A new guidance note by the Commission helps operators in the European Union to identify sanctions circumvention and assess the related risks. The note presents an overview of aspects to consider when carrying out due diligence.
4.10.2023
Commission issues new guidance on enhanced due diligence against sanctions circumvention
Related services
Tags
In response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the European Union has imposed vast restrictive measures against Russia and Belarus. Given the scale of the sanctions, Russia has tried to circumvent these measures, for example by using complex financial schemes or falsifying the nature of origin of the goods traded. There is therefore an increased risk that EU operators unknowingly facilitate prohibited activities involving Russia which possibly violate EU regulations. EU operators have a duty to comply with sanctions regulations and to carry out due diligence when trading with third countries in order to reduce the risk of sanctions circumvention. It is prohibited to knowingly and intentionally participate in activities which have the effect or object of circumventing prohibitions laid down in Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.
Identifying sanctions circumvention
In September, the European Commission published a new guidance note for EU operators to help them identify and assess possible risks of sanctions circumvention. The guidance is intended as a practical guide, not an exhaustive document, and it aims to provide main points of consideration for enhanced due diligence. It currently focuses on export-related sanctions, but the recommended due diligence measures will be updated as new ways of circumventing sanctions emerge. The guidance emphasises that risk assessments should be updated regularly, and personnel should be trained on the issues related to sanctions.
The guidance contains a list of good practices which seek to ensure that business partners are identified and verified, abnormalities in the flows of money and routes of goods are noticed, and attention is paid to the nature of goods. In particular, threats and vulnerabilities arise for EU operators who manufacture or transport, semiconductor devices, for example, or other high-priority battlefield items. The Commission has published lists of sanctioned high-priority battlefield items and economically critical goods to support EU operators in their due diligence and effective compliance with EU sanctions regime.
Good practices and red flags
As for the implementation of enhanced due diligence, the guidance contains some good practices to address the most common typologies of sanctions circumvention. Particular attention should be given to the possibility of diversion to or from Russia via third countries. When exporting goods subject to restrictions, all EU operators should 1) include contractual clauses with their third-country business partners prohibiting re-exports of the items to Russia and Belarus and 2) possibly include ex post verifications. If sanctioned items are exported further due to insufficient due diligence, it may constitute a violation of EU sanctions law. Additional vigilance is also required when transactions rely on correspondent accounts.
The guidance also contains a list of circumvention red flags related to business partners and customers. Possible signs of circumvention are, for example, indirect transactions, new customers in ’circumvention hubs’ and complex corporate structures. If any of the red flags come up in the course of general due diligence, a deeper screening is required.
The guidance can be read in full here.
Latest news
Latest references
Fortum – AI workshop
We delivered two AI workshops for Fortum Corporation’s Mergers and Acquisitions team, with both legal and business professionals participating. The sessions combined fundamental AI principles with custom use cases for commercially available AI tools tailored to Fortum’s needs. We also presented a bespoke solution merging AI with a script-based tool developed by our Legal Tech team, enabling a more automated way of working. Our experts conducted the training drawing on their legal background and leading experience in this emerging field of legal technology. Participants particularly appreciated the clarity and relevance of the implementations demonstrated. ‘C&S delivered an excellent, well-structured series of workshops, with directly applicable takeaways,’ says Sabina Hautaviita, Legal Counsel for M&A at Fortum.
Case published 9.3.2026
VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
CapMan Growth – Investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku
We are assisting CapMan Growth in its significant investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku, a Finnish gym chain known for its high-quality self-service facilities and excellent value for money. The investment will further strengthen Liikku’s position as a market leader and support the continued execution of its growth strategy. Liikku is one of Finland’s leading fitness chains, with more than 70 locations across the country serving nearly 90,000 members. The company’s concept is to offer high-quality self-service gyms at an exceptionally competitive price point which, combined with strong operational efficiency, provides a solid foundation for profitable growth. The company’s main shareholder is COR Group, a long-time partner of CapMan Growth, and a Finnish health and wellness conglomerate known for active ownership and long-term value creation. CapMan Growth is a leading Finnish growth investor that makes significant investments in entrepreneur-led growth companies with a turnover of €10–200 million. CapMan Growth is part of CapMan, which is a leading Nordic private equity investor engaged in active value creation work. CapMan has been listed on the Helsinki Stock Exchange since 2001.
Case published 27.2.2026
Terrafame – Environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area
Castrén & Snellman successfully assisted Terrafame Ltd in environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area, on which the Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision on 12 February 2026 (KHO 366/2026 and 367/2026). The changes made to the decisions of the Vaasa Administrative Court as a result of Terrafame’s appeals, enable the company to implement its new strategy and develop its operations as planned. The decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court brought the nearly ten-year-long permit process to a close.
Case published 20.2.2026