One such important development, which has increased uncertainty regarding the scope of sanctions, has arisen from the British Court of Appeal’s recent ruling in Mints v PJSC National Bank Trust and PJSC Bank Okritie Financial Corporation, which was handed down on October 6.

This article summarises the sanctions regime and considers the recent ruling in Mints.

In the context of Russia, Bermuda follows Britain’s sanctions regime through a modified version of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which apply in Bermuda as a result of Regulation 2(1) of the (Bermuda) International Sanctions Regulations 2013.

The regime operates on the basis that, once a person (natural or legal) has been designated (ie, made subject to sanctions), two general principles apply:

  • “Funds” and “economic resources” of the designated person are frozen, such that no person may “deal with” them
  • No person may make “funds” and “economic resources” available to the designated person

A critical conceptual component is “control” over assets, as defined by Regulation 7, which sets percentage requirements for shareholdings in companies, etc, but also imposes a broad catch-all test of whether it is “reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances” to expect that control by the designated person can be exercised, directly or indirectly.

An otherwise prohibited transaction can take place if a licence is issued, under an appropriate statutory ground, by Bermuda’s Financial Sanctions Implementation Unit and the British Secretary of State.

The Mints judgment is important, and legally interesting, in that it considers the application of these principles to litigation itself, in addition to having wider ramifications for the control test under Regulation 7.

The matter involved a claim for $850 million, brought by two Russian banks against members of the Mints family, asserting that the Mints conspired with representatives of the banks to enter into uncommercial transactions.

The claim was brought before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and the second claimant became designated four days after the invasion.

The first claimant, a 99 per cent-owned subsidiary of the Central Bank of Russia, was not individually designated but, on the defendants’ case, was subject to the same asset-freeze owing to being “owned or controlled” by designated persons — including President Vladimir Putin.

Three issues are considered in the ruling: entry of judgment in favour of the claimants, licensing of various costs orders — including payment of costs to a designated person — and “control” over an entity through the exercise of political office.

In respect of the first issue, the court found that entering judgment for the claimants would not make a “fund” available to a designated person.

The “fund” does not come into existence until the judgment is entered — which creates the judgment debt — and the 2019 Regulations contemplate that the fund pre-exists.

The words “make funds available” are also simply not suitable to describe the court’s function in entering judgment.

Further, although a cause of action is an “economic resource”, entering judgment does not involve “dealing with” that resource because it is not exchanged for funds, goods or services — as per Regulation 11(5). Given that the cause of action ceases to exist and is replaced by the judgment — pursuant to the doctrine of merger — there is no exchange.

The court also reached these conclusions without reliance on the principle of legality, ie, that certain fundamental common law rights, specifically the right of access to the courts, will not be treated as restricted unless this is clearly intended by primary legislation.

The defendants were also unsuccessful on the second issue, given that statutory grounds exist to license various costs orders.

Owing to ruling against the defendants on those issues, the court declined to rule on the third issue, but it did provide guidance on this point.

On the basis of the “catch-all” provision in Regulation 7, the court concluded that control is exercised by whoever “calls the shots”.

Consequently, in the context of Russia’s command economy, Mr Putin “could be deemed to control everything in Russia”.

In doing so, the court disagreed with the approach taken in the appealed judgment, which had concluded, in effect, that there was a carve-out in respect of control through political office. The court was driven to this finding on the basis of statutory interpretation.

The court’s ruling, therefore, provides clarity on the first two issues but has increased uncertainty in respect of issue three, due to the much wider ambit of the control test under Regulation 7: any Russian company could potentially be controlled by a designated person, ie, Mr Putin.

Accordingly, anyone undertaking business with a Russian entity should consider this point carefully, and take appropriate legal advice.

First Published in The Royal Gazette, Legally Speaking column, November 2023

Share
X.com LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
2 Jul 2025

Bermuda: Education has helped investors get more comfortable as ILS continues to grow

It’s been an exceptionally busy and record first half of the year for the catastrophe bond sector,...

Appleby-Website-Privacy-and-Data-Protection
25 Jun 2025

Impact of Privacy Law on Bermuda Business

On 1st January 2025, Bermuda’s Personal Information Protection Act 2016 (PIPA) came into full forc...

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
25 Jun 2025

Simplified Due Diligence in Bermuda

Simplified Due Diligence (SDD) and Reduced Due Diligence (RDD) are critical features of a modern, ri...

Appleby-Website-Employment-and-Immigration
23 Jun 2025

Practical Tips for Conducting Workplace Investigations

Allegations of harassment, bullying or other misconduct in the workplace can create a legal mine fie...

Bermuda-1024x576-1
19 Jun 2025

Bermuda encourages investment with residential certificates

On March 31, 2023, the Bermuda Government replaced its previous tool intended to attract capital to ...

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
11 Jun 2025

Bermuda Paves the Way for Captive Insurers with New Stablecoin Policy

The Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) has announced a significant new policy framework that allows ca...

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
10 Jun 2025

Bermuda benefits from a strong and capital efficient regulatory regime

Bermuda’s long-term reinsurance sector is experiencing a new phase of complexity and scrutiny but ...

050-Insolvency-Restructuring-Grid-Image
9 Jun 2025

Bankruptcy & Restructuring – To Enforce, or not to Enforce

Bermuda’s flagship restructuring process is the appointment of provisional liquidators, whose powe...

ICLG Fintech 21 cover
5 Jun 2025

Digital transformation done right (Bermuda)

As any specialised tech lawyer or technology consultant will tell you, digital transformation projec...

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
2 Jun 2025

2025 Global Financial Crisis Stress Test: Bermuda

The Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) has recently published instructions for a significant data coll...