Sanctions ignore national boundaries. They are supranational legislation and can hit Finnish companies from unexpected directions.
23.1.2017
Supranational Iron Fist Tightens Grip – Finnish Companies also at Risk from Sanctions
EU Sanction Regime Clear – Beyond It, Uncertainty
The purpose of sanctions is to get the targeted states, groups or persons to alter their behaviour and actions in the manner desired by the party imposing them. Typically, sanctions restrict trade, financing, the possession of property or free movement.
The EU’s sanction regime is clear. Its regulations apply to persons and companies operating in EU territory. Violations of sanctions are provided for on the nation level. In Finland, the matter has been regulated in the Santions Act by a reference to the provisions of Chapter 46 of the Criminal code.
What has particularly given rise to uncertainty and concern in Finnish companies recently are non-EU sanctions regimes. The most significant of these the US sanctions governed by the OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) and the BIS (Bureau of Industry and Security as well as permit and supervision systems.
The OFAC and BIS both require companies to comply with supranational legislation, which means that a Finnish company could unintentionally fall into the US jurisdiction even if its operations themselves have no connection to the US.
Violations of Sanctions Can Lead to Billions in Fines
We have all heard in the media about European banks and oil companies that have been ordered to pay large fines due to violating OFAC regulations. The best-know example is probably BNP Paribas, which was alleged to have brokered monetary transactions to countries and parties on the sanctions list. The whole affair ended up carrying a 9 billion dollar price tag for the bank.
There are also Finnish private individuals on sanctions lists and known listed companies that are subject to investment bans. I think one would be justified in asking what grounds there are for this kind of supranational jurisdiction. At the same time, it’s worth considering whether Finnish companies should be worried.
OFAC Restricts Trade with Iran, among Others
The OFAC is an iron fist of supranational jurisdiction that causes corporate directors continual headaches and uncertainty. The primary sanctions in the OFAC regime are targeted at particular countries and persons (Specifically Designated Nationals). The system also recognises secondary sanctions that indirectly target persons and companies outside the US that operate with parties subject to primary sanctions.
The OFAC only adopted secondary sanctions a few years ago, and they mainly target Iran. US persons cannot be involved with parties subject to secondary sanctions. Monetary transactions can also be restricted.
Under the tripartite treaty signed a year ago by the EU, US and Iran, secondary sanctions are being rescinded with respect to fields in the nuclear embargo, but risks still remain.
How Does this Iron Fist Squeeze Finnish Companies?
Finnish companies may encounter unexpected problems, for example, if they employ US citizens or US residents. Even though sanctions against Iran have been rescinded, US citizens can have no part in trade with Iran.
Some European companies have signed recusal letters under national legislation with their US employees, which they using to try to work around persons at risk. Problems can also arise if a Finnish exporter does not sufficiently determine whether its products and services include US-sourced components or parts.
Even if a Finnish company is not prevented from trading, for example, with Iran, many cargo carriers and shipping companies still refuse to ship goods to Iran. Many European financial institutions also refuse to be a party to payment transactions relating to Iran.
Untested in Court
As a mental exercise, I’ve thought about a scenario in which a Finnish court would be called upon to confirm a fine imposed by the OFAC against a Finnish company refusing to voluntarily pay the fine to the US authorities. If the Finnish court were to take a dim view of such confirmation, pressure would be likely to be applied through secondary sanctions aimed at preventing the insubordinate company’s ability to operate in the US and dollar markets.
During the Obama administration, sanctions legislation and the related penalty practices have, with the exception of Iran, been made more strict. It remains too early to say what direction the new resident of the White House will take on sanctions practice, but based on his statements to date, I would begin preparing for the system to get even more complicated.
Latest insights
Article published 3.3.2026 – Employment
The threshold for dismissal is lowered: what should be taken into account in practice?
Article published 6.2.2026 – Tax & Structuring
Electricity sector Profit Tax Act in conflict with EU law – SAC denied leave to appeal
Article published 2.2.2026 – Data & Technology
Avoid costly risks with well-drafted distribution agreements
Article published 14.1.2026 – Tax & Structuring
VAT deductions for private equity investors under the microscope
Aleksandra Särkelä
Janne Juusela & Mikko Alakare
Topi Lusenius & Samuli Salminen
Mikko Alakare & Lotta Manu
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