England & Wales / UK
·
Case
·
UKSC
The Supreme Court heard appeals in judicial review proceedings brought by Martina Dillon, John McEvoy, Brigid Hughes and Lynda McManus challenging provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. The judgment explains the Act’s scheme, including the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, limits on investigations, inquests and civil actions, and the immunity mechanism for certain Troubles-related offences.
- Parties included victims of Troubles-related crimes and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the Department of Justice and Coroners Service, and several public-interest bodies intervening.
- The court set out that the 2023 Act replaced police investigations, certain Ombudsman investigations, inquests and civil actions with an inquisitorial review process by the ICRIR.
- The stated policy aims of the Act were reconciliation and peace, and to end what the UK Government considered vexatious claims against veterans.
- The judgment frames the legal issues as compatibility with Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and potential disapplication under article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework via section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Why it matters
This is relevant to sovereign risk and national-security governance because it addresses how the UK can restructure legacy conflict accountability mechanisms, including immunity and the curtailment of criminal, civil, and coronial processes. For compliance and litigation strategy, it signals a high-stakes test case on whether domestic legacy legislation must yield to ECHR obligations and the Windsor Framework.
case-law
judicial-review
senior-court
England & Wales / UK
·
Case
·
UKUT
The Upper Tribunal held that, in deciding whether to admit late-served evidence, judges must apply the principles in Maleci and the November 2024 SPT Practice Direction, and that relevant evidence is no longer automatically admitted simply because it exists. It upheld the approach of excluding a belated 586-page appellant bundle where there was no timely application, no adequate explanation for non-compliance, and no clear showing that the material was necessary.
- Parties: Soraya Dawrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department; an Article 8 entry-clearance appeal from Afghanistan-related risk allegations.
- Holding: exclusion of the late 586-page bundle was a proper exercise of judicial discretion; the appeal was heard on the stitched bundle already served.
- Reasoning: the appellant gave no adequate explanation for missing directions, did not seek an extension of time, and did not show why the new material was needed.
- Procedural principle: late evidence is assessed under Maleci and the SPT Practice Direction; admission is not automatic even if evidence is relevant.
Why it matters
This is a clear tribunal statement that procedural default can justify exclusion of late material, which matters for sanctions-style compliance cultures where deadlines, notice, and case management discipline are treated as enforceable controls. It signals higher litigation risk for parties who assume material will be admitted on relevance alone, especially where the other side would be prejudiced by late service.
case-law
sanctions
senior-court
England & Wales / UK
·
Case
The First-tier Tribunal (Tax) dismissed Mr Sivarajah’s appeal against an HMRC civil penalty imposed under Regulation 76 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. The tribunal accepted HMRC’s evidence and concluded that he had not taken all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to ensure compliance with the registration requirement, so the penalty was confirmed.
- Appellant: Sellathamby Sivarajah; Respondent: HMRC
- Issue: penalty for trading while unregistered under the Money Laundering Regulations
- Holding: appeal dismissed; penalty confirmed
- Reasoning: tribunal found he accepted he should have been registered from 1 April 2022, but his mistaken reliance on HMRC guidance and conversations did not satisfy the 'all reasonable steps' / 'all due diligence' defence
Why it matters
The decision shows HMRC’s willingness to enforce AML registration failures through civil penalties, even where the business is small and the respondent acted pro se. For sanctions and national-security risk audiences, it is relevant because the underlying regime is expressly tied to money laundering and terrorist financing supervision, and the tribunal treated guidance-based misunderstanding as insufficient to avoid liability.
case-law
terror-finance
England & Wales / UK
·
Case
·
UKSC
The Supreme Court considered a Northern Ireland coroner’s decision to disclose gists of information even though the underlying documents were subject to a ministerial public interest immunity certificate. The appeal asked what standard of judicial review applies where a coroner balances open justice against national security and the NCND policy, and the court considered the issue in part on closed material.
- Appellant: Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; respondents included the Coroner, the deceased’s next of kin, and the Chief Constable of the PSNI.
- Underlying dispute concerned an inquest into the 1994 murder of Liam Paul Thompson and whether gists of sensitive material could be disclosed.
- The Minister certified that non-disclosure was justified to avoid a real risk of serious harm to national security; the Coroner upheld PII but ordered gist disclosure.
- The Secretary of State argued the gists would breach NCND and potentially reveal informer involvement or other sensitive state operations.
Why it matters
This is directly relevant to national security and sovereign risk because it addresses how far courts can require disclosure of sensitive information in legacy inquests despite ministerial claims of harm to national security. It also implicates the handling of NCND material and informer-related secrecy, which are core concerns in sanctions-adjacent intelligence and state-security compliance contexts.
case-law
judicial-review
senior-court
EU
·
Legislation
The Tribunal reviewed a challenge by Middle East Bank, Munich Branch to two Commission implementing decisions that authorized Clearstream Banking AG to comply with specified U.S. laws in relation to certain securities and funds held for the bank under Regulation 2271/96. The source text describes the dispute, the U.S. Iran sanctions backdrop, and the parties’ claims and procedural posture, but it does not include the Tribunal’s operative holding on the merits in the excerpt provided.
