Sanctions 2025 Comparisons

France implements both individual sanctions, targeting natural and legal persons, and sectoral sanctions, decided at the UN, EU and national levels.

Individual sanctions include travel bans and the freezing of assets, and sectoral sanctions include embargoes and other restrictions on the export and import of certain goods.

The scope of the sanctions applied by France as an EU member state can be considered quite broad (although less broad than the scope of US sanctions, for example, because the EU does not apply secondary sanctions), as EU sanctions must be complied with by:

• anyone present in the territory of the EU, including its airspace;
• anyone on board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of an EU member state;
• all nationals of an EU member state, even when outside of the territory of the EU;
• any legal person, entity or body, inside or outside the territory of the EU, which is incorporated or constituted under the law of an EU member state; and
• any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the EU.

First, autonomous sanctions imposed by the French authorities (which are not a mere application of EU or UN restrictive measures) do not have extraterritorial effects.

Second, regarding the scope of application of EU sanctions, they must be complied with by:

• any person inside or outside the territory of the EU who is a national of a member state, and by any legal entity (Article 13(c) of Regulation 833/2014 and Article 17(c) of Regulation 269/2014);
• any legal person, entity or body, inside or outside the territory of the EU, which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a member state; and
• any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part with the EU.

In addition, although in theory the EU has always stated its sanctions would not have any extraterritorial effects, this has been called into question since the 11th package of sanctions against Russia was issued in June 2023. This created the possibility of taking exceptional, last-resort measures restricting the sale, supply, transfer or export of certain goods, such as sensitive dual-use goods and technology or goods and technology that might contribute to the enhancement of Russia’s military, technological and industrial capacities, and whose export is already restricted to third countries whose jurisdiction is at a particularly high and continuing risk of being used for circumvention.

Furthermore, starting in June 2024, Regulation 833/2014 sets out a “best efforts” obligation under Article 8a providing that: “Natural and legal persons, entities and bodies shall undertake their best efforts to ensure that any legal person, entity or body established outside the Union that they own or control does not participate in activities that undermine the restrictive measures provided for in this Regulation”.

In France, sanctions are imposed at three different levels.

• National: France has two different sanctions regimes of its own, in the areas of counterterrorism (Article L. 562-2 of the French Monetary and Financial Code) and defence of the national interest (Article L. 151-2 of the Monetary and Financial Code), under which it can impose asset freezing, restrictions on transactions and embargoes.
• EU: As an EU member state, France is bound by the restrictive measures decided by the Council of the EU that concern either natural or legal persons subject to sanctions such as asset freezing or travel bans, or to sectors of activity (eg, finance or fertilisers).
• UN: As an EU member state and member of the UN Security Council, France is also bound by the restrictive measures decided at the UN level, which, like those of the EU, relate either to a geographical area – targeting natural persons and legal entities – or to themes such as nuclear non-proliferation.

In the EU, member states are responsible for enforcing the sanctions created by the Council of the EU.

In France, restrictive measures are enforced by the French Treasury, the Directorate General for Enterprise and French Customs.

Regarding criminal enforcement of sanctions, pursuant to Articles 453 and 454 of the Customs Code, the following authorities are empowered to document violations of sanctions law, as well as to conduct searches and seizures:

• customs officers;
• officers of the finance administration holding the rank of controller or higher; and
• criminal investigation officers and customs officers, as referred to in Article 28-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Reports by these authorities are then submitted to the Minister of the Economy and Finance, who may in turn refer the matter to the public prosecutor if deemed appropriate.

In France, criminal prosecutions are initiated by the public prosecutor. However, proceedings for breaches of sanctions under Article 459 of the Customs Code may only be initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint by the Minister of the Economy and Finance or an authorised representative, pursuant to Article 458 of the Customs Code.

Regarding civil enforcement of restrictive measures, there are no civil penalties or fines for a sanctions violation committed by entities subject only to the rules set out under Article 459 of the Customs Code. However, those under the supervision of the Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority (Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution, ACPR), as defined in Article L. 612-1 et seq of the Monetary and Financial Code (such as banks, insurance companies, trustees and asset managers), may be subject to specific administrative sanctions or financial penalties. Administrative breaches of financial sanctions are therefore investigated by the ACPR, France’s financial regulatory authority.

At the French Level

At the criminal level, Article 459 of the French Customs Code criminalises having “contravened or attempted to contravene the laws and regulations governing financial relations with foreign countries, either by failing to comply with reporting or repatriation obligations, or by failing to observe prescribed procedures or formalities, or by failing to obtain the required authorisations or to meet the conditions attached to such authorisations”, and “contravening or attempting to contravene measures restricting economic and financial relations provided for by Community regulations adopted pursuant to Article 75 or 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or by international treaties and agreements duly approved and ratified by France”.

Under these provisions, the breaching of a sanction is a criminal offence, regardless of whether the sanction originates from the French national sanctions regime or is ratified by France – ie, originates from the EU or UN.

Article 459 also provides for the criminalisation of incitement, by means of writing, propaganda or advertising, to commit one of the offences referred to in the foregoing, whether or not the incited offence is actually carried out.

Potential penalties for breaching sanctions for natural persons include:

• five years’ imprisonment;
• confiscation of the corpus delicti;
• confiscation of the means of transport used to commit the offence;
• confiscation of property and assets that are the direct or indirect proceeds of the offence; and
• a fine at least equal to, and at most twice, the amount associated with the offence or attempted offence.

Incitement to breach sanctions is punished by five years’ imprisonment and a fine of between EUR450 and EUR225,000.

Legal persons risk:

• dissolution;
• a permanent ban, or a ban for a maximum of five years, on directly or indirectly exercising one or more professional or social activities;
• placement, for a maximum of five years, under judicial supervision;
• permanent closure, or closure for a maximum of five years, of one or more of the establishments of the company used to commit the offence;
• permanent exclusion from public contracts or exclusion for a maximum of five years;
• a ban, either permanently or for a maximum of five years, on making a public offer of financial securities or on having their financial securities admitted to trading on a regulated market;
• a ban, for a maximum of five years, on issuing cheques other than those enabling the drawer to withdraw funds from the drawee or those who are certified, or on using payment cards;
• publication of the decision either in the written press or by any electronic means of communication to the public;
• a ban, for a period of up to five years, on receiving any public aid allocated by the state, local authorities, their establishments or groupings, as well as on any financial aid paid by a private person entrusted with a public service mission; and
• confiscations.

Article 459 specifies that “where, for any reason whatsoever, the objects liable to confiscation have not been seized or are not represented by the offender, or where the Minister for the Budget or his representative so requests, the Court must, in lieu of confiscation, order payment of a sum equal to the value of these objects”.

At the civil and administrative level, pursuant to Article L. 561-36 et seq of the Monetary and Financial Code, any breach or circumvention by an entity subject to the supervision of the ACPR of financial sanctions set forth in Articles L. 562-1 and L. 562-3 of the same Code – or of any related obligations – may, in addition to applicable criminal penalties, give rise to administrative sanctions under Article L. 612-39 of the Monetary and Financial Code. These sanctions include:

• a warning;
• a reprimand;
• prohibition of conducting certain transactions or other restrictions on business activities;
• temporary suspension of one or more executives;
• compulsory dismissal of one or more executives;
• partial withdrawal of authorisation to operate; and
• full withdrawal of authorisation or removal from the register of authorised entities.

Furthermore, under Article L. 561-36-1 IV of the Monetary and Financial Code, the ACPR may impose civil financial penalties of up to EUR100 million or 10% of the entity’s annual turnover, whichever amount is greater.

At the EU Level

In April 2024, the EU adopted Directive (EU) 2024/1226, which created the European criminal offence of violation of sanctions. In particular, Article 3 of the Directive provides for the following punishable behaviours:

