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

Legal

Singapore withdraws remaining 127 charges against Hin Leong founder OK Lim

Lim Oon Kuin, also known as OK Lim, was issued a stern warning and a district court granted him a discharge amounting to an acquittal for these charges on 17 July.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED Sora Shimazaki on Pexels

Founder of collapsed oil trader Hin Leong Trading, Lim Oon Kuin, also known as OK Lim, has had the remaining 127 charges against him withdrawn, according to The Straits Times on Monday (20 July). 

OK Lim was issued a stern warning and a district court granted him a discharge amounting to an acquittal for these charges, including those for cheating, on 17 July. The discharge means Lim cannot be prosecuted again for the same offences.

Lim, 84, is currently serving a 13½-year prison sentence after the High Court reduced his original 17½-year jail term in March 2026. He was convicted in 2024 on two cheating charges and one count of abetting forgery in a case prosecutors described as one of Singapore’s most serious trade finance frauds.

Lim was convicted in May 2024 of two charges of cheating the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) and one count of abetting forgery that proceeded to trial out of a total of 130 criminal charges.

He was first charged in court on 14 August 2020, and was subsequently handed further charges in court on 25 September 2020, 30 April 2021 and 24 June 2021 for his role in perpetuating fraud on various financial institutions. 

A total of 130 charges were eventually brought against him for cheating and forgery-related offences.

Related: Singapore: Hin Leong Founder OK Lim gets jail term slashed to 13.5 years

 

Photo credit: Sora Shimazaki
Published: 21 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Winding up

Singapore: Coastal Logistics Pte Ltd to be wound up voluntarily

Coastal Logistics was reportedly affiliated with troubled Singapore bunker player Coastal Oil (Singapore) Pte Ltd.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED Drew Beamer

Several resolutions for Coastal Logistics Pte Ltd were made during an extraordinary general meeting held on 14 July, according to a notice in the Government Gazette on Friday (4 July).

The following resolutions were duly passed during the meeting:

As Special Resolution

  • That it has been proved to the satisfaction of the meeting that the Company cannot by reason of its liabilities continue its business and accordingly the Company be wound up voluntarily pursuant to Section 160(1)(b) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (No. 40 of 2018);

As Ordinary Resolutions

  • that Mr. Wong Pheng Cheong Martin and Ms. Koay May Yee, both care of FTI Consulting (Singapore) Pte Ltd, One Raffles Quay, #27-10 South Tower, Singapore 048583 be appointed as the joint and several Liquidators of the Company for the purpose of such winding up; and
  • that the Liquidators be at liberty to open, maintain and operate any bank account(s) or account(s) for monies received by them as Liquidators with such bank(s) as they deem fit; and
  • that a Committee of Inspection will not be formed.

Manifold Times previously reported Nicholas James Gronow, director of Heng Tong Fuels & Shipping and Coastal Logistics, filed statutory declarations for both companies stating the firms cannot continue their businesses due to liabilities.

Both companies were reportedly affiliated with troubled Singapore bunker player Coastal Oil (Singapore) Pte Ltd. 

In 2019, several vessels owned by both firms entered the sale & purchase (S&P) market in Singapore.

Related: Singapore: Director declares Heng Tong Fuels & Shipping’s inability to continue business
Related: Heng Tong Fuels & Shipping in court over DBS Bank bunker tanker loan
Related: Singapore: Bunker tanker “Coastal Neptune” arrested
Related: Heng Tong Fuels & Shipping, Coastal Logistics tankers enter S&P market

 

Photo credit: Drew Beamer
Published: 21 July, 2026

Continue Reading

LNG Bunkering

PIL’s LNG dual-fuel boxship “Kota Elok” arrives in Singapore on maiden call

As the first of 13 new 13,000 TEU vessels joining its fleet, Kota Elok is equipped to operate on LNG and low-sulphur fuel oil that helps reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Admin

Published

on

By

PIL's LNG dual-fuel boxship “Kota Elok” arrives in Singapore on maiden call

Singapore-based Pacific International Lines Pte Ltd on Monday (20 July) said its first 13,000 TEU LNG dual-fuel container vessel, Kota Elok, recently made her maiden call to Singapore on 15 July.

As the first of 13 new 13,000 TEU vessels joining its fleet, Kota Elok is equipped to operate on liquefied natural gas (LNG) and low-sulphur fuel oil that helps reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. 

The vessel also incorporated energy-saving features and digital technologies to reduce fuel consumption and enhance operational performance, as well as a bow windshield to improve aerodynamics, contributing to improved fuel efficiency and lower emissions over the course of long-haul voyages.

“Following Singapore, Kota Elok will continue her voyage on our East Coast Service 1 (ES1) route to South America, calling at ports in Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina before returning to Asia,” the company said in a social media post. 

Kota Elok also became PIL’s first vessel to receive Lloyd’s Register certification for compliance with the IACS UR E26 and UR E27 cyber security requirements.

Developed by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), UR E26 and UR E27 are mandatory cyber resilience requirements for newbuild vessels contracted from 1 July 2024. 

 

Photo credit: Pacific International Lines
Published: 21 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending