On 19 October, an article from Wolters Kluwer Asia Pacific was said to be the first in a series of 3 concerned with the potential impact of economic sanctions on arbitral and financial institutions.  They will address critical issues faced by such institutions as a result of restrictions on transfers of funds under primary and secondary sanctions programmes.  Subsequent entries Subsequent articles will focus on US secondary sanctions against Iran and against Russia.  The first discusses the potential effects of asset freezes.  It points out that, in general, sanctions regimes do not prohibit the submission to arbitration of disputes involving one or more targeted parties.  However, sanctions imposing an asset freeze usually prohibit making available to designated persons, directly or indirectly, any assets or economic resources.  Hence, it might be unlawful to transfer back the unused portion of an advance on costs, and it may need to be placed in a frozen account instead.

Any modest contributions for my time and ongoing expenses are welcomed!  I have a page where you can do so, and where one-off contributions start as low as $3, at

Author: raytodd2017

Chartered Legal Executive and former senior manager with Isle of Man Customs and Excise, where I was (amongst other things) Sanctions Officer (for UN/EU sanctions), Export Licensing Officer and Manager of the Legal-Library & Collectorate Support Section

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s