header-logo header-logo

21 March 2025
Issue: 8110 / Categories: Legal News , Sanctions , International , Profession
printer mail-detail

Law firm’s Moscow office breached sanctions

A branch of law firm Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) has been fined for breaches of UK financial sanctions on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine

Herbert Smith Freehills CIS (HSF Moscow) was the subsidiary office to HSF London until it was closed on 31 May 2022 due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of that year.

However, HSF Moscow made six payments totalling more than £3.9m to designated persons subject to an asset freeze—Alfa-Bank JSC, PJSC Sovcombank, and PJSC Sberbank. The payments were made over seven days as the firm wound down.

Consequently, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) has fined HSF Moscow £465,000 for the breach.

Emma Reynolds, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, said: ‘HSF London, on behalf of HSF Moscow, voluntarily disclosed the breaches to OFSI, and therefore a 50% reduction has been applied to the final penalty amount.’

OFSI emphasised that it found no fault with the actions of the parent company, HSF London.

James Clark, partner at Quillon Law, said: ‘This is a cautionary tale for businesses withdrawing from the Russian market—particularly law firms.

‘While OFSI stressed that it was issuing the monetary penalty against HSF Moscow, and that it found no fault with the actions of the parent company, it was HSF London that was left to pick up the bill. OFSI’s decision to impose a monetary penalty and publish detailed findings in that regard demonstrates their commitment to promoting better compliance with the UK sanctions regime, and highlights the importance of disclosing any potential breaches.’

Issue: 8110 / Categories: Legal News , Sanctions , International , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll