of EUKOR Car Carriers, working with SIPG Energy as the physical supplier at the Port of Shanghai.

The green methanol supplied was produced from municipal solid waste, ISCC-EU certified, and had a carbon intensity value below 25 gCO₂e/MJ.

Arctic Tern is the first of fourteen Shaper Class vessels ordered by Wallenius Wilhelmsen. With a capacity of 9,300 car equivalent units and methanol dual-fuel capability, the vessel will be operated by EUKOR Car Carriers, jointly owned by Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Hyundai Motor Group. Following her first green methanol bunkering, Arctic Tern will continue her maiden voyage from Asia to Europe.

Xavier Leroi, COO Shipping Services at Wallenius Wilhelmsen and CEO of EUKOR Car Carriers, said: “Completing Arctic Tern’s first green methanol bunkering shortly after delivery is a significant milestone towards our decarbonisation ambition for both EUKOR Car Carriers and Wallenius Wilhelmsen. It demonstrates how investments in next-generation vessel technology and fuel flexibility are being translated into real-world operations. 

“This achievement reflects the strong collaboration between all parties involved. Together, we have shown how partnerships across the maritime value chain can help make lower-emission fuels available and operationally viable at scale.”

Mark Tamsitt, SVP Global Marine Sales at World Fuel, said, “The first bunkering event with a new fuel is a significant moment for any shipowner, and our role is to make it as seamless as possible. By connecting EUKOR Car Carriers with SIPG Energy’s proven green methanol capability at the Port of Shanghai, we were able to deliver on reliable supply, fuel quality, and safe processes. As more of our customers bring methanol dual-fuel tonnage into service, we are committed to being the partner that makes these kinds of operations routine.”

Mr. Zhang Da, General Manager of SIPG Energy, said, “Welcoming Arctic Tern to the Port of Shanghai for her first green methanol bunkering demonstrates the strength and maturity of our supply capability. Building on our well-established methanol ship-to-ship bunkering services for container vessels, we have already extended such services to pure car and truck carriers (PCTCs). This bunkering sets a new record for the largest single SIMOPs green methanol bunkering for PCTCs in China, marking another step in building Shanghai’s position as a global green energy hub for international shipping.”

This operation follows Wallenius Wilhelmsen’s announcement on 9 July that Arctic Tern would complete her first methanol bunkering shortly after delivery. The vessel entered service on routes between Asia and Europe immediately following handover from China Merchants Jinling Shipyard in Nanjing.

 

Photo credit: World Fuel
Published: 22 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Ammonia

HPA and MB Energy develop safety concept for STS ammonia bunkering

HPA says the Port of Hamburg will become “bunker ready” for ammonia, laying the groundwork for safe and reliable ammonia bunkering in the future.

Admin

Published

on

By

HPA and MB Energy develop safety concept for STS ammonia bunkering

The Hamburg Port Authority (HPA) and integrated energy company MB Energy on Tuesday (21 July) said they have completed a comprehensive risk analysis and developed a dedicated safety concept for ship-to-ship ammonia bunkering.

MB Energy said the analysis lays the groundwork for the safe introduction of ammonia as a future marine fuel.

“With our planned ammonia import terminal in Hamburg-Blumensand, MB Energy intends to provide the reliable land side supply infrastructure needed to support this transition across northern German ports,” it said in a social media post. 

Mabanaft Group was renamed to MB Energy last year and merged over 50 existing brands under one identity. 

Separately, HPA said the Port of Hamburg will become “bunker ready” for ammonia, laying the groundwork for safe and reliable ammonia bunkering in the future.

“The focus is in particular on container ships, cruise ships as well as RoRo and ConRo (Container/RoRo) ships,” it said. 

“We expect ammonia to establish itself as an alternative marine marine fuel in the coming years. With our preparatory work, we are already creating the conditions to welcome the first ammonia-powered ships in Hamburg and to bunker them safely.:

HPA added that the import terminal for ammonia planned by MB Energy from 2029 will make a decisive contribution to ensuring the reliable availability of ammonia as a bunker fuel in northern German ports in the long term. 

“The use of an ammonia bunker barge is considered a possible addition to the landside infrastructure to enable ship bunkering in the port and beyond in the future,” it said.

Related: Mabanaft Group renames as MB Energy, merging over 50 brands under one identity

 

Photo credit: Hamburg Port Authority
Published: 22 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending