Sanctioned at Home

Can sanctions be made fairer without becoming less effective? The final episode sets out the reforms proposed by lawyers and former officials, from clearer evidential standards to independent review, along with the arguments against them.

An asset freeze reaches well beyond the person named. Families, employees and businesses get caught up in it, and paying rent, school fees or legal bills requires a licence from OFSI. This episode looks at the human and economic fallout, and at a licensing system practitioners describe as slow and inconsistent.

A designated person can ask the minister to reconsider and then go to court. In practice, the courts give government wide latitude on foreign policy and national security, and few challenges succeed. Through the Shvidler case, which reached the Supreme Court, this episode asks whether the review on offer is meaningful.

How does someone end up on the UK sanctions list? The legal test is “reasonable grounds to suspect,” a far lower bar than a criminal court would accept. This episode looks at how designations are made, what evidence sits behind them, and why the person named often never sees most of it.

Sanctions have become the UK’s go-to foreign policy tool: faster than diplomacy, cheaper than force, and used at a scale few people realise. This episode traces how we got here, from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to the surge in designations after 2022, and asks whether oversight has kept pace.

The UK sanctions regime was built to constrain foreign actors beyond the reach of British Courts. It is a political tool used to apply pressure on regimes or individuals that the British Government cannot constrain.Sanctioned At Home is a podcast series that examines the growing phenomenon of sanctions being applied on individuals who are UK citizens and call the United Kingdom home. The central question in this series is, if these individuals are within the British Courts reach, are sanctions a fair constraint instead of charging them and proving the case in court? Or are sanctions being used as a political tool to achieve political aims? If the latter, are there not other ways in which affected individuals can face the law?