Technical Hub

On 17 November 2023 HM Treasury published guidance on Ownership and Control: Public Officials and Control guidance. The guidance sets out that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office  does not generally consider designated public officials to exercise control over a public body in which they hold a leadership function, such that the affairs of that public body should be considered to be conducted in accordance with the wishes of that individual. However, if there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the designated individual exercises control over the public body within the meaning of the relevant regulations, then the relevant legal test under UK sanctions regulations may be met. The guidance follows on from a notable decision of the UK Court of Appeal Mints & Ors v PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1132 which was handed down 6 October 2023. Please click here for our recent news item on the judgment. Please also see the recent UK High court case of 15 November 2023 Litasco SA Claimant, Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA and Locafrique Holding SA. There the High court judge appears to create a test that distinguishes between actually existing control and prospective control, stating his belief that the better interpretation of Regulation 7(4) is that it is concerned with an existing influence of a designated person over a relevant affair of the company …. not a state of affairs which a designated person is in a position to bring about. Were matters otherwise, it would follow that President Putin was arguably in control, for Regulation 7(4) purposes of companies of whose existence he was wholly ignorant, and whose affairs were conducted on a routine basis without any thought of him. Readers can also listen to a recent (20th Nov 2023) interesting webinar on the subject entitled “Webinar with UK government on sanctions ownership/control”. The webinar was hosted by UK firm Peters & Peters and the UK deputy director of sanctions David Drake and deputy director in OFSI Beth Davis spoke on the topic. Acknowledgement that any links to BAILII website (above) are free. This information is provided as resources and information only and nothing in these pages purports to provide professional advice or definitive legal interpretation(s) or opinion(s) on the applicable legislation or legal or other matters referred to in the pages. If the reader is in doubt on any matter in this complex area further legal or other advice must be obtained. While every reasonable care has been taken by the Institute in the preparation of these pages, we do not guarantee the accuracy or veracity of any resource, guidance, information or opinion, or the appropriateness, suitability or applicability of any practice or procedure contained therein. The Institute is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of the resources or information contained in these pages.    

A notable decision of the UK Court of Appeal Mints & Ors v PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1132 was handed down on 6 October 2023. The case concerns the UK Russian sanctions’ regime. There were three issues raised in the appeal and they are set out at paragraph 3 of the judgment. (The regulations referred to in the judgment are the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (“Regulations”). The first issue raised was whether a judgment can lawfully be entered for a designated person by the English court following a trial at which it has been established that the designated person has a valid cause of action; The second is the circumstances whereby Treasury /OFSI can license certain payments; The third is whether a designated person controls an entity within the meaning of Regulation 7 where the entity is not a personal asset of the designated person, but the designated person is able to exert influence over it by virtue of the political office that he or she holds at the relevant time. (The control issue). The Court of Appeal found that as (1) the entry of  a money judgment in favour of a designated person was not prohibited by the UK sanctions regime and (2) the payments/litigation steps could be authorised by licence, the issue of control did not arise .However the judge said that as the control issue was fully argued and of some general  significance he would briefly address it .The remarks are therefore obiter dicta ,not a binding part of the decision and of persuasive authority only . The judge said  that the wording of Regulation 7 does not distinguish between different forms of “non-ownership control” or “calling the shots”. He concluded that control can be established under Regulation 7 by whatever means including political and corporate office. In any event the judge said that even though he would have found for the appellants on this issue, because they lost on the first two issues, the appeal must be dismissed. Following the decision the UK Foreign ,Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO)  issued a statement on the Mint decision saying that it was carefully considering its impact. It said that the FCDO would look to designate a public body where possible when designating a public official if FCDO considered that the relevant official was exercising control over the public body. It went on to say that there is no presumption on the part of the Government that a private entity based in or incorporated in Russia or any jurisdiction in which a public official is designated is in itself sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the relevant official exercises control over that entity. The statement helps to support the conclusion that the UK government did not intend for all Russian companies to be subject to sanctions restrictions by virtue of Mr Putin’s designation, but legislative clarity on this issue would be best to ensure certainty in this area. This information is provided as resources and information only and nothing in these pages purports to provide professional advice or definitive legal interpretation(s) or opinion(s) on the applicable legislation or legal or other matters referred to in the pages. If the reader is in doubt on any matter in this complex area further legal or other advice must be obtained. While every reasonable care has been taken by the Institute in the preparation of these pages, we do not guarantee the accuracy or veracity of any resource, guidance, information or opinion, or the appropriateness, suitability or applicability of any practice or procedure contained therein. The Institute is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of the resources or information contained in these pages.

