Anzhelika Khan v The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
[2024] EWHC 361 (Admin)
LLC Synesis v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
14 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 541 (Admin)
High Court
A UK company was sanctioned for selling technology to Belarus that might have been used to hurt people. A court decided the government had good enough reason to suspect this, even if they couldn't prove it completely, and kept the sanctions in place.
Key Facts
- •LLC Synesis (Claimant), a Belarusian technology company, was sanctioned by the UK under the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
- •The sanctions stemmed from the Claimant's provision of the 'Kipod' video surveillance system to Belarus's Republican System for Monitoring Public Safety (RSMPS), allegedly used to repress civil society.
- •The Claimant challenged the designation, arguing the evidence was insufficient and the decision disproportionate.
- •The Defendant (Secretary of State) argued they had reasonable grounds to suspect Synesis' involvement in human rights abuses through its technology.
- •The case centered on whether the Defendant met the 'reasonable grounds to suspect' threshold under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA) and the 2019 Regulations.
Legal Principles
Reasonable grounds to suspect
SAMLA, Section 11(2)(a) and Regulation 6(1)(a) of the 2019 Regulations
Standard of review for judicial review under SAMLA Section 38(4)
SAMLA, Section 38(4)
Proportionality of the decision
Implied under human rights law and considered by the Defendant
Interpretation of SAMLA and the 2019 Regulations in line with their purpose to promote human rights and democracy
SAMLA, Section 1 and Regulation 4 of the 2019 Regulations
Outcomes
The claim was dismissed.
The court found the Defendant had reasonable grounds to suspect Synesis' involvement in human rights abuses, based on the evidence presented, even if it fell short of the standard required in civil proceedings. The court emphasized that 'reasonable grounds to suspect' doesn't require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court rejected the claimant's arguments regarding the standard of proof, the rationality of the decision and proportionality.
Similar Cases
Eugene Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
[2023] EWHC 2121 (Admin)
PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Boris Mints & Ors
[2023] EWHC 118 (Comm)
Dr Imad Nassani & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
[2023] EWHC 2853 (Admin)
Dr Imad Naasani, R (on the application of) & Ors v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
[2024] EWHC 2827 (Admin)