• making funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of a designated person, entity or body in violation of a prohibition that constitutes an EU restrictive measure;
• failing to freeze funds or economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by, a designated person, entity or body in violation of an obligation that constitutes an EU restrictive measure;
• enabling designated natural persons to enter into, or transit through, the territory of a member state in violation of a prohibition that constitutes an EU restrictive measure;
• entering into or continuing transactions with a third state, bodies of a third state, or entities or bodies directly or indirectly owned or controlled by a third state or by bodies of a third state, including the award or continued execution of public or concession contracts where the prohibition or restriction of that conduct constitutes an EU restrictive measure;
• trading, importing, exporting, selling, purchasing, transferring, transiting or transporting goods, as well as providing brokering services, technical assistance or other services relating to those goods, where the prohibition or restriction of that conduct constitutes an EU restrictive measure, including where committed with serious negligence, and at least where that conduct relates to items included in the Common Military List of the European Union or to dual-use items listed in Annexes I and IV to Regulation (EU) 2021/821;
• providing financial services or performing financial activities, where the prohibition or restriction of that conduct constitutes an EU restrictive measure;
• providing services other than those referred to in the preceding bullet point, where the prohibition or restriction of that conduct constitutes an EU restrictive measure;
• circumventing an EU restrictive measure by:
1. using, transferring to a third party, or otherwise disposing of funds or economic resources directly or indirectly owned, held or controlled by a designated person, entity or body, and which are to be frozen pursuant to an EU restrictive measure, in order to conceal those funds or economic resources;
2. providing false or misleading information to conceal the fact that a designated person, entity or body is the ultimate owner or beneficiary of funds or economic resources that are to be frozen pursuant to an EU restrictive measure;
3. failure by a designated natural person, or by a representative of a designated entity or body, to comply with an obligation that constitutes an EU restrictive measure to report to the competent administrative authorities funds or economic resources within the jurisdiction of a member state belonging to, owned, held or controlled by them; or
4. failing to comply with an obligation that constitutes an EU restrictive measure to provide the competent administrative authorities with information on frozen funds or economic resources, or information held about funds or economic resources within the territory of member states, belonging to, owned, held or controlled by designated persons, entities or bodies that have not been frozen, and where such information was obtained in the performance of a professional duty; and
• breaching or failing to fulfil conditions attached to authorisations granted by competent authorities to conduct activities that, in the absence of such an authorisation, amount to a violation of a prohibition or restriction that constitutes an EU restrictive measure.

Concerning penalties faced by natural persons, Article 5 of the Directive leaves some leeway to EU member states but provides several indications concerning minimum fines and terms of imprisonment (from one year to five years or a maximum terms of three years, depending on the offence committed).

It also provides for accessory criminal or non-criminal penalties or measures, which may include:

• fines that are proportionate to the gravity of the conduct and to the individual, financial and other circumstances of the natural person concerned;
• withdrawal of permits and authorisations to pursue activities that resulted in the criminal offence;
• disqualification from holding, by a legal person, a leading position of the same type used for committing the criminal offence;
• temporary bans on running for public office; and
• publication of all or part of the judicial decision.

Concerning legal persons, Article 7 of the Directive provides for the following potential penalties:

• exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid;
• exclusion from access to public funding, including tender procedures, grants and concessions;
• disqualification from the practice of business activities;
• withdrawal of permits and authorisations to pursue activities that resulted in the relevant criminal offence;
• placement under judicial supervision;
• judicial winding-up;
• closure of establishments used for committing the criminal offence; and
• where there is a public interest, publication of all or part of the judicial decision relating to the criminal offence committed and the penalties or measures imposed, without prejudice to rules on privacy and the protection of personal data.

The Directive provides for minimum fines, varying depending on the offence committed. The Directive was implemented in France through Decree No 2015-470 of 28 May 2025, which gave competence to the Advisory Board on Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing to ensure co-ordination and co-operation between law enforcement agencies and the authorities responsible for implementing EU restrictive measures (Article D561-51 of the Monetary and Financial Code). As explained in the foregoing, given that criminal penalties for sanctions violations were already in effect under French law, the transposition of the Directive did not bring any substantial changes.

As explained in the foregoing, the ACPR exercises civil enforcement over entities under its supervision, such as banks, insurers and asset managers, especially regarding asset-freeze obligations under UN and EU restrictive measures.

On 27 June 2024, the ACPR Sanctions Committee fined a major French bank EUR2.5 million for deficiencies in transaction monitoring, insufficient enhanced due diligence and failure to report suspicious transactions, in violation of sanctions law.

Examples of key criminal enforcement actions in respect of sanctions breaches in France in the last few years include:

• the Lafarge trial, which related to the financing of ISIS in breach of EU and UN sanctions – in October 2024, the Paris court ordered the trial of Lafarge and eight former executives for alleged terrorist financing activities;
• The Baltic Leader trial – in July 2024, the Rouen Prosecutor sought EUR8 million in fines, confiscation of a vessel and a ten-month suspended prison sentence for a captain accused of breaching Russian sanctions by departing Rouen with a Russian-flagged vessel controlled by a sanctioned bank, who was subsequently acquitted on all charges; and

• the issuance in April 2025 – by the French media regulator Arcom – of an order to Eutelsat to cease the broadcasting of two channels owned or controlled by JSC National Media Group, which is a designated person under the EU’s Russian sanctions.

