Sanctions 2026 Comparisons

The sanctions landscape in Portugal remains highly complex and is driven almost entirely by developments at EU level. EU restrictive measures have continued to expand and be refined – particularly in relation to Russia/Ukraine and other geopolitical hotspots – with frequent amendments to listings and sectoral restrictions.

Law No 97/2017 of 23 August, as amended by Law No 58/2020 of 31 August, regulates the application and enforcement of restrictive measures adopted by the United Nations or the European Union and establishes the system of penalties applicable to breaches of those measures.

In 2024, the EU adopted Directive (EU) 2024/1226 on the definition of criminal offences and penalties for the violation of Union restrictive measures. The Directive harmonises the criminalisation of sanctions breaches and establishes minimum rules on penalties, which member states, including Portugal, must transpose, further raising the compliance bar for companies and financial institutions. The European Commission opened infringement procedures against 18 member states, including Portugal, for failing to transpose Directive (EU) 2024/1226 within the prescribed timeframe, underscoring the importance attached to the effective application of Union restrictive measures.

Finally, in December 2025, Portugal transposed Directive (EU) 2024/1226 through Law No 72/2025 of 23 December. The sanctions environment in Portugal is now more demanding than a year ago, particularly for regulated financial and capital markets entities. Before Law No 72/2025, breaches of the Union’s restrictive measures were punished mainly as administrative offences; nowadays, criminal penalties have become the predominant form of sanction for this type of conduct, in a clear move to strengthen the coercive nature of these measures.

Under Law No 72/2025 of 23 December, the Portuguese Penal Code has been amended so that breaches of the restrictive measures set out in Article 28 of Law No 97/2017 of 23 August now constitute predicate offences for the crime of money laundering.

At EU level, sanctions enforcement is being strengthened through criminal law. Directive (EU) 2024/1226 was transposed by Law No 72/2025 of 23 December. It sets out minimum rules on the criminalisation of sanctions violations and on the level of penalties. It seeks to prevent the circumvention of EU sanctions, including those adopted following the Russian aggression against Ukraine. Harmonising national criminal law in this field will facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violations of EU sanctions in all member states, making EU restrictive measures more effective.

Law No 83/2017 of 18 August sets out the Portuguese framework on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. In 2025 it was amended by Law No 70/2025 of 22 December to implement measures under Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 on information accompanying transfers of funds and certain crypto‑assets.

Sanctions compliance affects the entire economy, but some sectors are particularly exposed. Banking and financial services are at the forefront, given their central role in implementing asset freezes, blocking payments and monitoring transactions; credit and financial institutions are subject to detailed screening obligations under the AML/CTF framework.

Capital‑markets participants – including investment firms, fund managers and custodians – are also heavily impacted, notably by restrictions on dealing in certain securities, on new debt and equity issues and on providing investment services to listed persons.

Insurance and pensions, as well as sectors engaged in international trade in sensitive goods – such as energy, commodities, shipping/logistics and dual‑use or high‑technology products – are likewise significantly affected by trade and sectoral measures in the EU regimes.

Other entities affected by sanctions regulations include, in particular, entities engaged in the import, export, purchase, sale, transfer, transit or transport of goods, auditors, statutory auditors and accountants, estate agents, traders dealing in high-value goods, gambling operators and crypto-asset service providers, amongst others.

The authorities with regulatory, supervisory and/or enforcement powers as well as the aim to promote good practices include the following:

• Bank of Portugal;
• Portuguese Securities Market Commission (CMVM);
• Insurance and Pension Funds Supervisory Authority;
• General Inspectorate of Finance;
• Inspectorate-General of the Ministry of Labour, Solidarity and Social Security;
• Gaming Regulation and Inspection Service of Turismo de Portugal, I. P.;
• Institute for Public Procurement, Real Estate and Construction, I. P. (IMPIC, I. P.);
• Food and Economic Safety Authority (ASAE); and
• Committee for the Co-Ordination of Policies to Prevent and Combat Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism.

Supervision of compliance by obliged entities is primarily carried out through the AML/CTF framework. Banco de Portugal supervises banks, payment institutions and other financial intermediaries; the CMVM (Portuguese Securities Market Commission) oversees investment firms, fund managers and capital markets participants; and the ASF (Insurance and Pension Funds Supervisory Authority) is responsible for insurers, reinsurers and pension fund entities. Other bodies, such as the Tax and Customs Authority and ASAE, have roles in enforcing trade and customs-related aspects of sanctions. Where breaches amount to criminal offences under national law, investigations and prosecutions are carried out by the Public Prosecution Service (Ministério Público) before the criminal courts.

Created in 2015, the Committee for the Co-Ordination of Policies to Prevent and Combat Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism is under the supervision of the Ministry of Finance. Its main mission is to assess and propose the adoption of preventive measures on fighting AML/CTF.

The Directorate-General for Foreign Policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Office for Planning, Strategy, Evaluation and International Relations of the Ministry of Finance jointly exercise the powers of the competent national authorities in relation to restrictive measures.

It is the responsibility of these authorities to:

• co-ordinate the implementation of restrictive measures in conjunction with other public bodies with relevant remit;
• provide information and clarification to any person or entity regarding restrictive measures, by publishing the acts approving, amending or terminating such measures; and
• draw up and regularly update a best-practice manual for the effective implementation of restrictive measures.