The Economic Crime & Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) 2023 received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023, and the provisions of the Act are starting to be implemented. The primary aims of the ECCTA are to enhance corporate transparency and reduce economic crime, therefore providing increased benefit to the UK economy, for both businesses, and individuals. To facilitate these aims, the Act implements provisions about companies, limited partnerships and other corporate entities, including the registration of overseas entities and the individuals associated with them. As part of implementation of the Act, Companies House will have new and enhanced powers to improve the quality of the information held on the Companies Register. Companies and individuals will also be required to comply with their obligations to deliver documentation on time and in the correct format. A number of the changes are being implemented from March 2024; these are outlined below. The changes will apply to incorporated entities, limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships. It will also apply to their members and directors. Companies House has set out the following important changes:  • Appropriate registered postal and email addresses – Companies will need to ensure their registered office address is “appropriate”, meaning that any document delivered to that address would be reasonably expected to come to the attention of a person acting on behalf of the company, and acknowledgement of delivery can be provided. For these reasons, PO Boxes will no longer be permitted as registered office addresses. Companies will also need to supply an appropriate email address with their next confirmation statement. As part of the transition, we understand Companies House will communicate to companies both by post and by email, with an eventual move to email-only communication. • Lawful purpose – On incorporation, the subscribers (the members of the entity at point of incorporation) will need to make a statement that the entity is being formed for a lawful purpose. A similar statement will be required for all entities on their next confirmation statement, confirming that all intended future activities are lawful. • Greater powers for Companies House – The Registrar will have enhanced powers to scrutinise, query and reject information it believes to be incorrect or inconsistent with information already held on the Register. In some cases, the Registrar will have the power to remove previously filed information. Annotations will also be made public on the Register to make stakeholders aware of potential issues with information supplied. • Enforcement and sanctions – Companies House will be given greater power to take action where a company, and its directors, do not respond to formal requests for information, or where their registered office is not an appropriate address. Sanctions could include financial penalties, annotations on the company’s public record, or even in the most severe cases prosecution. In addition to the above, Companies House will be closing their Belfast office to the public from 4 March 2024. Therefore, filing paper documents, including financial statements and confirmation statements in person will not be possible at the Belfast office from that date. Individuals wishing to file information in paper format will need to post the documents to the Registrar’s office in Cardiff. Electronic filing options are available for almost all documents, and Companies House are encouraging companies to avail of these filing options, as they phase out paper filings. Further information on the remaining significant changes, such as the identity verification requirements and changes in filing options, will be available in the coming months from Companies House. Article written by Maeve Hunt, Principal – Head of Accounting Services Grant Thornton (NI) LLP and Chair of the Members in Practice Committee. Originally published in Practice News February 2024. The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer and not to be construed as those of the Institute. The purpose of technical articles is solely to draw the attention of the reader to issues, and these should never be construed as guidance or relied on. To the fullest extent permitted by law, no liability is accepted by the Institute or the author for persons acting or failing to act as a result of anything contained in this article.  This information is provided as resources and information only and nothing in these pages purports to provide professional advice or definitive legal interpretation(s) or opinion(s) on the applicable legislation or legal or other matters referred to in the pages. If the reader is in doubt on any matter in this complex area further legal or other advice must be obtained. While every reasonable care has been taken by the Institute in the preparation of these pages, we do not guarantee the accuracy or veracity of any resource, guidance, information or opinion, or the appropriateness, suitability or applicability of any practice or procedure contained therein. The Institute is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of the resources or information contained in these pages.