In late August 2024, the UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (“OFSI”), a department within HM Treasury, imposed a monetary penalty of £15,000 on Integral Concierge Services Limited (“ICSL”)—a UK-based property management and concierge company—for serial breaches of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The enforcement action followed an extensive investigation that uncovered ICSL’s involvement in facilitating payments linked to a designated individual subject to the UK’s asset freeze regime. This case exemplifies OFSI’s determination to uphold financial sanctions, particularly in light of the sanctions introduced following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022.

The Underlying Breaches

ICSL’s breaches pertain to its continued provision of property management services for a client designated under the UK’s financial sanctions regime. The individual, referred to as the “Designated Person,” owns a residential property in the UK. In early 2022, the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (“FCDO”) placed the individual under sanctions as part of the UK government’s response to Russia’s aggressive military actions in Ukraine. As a result, the Designated Person was subject to an asset freeze, which prohibited UK businesses from making funds available to or on behalf of the individual without explicit authorization from OFSI.

Despite these legal restrictions, ICSL facilitated a total of 26 payments connected to the management of the Designated Person’s property between 2022 and 2023. These payments, amounting to £15,487.30, included routine expenditures such as rent collection, property maintenance, and the company’s management fees. Importantly, none of these payments were authorized by an OFSI licence, which would have been required to make the funds available to the Designated Person. By facilitating these payments without a licence, ICSL violated Regulations 11(1) and 13(1) of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (“Russia Regulations”), which prohibit making funds available to a designated person directly or indirectly.

In addition to the unauthorized payments, ICSL failed to meet its reporting obligations under two general licences issued by OFSI, which allow for certain transactions under specific conditions. The breaches involved six payments to utilities providers—specifically for gas, electricity, and water services. Although these transactions were not themselves violations of the sanctions regime, ICSL’s failure to comply with the reporting conditions attached to the general licences was deemed a breach of Regulation 67(2) of the Russia Regulations. OFSI did not impose a separate penalty for this reporting failure but cited it as an aggravating factor that contributed to the seriousness of the company’s overall conduct​.

OFSI’s Investigation and ICSL’s Response

OFSI became aware of ICSL’s activities in 2022 through its proactive monitoring of financial transactions involving designated persons. Upon identifying the potential breaches, OFSI initiated an investigation into ICSL’s operations, focusing on the property managed on behalf of the Designated Person. OFSI’s inquiries revealed that ICSL had been providing property management services to the individual since 2015, long before the sanctions were imposed. However, the investigation uncovered that after the individual’s designation in early 2022, ICSL continued its business as usual without any adjustment to its processes to comply with the new legal framework.

The company’s breaches were compounded by its lack of knowledge about financial sanctions and its failure to seek guidance concerning its obligations. During the investigation, ICSL admitted that it had very limited awareness of its responsibilities under the sanctions regime. Despite handling funds on behalf of a designated individual, ICSL did not believe it necessary to seek advice from OFSI or legal experts. The company mistakenly assumed that as long as it avoided direct payments to the Designated Person, it was in compliance with the regulations. However, this assumption was incorrect, as the sanctions also prohibit indirect facilitation of funds or services for the benefit of designated individuals​.

ICSL’s failure to voluntarily disclose the breaches to OFSI further aggravated its position. Under OFSI’s enforcement framework, companies that voluntarily report breaches can benefit from significant reductions in monetary penalties—up to 50% in some cases. However, because ICSL did not come forward voluntarily, it was not eligible for any such reduction. Instead, the company only cooperated with OFSI after the investigation was already underway​.

Compliance Lessons

This case highlights several critical compliance lessons for businesses operating under the UK’s financial sanctions regime. First and foremost, it underscores the importance of understanding the full scope of sanctions obligations, particularly when dealing with high-risk clients, such as those from sanctioned countries or regions. ICSL’s client base consisted primarily of Russian and Ukrainian individuals—a fact that should have prompted the company to undertake a more thorough review of its sanctions obligations in light of the Russia Regulations. Businesses in similar sectors, particularly those managing assets or providing services to high-risk clients, must proactively educate themselves on sanctions risks and seek expert advice where necessary​.

Additionally, the ICSL case underscores the importance of obtaining the necessary licences when dealing with designated persons. Had ICSL applied for a licence from OFSI, there is a possibility that the agency might have granted one, particularly given that OFSI has issued general licences allowing certain types of payments related to the maintenance of properties owned by designated individuals. This case serves as a reminder that failing to seek such authorizations can result in significant penalties, even for seemingly routine transactions​.

OFSI’s enforcement action also highlights the need for businesses to comply with reporting requirements attached to general licences. In ICSL’s case, the failure to report payments for utilities—though not directly related to the sanctions—was considered an aggravating factor, demonstrating that non-compliance with reporting conditions can contribute to the overall severity of enforcement actions​. Lastly, the case emphasizes the value of voluntary disclosure in mitigating penalties. OFSI has made it clear that it values transparency and cooperation from businesses that identify potential breaches. Companies that report issues proactively can benefit from substantial reductions in penalties, as OFSI aims to encourage compliance and cooperation in upholding financial sanctions​.

The enforcement action against ICSL serves as a strong reminder of the importance of robust compliance with financial sanctions. As the UK continues to enforce stringent measures in response to global geopolitical events—like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—businesses must ensure that they fully understand their legal obligations under the sanctions regime. This case is particularly instructive for sectors like property management, where transactions involving designated persons or entities can occur frequently. It also reinforces the necessity of proactive compliance measures, including obtaining licences, adhering to reporting requirements, and promptly disclosing suspected breaches to regulatory authorities.