UK court rejects Belarus firm’s sanctions challenge

In a landmark ruling, the UK High Court has rejected the challenge brought by a Belarusian technology company, Synesis LLC, against its inclusion on the UK sanctions list.

Synesis – which is also subject to sanctions in the United States and the European Union – was added to the UK sanctions list for providing video surveillance technology to the Belarusian state, which could potentially be used to suppress protesters.

The company had requested that the UK government review its designation, but its application was rejected by the High Court in the 14 March ruling.

Lawyers have noted that this is the first time that a challenge to a sanctions designation under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (‘SAMLA’) has reached the High Court.

In a briefing on the judgment, Alexandra Melia of law firm Steptoe summarised some of the key points emerging from the ruling thus:

‘As originally enacted, SAMLA required the fulfilment of two conditions before a person could be designated under secondary legislation such as the Belarus Regulations.  First, there must be reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is a so-called “involved person”.  Second, the Minister must consider that it is appropriate to make the designation in light of the regulatory purposes of the particular UK sanctions regime.  The Belarus Regulations replicated the SAMLA conditions.

‘This test was amended by The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (ECA), which came into force on March 15, 2022.  Section 58 of the ECA had the effect of removing the appropriateness criterion set out in the original SAMLA test for designation.  Certain other provisions of the ECA further deemed “pre-commencement regulations” such as the Belarus Regulations to omit any reference to the appropriateness test.

‘Mr. Justice Jay held that reasonable grounds to suspect, the UK threshold for designation, is a well-established test in UK law and is part objective and part subjective in nature.  The test requires that the decision maker “must consider all the material or information known to him or [that] ought to have been within his knowledge following reasonable inquiry”.

‘For this purpose, “material” or “information” is not limited to evidence that would be admitted in a court of law.  As a consequence, the decision maker can take hearsay, allegations, multiple hearsay, and (in appropriate cases) intelligence into account.  It is for the decision maker to assess the weight that should be given to these types of information or material, albeit that Mr. Justice Jay stated that the court normally will expect that “at least some recognition has been given to its inherent quality.”’

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/541.html&query=(synesis)