More generally, since 2022, several criminal investigations have been launched in France against Russian oligarchs for circumventing EU sanctions, primarily involving money laundering, tax fraud and asset concealment. In March 2024, proceedings targeted Ruslan Goryukhin and Mikhail Opengeym, accused of hiding over EUR70 million in real estate through offshore structures. In 2022, Igor Sechin became the subject of an investigation after his yacht was seized in La Ciotat for attempting to evade asset freezing measures. In 2023, Alexey Kuzmichev was indicted in Paris for aggravated tax fraud and sanctions violations. Assets linked to Artur Ocheretny and Iekaterina Solotsinskaya were also seized in the Basque Country and Paris in similar cases. Since 2023, the French National Financial Prosecutor’s Office and the anti-organised crime unit (Junalco) have intensified their investigative activities targeting individuals and entities under EU sanctions.

Article 132-78 of the French Criminal Code provides for two mitigating circumstances that are applicable only to certain offences, when provided by law, namely:

• an individual who attempted to instigate an offence but alerted the administrative or judicial authorities, and therefore prevented the offence from being committed and, where applicable, made it possible to identify the other perpetrators or accomplices, is exempt from punishment; and
• the sentence will be reduced if the perpetrator of an offence notified the administrative or judicial authority and thus made it possible to put a stop to the offence, to prevent the offence from causing damage or to identify other authors or accomplices.

At the EU level, Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2024/1226 provides for two different mitigating circumstances, and requires that member states implement at least one in their legal system:

• when the offender provides the competent authorities with information they would not otherwise have been able to obtain, helping them to identify or bring to justice the other offenders; and
• when the offender provides the competent authorities with information they would not otherwise have been able to obtain, helping them to find evidence.

French law is reluctant to take mitigating circumstances into account in general, and already provides for the first mitigating circumstance required by the Directive. The second one, which is a lot broader, was not integrated into French law when the Directive was implemented.

Violations of sanctions, as provided by Article 459 of the French Customs Code cited in the foregoing, are referred to in French law as formal offences, which, as opposed to material offences, are constituted by the mere characterisation of the behaviour, without the prosecution having to prove the underlying intent to actually violate sanctions. The French sanctions regimes therefore operate on the basis of strict liability.

Strict liability does not apply to all offences under French law, but it does apply to sanctions-related offences, which are treated as formal offences. In other areas of law, criminal liability generally requires mens rea (intent or negligence), unless otherwise specified.

France applies the derogations provided by the Council of the EU’s Decisions and Regulations in its different sanctions regimes.

Currently, most of the sanctions-related matters concern Russia. In this regard, Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine provide for several derogations to its sanctions, including:

• the sale, supply, transfer or export of dual-use goods and technology – or the provision of related technical or financial assistance – for non-military use and for a non-military end user, when such goods or technology or the related technical or financial assistance are either intended to aid co-operation between the EU, the governments of member states and the government of Russia in purely civilian matters, or are intended to aid intergovernmental co-operation in space programmes;
• the provision of insurance or reinsurance after 20 June 2024 to any legal person, entity or body that is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State with regard to its activities outside the energy sector in Russia;
• the provision of financial assistance when necessary for the urgent prevention or mitigation of an event likely to have a serious and significant impact on human health and safety, or on the environment; and
• the authorisation for an aircraft to land in, take off from or overfly the territory of, the EU for humanitarian purposes.

Such derogations must be requested by the persons seeking them from the national competent authorities – ie, the French Treasury, the Directorate General for Enterprise or the French Customs, depending on the derogation sought.

By adopting Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2474 of 16 December 2022, amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions in destabilising the situation in Ukraine, the Council of the EU adopted a general prohibition of the provision of legal services to the government of Russia or legal persons, entities or bodies established in Russia, as enshrined in Article 5(n)(2) of Regulation 833/2014.