- Applicant: Middle East Bank, Munich Branch; defendant: European Commission; intervenor: Clearstream Banking AG.
- Challenge concerned Commission authorizations under Article 5, second paragraph, of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (the EU blocking statute).
- U.S. sanctions against Iran are described as including secondary sanctions affecting EU persons’ dealings with SDN-listed entities.
- The bank argued against the Commission’s authorizations, including a later authorization for certain securities and funds under Clearstream’s custody.
Why it matters
This is a blocking-statute case sitting at the intersection of EU anti-extraterritoriality policy and U.S. Iran sanctions pressure. For sanctions and sovereign-risk analysts, it is relevant because Commission authorization to comply with foreign sanctions can materially affect the treatment of Iranian counterparties’ assets held in the EU.
extraterritoriality
iran
legislation
England & Wales / UK
·
Case
The First-tier Tribunal (Tax) dismissed Ashley Mathews t/a Coast & Country’s appeal against an HMRC civil penalty of £13,000 for trading as an estate agency business while unregistered under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. The tribunal held that a penalty should be imposed, accepted HMRC’s position that the relevant Government Gateway account should be checked, and found the penalty proportionate.
- Parties: Ashley Mathews t/a Coast & Country v HM Revenue and Customs
- Issue: whether a civil penalty should be imposed for breach of MLR 2017 registration requirements for an estate agency business
- Holding: appeal dismissed; penalty of £13,000 upheld
- Reasoning: the appellant traded while unregistered after the registration had expired/cancelled, and HMRC’s reminder notifications were sent via the Gateway account
Why it matters
This decision shows that UK AML supervisory obligations tied to terrorist-financing prevention are enforced through automatic reminders, cancellation, and civil penalties, not just substantive investigations. For sanctions and national security audiences, it reinforces that failure to maintain registration can itself trigger adverse regulatory action even without any allegation of underlying laundering conduct.
case-law
terror-finance
EU
·
Case
The Court of Justice interpreted Article 59 of Directive 2015/849 in a reference from the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court concerning fines imposed by Lietuvos bankas on an electronic money institution, M, for eight infringements of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist-financing rules. It held that the Directive does not preclude national legislation or practice allowing a separate fine for each infringement established in the course of one investigation, so long as the sanctions remain effective, proportionate and dissuasive and the principle ne bis in idem is respected.
- Parties: M, an electronic money institution, versus Lietuvos bankas (Bank of Lithuania).
- Issue: whether Article 59 of Directive 2015/849 allows separate fines for each infringement found in a single AML/CTF investigation.
- Holding: EU law does not bar multiple fines where each fine corresponds to a distinct infringement established in that investigation.
- Reasoning: Directive 2015/849 requires effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for serious, repeated, systematic or related breaches, while also requiring observance of ne bis in idem.
Why it matters
The judgment supports stronger administrative enforcement against institutions that repeatedly or in combination fail AML/CTF controls, a core financial-crime and national-security risk area. For sanctions-intelligence work, it shows the Court endorsing cumulative penalties as a compliance lever where regimes target financial-system abuse linked to terrorist financing.
case-law
terror-finance
EU
·
Case
The Court gave a preliminary ruling on how Directive (EU) 2015/849 defines a "person known to be a close associate" of a politically exposed person, in a dispute between Laimz SIA, a gambling-services provider, and the Latvian Gambling Supervision Inspectorate over a financial penalty for AML/CFT breaches. The judgment also addressed how obliged entities within a group may share information and apply decisions taken by another group member, and it situated gambling providers within the Directive’s enhanced due diligence framework.
- Parties: Laimz SIA v. Latvia’s Gambling Supervision Inspectorate; context was a penalty for alleged AML/terrorist-financing compliance infringements.
- Core issue: interpretation of Article 3(11)(a) of Directive 2015/849 on "close associates" of a PEP, plus Articles 14, 11(d), and 45 on ongoing monitoring, enhanced due diligence, and intra-group information sharing.
- Court focus: the Directive’s prevention-based, risk-based structure; PEP measures are preventive, not criminal, and are not meant to stigmatise PEPs.
- Sector angle: gambling services are expressly within the Directive and are singled out as higher-risk services for customer due diligence.
Why it matters
For sanctions and geopolitical-risk teams, the decision matters because it sharpens the definition of relationships that trigger enhanced scrutiny around PEP-linked clients and counterparties, especially in gambling and other high-risk sectors. It also supports group-wide compliance coordination, which is material for detecting layered ownership, influence, and potential illicit-finance exposure.
case-law
terror-finance
EU
·
Case
The Court interpreted Article 16(4) of Directive 2014/92 together with the anti-money-laundering framework in Directive 2015/849 in a dispute between LH and OTP banka d.d. about opening a payment account with basic features. The judgment focuses on whether a bank may refuse such an account where the consumer is included on the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control list, in light of EU rules on preventing money laundering and terrorist financing.
