The Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regulations (Regulations)[1], introduced in April 2021, has undermined due process in the UK. The Regulations allow the Foreign Secretary and his officials to apply the full force of the financial sanctions regime to individuals whom they claim they have reasonable grounds to suspect of being involved in serious corruption – however indirectly – whilst denying them the same means to challenge such a serious accusation as would have been available in the criminal jurisdiction.
Under the Regulations, such individuals can face far reaching consequences with little judicial oversight or ability to challenge the evidence and designation decisions.
Unlike in relation to asset freezing measures, where an applicant for a restraint or freezing order has high duties of disclosure and where a judge must be satisfied that an order should be granted, in these Regulations cases the freezing of assets and all the associated adverse effects can be affected by the whim of the Foreign Secretary and his officials. There is no court involvement at the designation stage, and the disclosure and scrutiny of such decisions is nowhere near the same level of openness, let alone the imposition on the government of any sort of burden of proof.
The long-standing presumption of innocence, the burden of proof and due process in UK criminal cases
The presumption of innocence and burden of proof in English Law goes back hundreds of years, finding its origins in “Christian theology wherein convicting an innocent person was regarded as a mortal sin”. In Woolmington v DPP.[2] Visount Sankey famously summarised the importance of the doctrine:
‘Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…’
This “golden thread” of the presumption of innocence, appears to be broken when it comes to sanctions designation decisions, when an individual can be publicly labelled as “corrupt” with little persuasive evidence and certainly evidence falling well short of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” following a contested trial.
Lack of due process in Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regulations cases
Specifically, the Regulations provide that a political appointee (the Secretary of State) may designate an individual as “corrupt” and apply an asset freeze and immigration-related travel restrictions on individuals on the basis, alone, that there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” that a person is or has been involved in serious corruption[3]. Moreover, the Regulations give the widest possible scope for what is meant by serious corruption. It is enough if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is or has been involved in serious corruption; is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by a person who is or has been so involved; is acting on behalf of or at the direction of a person who is or has been so involved; or is a member of, or associated with, a person who is or has been so involved. Furthermore, a person is defined as being involved in serious corruption if:
- (a) the person is responsible for or engages in serious corruption;
- (b) the person facilitates or provides support for serious corruption;
- (c) the person profits financially or obtains any other benefit from serious corruption;
- (d) the person conceals or disguises, or facilitates the concealment or disguise of—
- (i) serious corruption, or
- (ii) any profit or proceeds from serious corruption;
- (e) the person transfers or converts, or facilitates the transfer or conversion of, any profit or proceeds from serious corruption;
- (f) the person is responsible for the investigation or prosecution of serious corruption and intentionally or recklessly fails to fulfil that responsibility, or
- (g) the person uses threats, intimidation or physical force to interfere in, or otherwise interferes in, any law enforcement or judicial process in connection with serious corruption;
- (h) the person contravenes, or assists with the contravention of, any offence under Part 3 of the Regulations[4].
If mounted in criminal (proceeds of crime) or civil recovery proceedings, the making of such allegations could be properly challenged in court, in open proceedings. Not so under the Regulations, when designation can only be challenged after the event, and only on the grounds of irrationality, and only once an entirely pointless appeal to the government department itself has been rejected.
Adverse effects of designation
Designation under the Regulations has the practical impact of an individual being publicly named as a criminal, having assets frozen and travel restrictions imposed. Even assets held outside the UK are likely to be impacted, as the individual faces difficulty in accessing global financial markets and products.
Being designated as “corrupt” also has profound implications for ongoing business, family relationships and family life.
Updated: 24 April 2025
How Gherson can assist
Gherson’s International Protection Team advises on UK sanctions, including challenges under the Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regulations. With extensive legal and practical experience, we assist with complex, time-sensitive designation matters.
In cases of sanctions designation or potential risk of designation, our team is ready to assist. Reach out to us for confidential and expert legal advice.
If you have any questions arising from this blog, please do not hesitate to contact us for advice, send us an e-mail or, alternatively, follow us on X, Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn to stay-up-to-date.
The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please do not hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.
©Gherson 2025