However, at the time, it already provided for some derogations, and others were added by Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1214 of 23 June 2023 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions in destabilising the situation in Ukraine. The most common ones can be found in paragraphs 5, 6, 9(a) and 9(b) of Regulation 833/2014, as follows:

• the provision of services that are strictly necessary for the exercise of the right of defence in judicial proceedings and the right to an effective legal remedy;
• the provision of services that are strictly necessary to ensure access to judicial, administrative or arbitral proceedings in a member state, as well as for the recognition or enforcement of a judgment or an arbitration award rendered in a member state; and
• the provision of services that are strictly necessary for the setting up, certification or evaluation of a firewall that removes control, by a sanctioned natural or legal person, over the assets of a non-listed legal person, entity or body incorporated or constituted under the law of a member state, and which is owned or controlled by the former, as long as no further funds or economic resources accrue to the benefit of the listed natural or legal person, entity or body.

In December 2022, the Paris Bar (Ordre des avocats à la Cour de Paris), supported by the Geneva Bar, filed an action for annulment contesting the ban on providing non‑litigious legal advice to the Russian state and entities in Russia (case T-798/22). By a judgment dated 2 October 2024, the court ruled the challenges were unfounded and dismissed the annulment request. Notably, it held that (i) Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU protect access to legal advice only in the context of judicial administrative or arbitral proceedings; (ii) non-litigation is outside this scope; and (iii) the ban includes sufficiently broad exceptions. The applicants appealed this decision before the CJEU (case C-866/24).

Article 459 of the French Customs Code provides for the criminalisation of having “contravened or attempted to contravene the laws and regulations governing financial relations with foreign countries, either by failing to comply with reporting or repatriation obligations, or by failing to observe prescribed procedures or formalities, or by failing to obtain the required authorisations or to meet the conditions attached to such authorisations”, and “contravening or attempting to contravene measures restricting economic and financial relations provided for by Community regulations adopted pursuant to Article 75 or 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or by international treaties and agreements duly approved and ratified by France”.

The Code therefore encompasses circumvention of French, EU and UN sanctions, which are the only sanctions implemented in France.

At the EU level, and since April 2024, the circumvention of EU sanctions is also a criminal offence pursuant to Article 3(h) of Directive 2024/1226, which details the behaviours targeted:

“(i) using, transferring to a third party, or otherwise disposing of, funds or economic resources directly or indirectly owned, held or controlled by a designated person, entity or body, which are to be frozen pursuant to a Union restrictive measure, in order to conceal those funds or economic resources;

(ii) providing false or misleading information to conceal the fact that a designated person, entity or body is the ultimate owner or beneficiary of funds or economic resources which are to be frozen pursuant to a Union restrictive measure;

(iii) failure by a designated natural person, or by a representative of a designated entity or body, to comply with an obligation that constitutes a Union restrictive measure to report to the competent administrative authorities funds or economic resources within the jurisdiction of a Member State, belonging to, owned, held or controlled by them;

(iv) failing to comply with an obligation that constitutes a Union restrictive measure to provide the competent administrative authorities with information on frozen funds or economic resources or information held about funds or economic resources within the territory of the Member States, belonging to, owned, held or controlled by designated persons, entities or bodies and which have not been frozen, where such information was obtained in the performance of a professional duty”.

As cited in 7.3.1 Prohibiting Provisions, Article 459 of the French Customs Code provides for the criminalisation of circumvention of sanctions. This offence is punishable by five years’ imprisonment, confiscations and a fine. Until 12 June 2024, there was an additional penalty prohibiting those convicted for this offence to act as stockbrokers, or to be voters or elected members of chambers of commerce, commercial courts or industrial tribunals. However, this provision was declared unconstitutional and effectively taken out of Article 459 of the Customs Code by Constitutional Council decision No 2024-1096 QPC of 12 June 2024. The judge ruled that this provision established an additional penalty of disqualification that would apply automatically and without the criminal court being able to adjust its duration, in violation of the principle of individualisation of penalties. It was effectively taken out of Article 459.

On 24 April 2024, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU adopted Directive 2024/1226 on the definition of criminal offences and sanctions for violations of EU restrictive measures, amending Directive (EU) 2018/1673. Article 3 of this text establishes minimum rules on the definition of criminal offences and sanctions for violations of EU restrictive measures. This includes measures concerning the freezing of funds and economic resources, prohibitions on making funds and economic resources available, and prohibitions on entry into or transit through the territory of a member state, as well as sectoral economic and financial measures and arms embargoes.

As explained in the foregoing, the Directive was implemented in France through Decree No 2015-470 of 28 May 2025.