- Parties: LH v OTP banka d.d. (formerly NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR); request from the Slovenian court in Maribor.
- Issue: interpretation of Article 16(4) of Directive 2014/92 and Article 48 of the Charter in a refusal to open a basic payment account.
- EU framework: Directive 2014/92 requires access to basic payment accounts, but Article 16(4) requires refusal where opening the account would breach AML/CFT rules in Directive 2015/849.
- Reasoning context: recitals and provisions of Directive 2015/849 stress a risk-based approach, customer due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and enhanced measures where risk is higher.
Why it matters
The case is relevant because it shows how EU payment-account access rules can be curtailed by AML/CFT compliance where a customer is associated with sanctions screening concerns. For sanctions and sovereign-risk monitoring, it signals that banks may rely on anti-money-laundering obligations as the legal basis for refusing basic banking services when account opening would breach those rules.
case-law
terror-finance
EU
·
Case
The Court ruled on two joined requests from the Consiglio di Stato about Directive 2015/849, focusing on whether Italian "mandato fiduciario" arrangements fall within Article 31 as legal constructions with a structure or functions similar to trusts. It also addressed the validity of Article 31 rules on access to beneficial-ownership information for persons with a "legitimate interest," including in light of privacy, data protection, legal certainty, and effective judicial protection.
- Joined cases C-684/24 and C-685/24 concerned Italian fiduciary companies and public authorities over disclosure/access rules for beneficial-owner information.
- The central issue was whether fiduciary mandates concluded by Italian fiduciary companies are legal constructions similar to trusts under Article 31 of Directive 2015/849.
- The references also challenged the validity of Article 31(1), (2), (4), (7b) and (10) against the Charter and the Treaties, especially privacy and data-protection rights.
- The directive’s stated AML/CFT purpose is to prevent use of the EU financial system for money laundering or terrorist financing, and to ensure access to beneficial-ownership data for persons with a legitimate interest.
Why it matters
This case matters for sanctions and national-security analysis because it deals with the disclosure architecture that supports AML/CFT enforcement, including access to beneficial-ownership information tied to terrorist financing prevention. That transparency framework can affect how easily authorities and counterparties can trace control, ownership, and concealment structures relevant to sanctions evasion and illicit finance.
case-law
terror-finance
Northern Ireland
·
Case
·
KB
The case is a judicial review of the Victims' Payments Board Appeal Panel’s 14 May 2025 decision refusing John Walsh’s application for a victims’ payment because his injury was not caused by a “Troubles-related incident.” The judgment sets out the statutory scheme under the Northern Ireland Executive Formation etc Act 2019 and the Victims' Payments Regulations 2020, including the scheme’s purpose of acknowledging harm and promoting reconciliation.
- Applicant: John Walsh, litigant in person; proposed respondent represented by the Departmental Solicitor’s Office.
- Challenge was to the Appeal Panel’s refusal of a victims’ payment on the basis that the injury was not caused by a Troubles-related incident.
- Leave had previously been granted only on two grounds: causation on the evidence, and whether the panel relied on reasons not authorised by the statutory scheme.
- The judgment explains the statutory definition of “Troubles-related incident” and the Regulations’ focus on injuries caused by acts of violence or force linked to Northern Ireland’s constitutional or sectarian/political context.
Why it matters
This is relevant to sovereign risk and conflict-sensitive governance because it shows how a Northern Ireland compensation scheme is being interpreted and policed through judicial review. It has no direct sanctions or export-control content, but it illustrates litigation risk around state-administered redress for Troubles-era harms.
case-law
judicial-review
Scotland
·
Case
·
CSOH
The Court of Session considered a judicial review by William Frederick Ian Beggs, a prisoner at HMP Edinburgh, challenging how prison authorities handled his incoming correspondence between March and July 2025. The opinion sets out the governing prison correspondence rules, the prison’s mail-processing and testing arrangements, and the factual disputes over seized, delayed, and allegedly opened mail, including legal and medical correspondence.
- Petitioner: William Frederick Ian Beggs; Respondent: Scottish Ministers acting through the Scottish Prison Service.
- Challenge concerned opening/reading of correspondence without reasonable cause and delays in delivery of mail at HMP Edinburgh.
- The court described the applicable 2011 prison rules, including powers to open, copy, test, and in limited circumstances read general correspondence, and the handling of confidential correspondence.
- Facts included seized mail testing positive for ketamine, a letter from NHS Lothian Board Legal Policy treated as general rather than medical correspondence, and legal correspondence that was allegedly mishandled or delayed.
Why it matters
This is not a sanctions or export-control case, but it is relevant to national-security and prison-security practice because it addresses how authorities inspect incoming communications for prohibited items and illicit substances. The opinion also touches on confidentiality boundaries for legal and medical mail, which can matter for compliance where state monitoring of correspondence is scrutinized.
case-law
judicial-review