Landscape of Bermuda financial sanctions

Published: 19 Jul 2019
Type: Insight

First published in The Royal Gazette, Legally Speaking, July 2019

In the ever-changing world of politics and their related global financial sanctions, it is imperative that businesses understand the financial sanctions regimes in place and have effective methods to screen their systems for any potential breaches.

The dynamic nature of the global sanctions landscape is vividly illustrated when one considers Brexit, where the United Kingdom may be required to introduce an entirely new and independent sanctions regime once it has exited the European Union; or the United States, where there is increasing focus on secondary sanctions.

Financial sanctions are imposed to combat money laundering, terrorist financing and the development of weapons of mass destruction. Sanctions are primarily imposed by the United Nations, EU, US and UK. Such measures range from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, financial or diplomatic restrictions.

As each country’s sanctions tend to be applicable to citizens of that country, and bodies formed or incorporated under the laws of that country, it is important to understand any obligations that follow from having links to another country.

Bermuda enforces the same financial sanctions imposed in the UK. Sanctions are generally brought into force under the International Sanctions Act 2003. The International Sanctions Regulations 2013 set out all the regime-related sanctions orders in force in Bermuda and are referred to as the Bermuda International Sanctions Regime. All individuals and legal entities who are within or undertake activities within Bermuda must comply.

It can be challenging to comply with multi-jurisdictional restrictions due to the frequency with which they change. It is therefore critical that businesses understand which regimes their entity must observe in addition to the sanctions imposed under Bermuda law. Merely dealing in a jurisdiction’s currency can bring a business within the scope of that jurisdiction’s regime.

Companies must review and test their sanctions screening system to ensure effectiveness, efficiency and responsiveness to the ever-changing sanctions regimes. It is a criminal offence to breach the obligations under the respective sanctions. Penalties for failure to comply vary but, upon conviction, they can include imprisonment and/or a fine. In addition to criminal penalties, non- compliance by an entity licensed by the Bermuda Monetary Authority can lead to regulatory action including cancellation of registration, public censure and a civil fine of up to $10 million.

Consequently, companies must identify and assess the relevant sanctions risks it may be exposed to, whether in respect of certain regimes or entities, and implement a sanctions screening programme proportionate with the company’s nature, size and complexity.

To be effective, consideration should be given to matters such as the company’s location and its proximity to sanctioned companies; the location of its customers; the volume of transactions and distribution channels; and whether the types of products and services offered represent a heightened sanctions risk, for example, foreign correspondent accounts, cross-border transactions, or trade-related products.

Two screening measures are commonly implemented, customer screening and transaction screening. Customer screening is intended to identify sanctioned individuals or entities during the on-boarding process and the lifespan of the customer relationship, while transaction screening is used to identify transactions involving sanctioned individuals or entities.

Together, customer and transaction screening that account for the relevant business specific matters previously mentioned can create a powerful system of controls that will identify targets of sanctions.

Notwithstanding this, screening alone is not sufficient to ensure complete compliance with obligations imposed under financial sanctions. Screening must be implemented alongside other financial crime risk prevention processes and as part of a wider compliance programme.

This column should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice. Before proceeding with any matters discussed here, persons are advised to consult with a lawyer.

locations

Bermuda

services

Regulatory Advice

types

Insight

Share
More publications
050-Insolvency-Restructuring-Grid-Image
13 Jul 2026

Bermuda: Restructuring & Insolvency

This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of Restructuring & Insolvency laws and regulations applicable in Bermuda.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
10 Jul 2026

It’s healthy to sometimes disagree with regulators

At some point, almost every regulated business will disagree with its regulator.

Appleby-Website-Privacy-and-Data-Protection
8 Jul 2026

Bermuda Privacy Commissioner Signals Shift to Stronger PIPA Enforcement

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (PrivCom) has issued its first annual report since Bermuda's Personal Information Protection Act 2016 (PIPA) came fully into force, with the reports content signaling a transition from education and implementation to a stronger focus on enforcement.

Bermuda-1024x576-1
1 Jul 2026

A Forest for the Future

A first since the blight, the airport cedar forest is growing tall and standing strong.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
1 Jul 2026

Complied out of business

Firms are complying themselves out of business because compliance no longer matches the evolving sophistication of the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA).

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
1 Jul 2026

The long game: how Bermuda became the world’s life reinsurance capital

Ask a life insurer in New York, London or Tokyo where the liabilities behind their book ultimately sit and there is an increasingly good chance the answer is a 21-square-mile island in the North Atlantic.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
1 Jul 2026

Record H1’26 Cat Bond Issuance Driven by Rising Sponsor Comfort and Diversified Risk

With H1 2026 officially breaking the record for the most catastrophe bond deals to come to market and settle in the first six months of the year, a key trend driving this momentum is how comfortable sponsors have become with the mechanics of the overall cat bond space. This familiarity has ultimately encouraged a wave of new sponsors to enter the market, according to Brad Adderley, Managing Partner at law firm Appleby.

Appleby-Website-Employment-and-Immigration
12 Jun 2026

The Cost of Getting Employee Departures Wrong: Five Common Pitfalls for Bermuda Employers

Employee departures are an inevitable part of running a business, but the way they are managed can have significant legal, financial and operational consequences. In Bermuda, employers who approach terminations without adequate preparation may expose themselves to unnecessary disputes, regulatory issues, and reputational harm. Whether an employee is being dismissed for performance reasons, made redundant or departing as part of a negotiated exit, by recognizing the following common mistakes and taking a proactive approach, organizations can manage departures more effectively and reduce risk.

Appleby-Website-Privacy-and-Data-Protection
8 Jun 2026

It’s time to bridge Pipa compliance gap

A review of 200 publicly available privacy notices of companies in Bermuda has revealed that just one in nine are fully compliant with the Personal Information Protection Act 2016.

Appleby-Website-Privacy-and-Data-Protection
26 May 2026

Transparency is a legal requirement under Pipa

Major companies across the European Union have faced substantial fines between 2019 and 2024, estimated at a total of €930 million (about $1.08 billion), not only for cyberattacks or data breaches, but also for issues such as noncompliant privacy notices. A common theme in many cases has been a lack of transparency.