The entities mentioned in Law 97/2017 must co-operate with the national competent authorities – namely the Directorate General for Foreign Policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Office for Planning, Strategy, Evaluation and International Relations of the Ministry of Finance – by providing any information that facilitates the application of restrictive measures and must immediately inform those authorities whenever they execute a measure, such as freezing funds or economic resources.

When an executing entity becomes aware of, or suspects, any act or omission that may constitute a breach of a restrictive measure, it must immediately report this to the Prosecutor General and to the national competent authorities (a formal criminal denunciation).

Supervisory bodies, such as, for example, the Bank of Portugal, have a parallel duty whenever, in the course of supervision, they detect facts that may amount to such violations, and failure to comply with certain communication obligations that form part of a restrictive measure can itself constitute a criminal offence.

In addition, under Law 83/2017, all obliged entities (financial and specified non-financial) must immediately report to the Public Prosecutor’s Office whenever they know, suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that funds or assets are proceeds of crime or related to terrorist financing, abstaining from executing suspicious operations and following the suspension and reporting procedure in Articles 43, 44 and 47, while sector-specific notices from the Bank of Portugal and the Authority for Food and Economic Safety further detail and reinforce these duties, including the obligations to communicate and denounce under Articles 23 and 24 of Law 97/2017 and to act as interlocutors with the national competent authorities.

In the past three years, notable sanctions related developments in Portugal have included:

• the first publicly reported appellate decisions in criminal cases on alleged breaches of EU Russia sanctions, namely the judgments of the Lisbon Court of Appeal of 24 May 2023 (Case 472/22.2TELSB A.L1 3) and 6 February 2025 (Case 102/23.5TELSB B.L1 3), which confirm that suspected violations of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 are being investigated and assessed as the crime of violation of a restrictive measure under Portuguese law;
• the adoption of Law No 72/2025, transposing Directive (EU) 2024/1226 and strengthening the criminal framework for enforcing EU restrictive measures by refining offences, penalties and corporate liability in line with the EU harmonised regime; and
• the progressive reinforcement of the sanctions compliance and enforcement framework through enhanced reporting duties, clearer supervisory expectations and closer co-ordination between financial supervisors, administrative authorities and criminal enforcement bodies, as reflected in recent amendments to the national regime and sectoral instruments issued by the Bank of Portugal and the Authority for Food and Economic Safety.

The main “forward-looking” change has in effect already occurred: Law 72/2025 of 23 December, substantially strengthens the criminal framework for enforcing EU restrictive measures in Portugal, by broadening and detailing the offence of violation of restrictive measures, introducing high turnover-based fines for legal persons, adding specific aggravating and mitigating circumstances and whistle-blower protection, and republishing the national sanctions regime in consolidated form.

In parallel, Portuguese authorities have publicly intensified their enforcement activity. The Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Tax and Customs Authority are reportedly conducting investigations into suspected breaches and circumvention of EU Russia-related sanctions, including scrutiny of trade flows through third countries. These investigations may result in the first significant Portuguese enforcement precedents in this area.

Because Portugal implements UN and EU restrictive measures primarily through EU law and Law 97/2017, the procedure depends on whether the person challenges the EU listing itself or a Portuguese implementing act.

For listings adopted by the European Union (for example, under Regulations 269/2014, 833/2014, etc), the person or entity is informed of the decision and the reasons, either directly or by notice in the Official Journal, and is given the opportunity to submit observations and a request for reconsideration to the Council. The Council must review the listing considering any observations or new evidence and may amend or remove the name. In parallel, the listed person can bring an action for annulment before the General Court of the European Union under Article 263 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union within two months of the communication or, failing that, of publication.

At national level, Articles 20 and 21 of Law 97/2017 provide that any act of a Portuguese public entity that applies or executes restrictive measures is subject to judicial challenge “under the general terms”, meaning that the person must use the ordinary Portuguese rules on judicial review of administrative acts rather than a special sanctions appeal body.

Where the complaint actually concerns the underlying UN or EU act (for example, the inclusion in a UN or EU list) but is submitted to the Portuguese competent authorities, those authorities must forward it within ten working days to the body competent to decide at UN or EU level, without this implying any support by the Portuguese state for the complaint.

Under the sanctions framework applicable in Portugal, a successful delisting challenge may result in the removal of the individual or entity from the relevant sanctions list, the lifting of the associated restrictive measures (including asset freezes and prohibitions on making funds or economic resources available), and the release of frozen assets. It may also lead to a judicial finding that the listing was unlawful, for example due to insufficient evidence, inadequate reasoning, or procedural defects. While damages may in principle be sought, particularly in the context of unlawful EU sanctions listings, compensation is exceptional and requires proof of an unlawful act, actual loss and a causal link between the two. Consequently, the primary and most common outcome of a delisting challenge is the annulment of the listing and the cessation of the sanctions measures.

The timeframe for obtaining delisting varies depending on the sanctions regime and the route pursued, as there is no statutory deadline for obtaining delisting.

Proceedings before the General Court of the European Union typically take around 18 months on average, although the duration of sanctions cases may vary depending on their complexity and any subsequent appeal.

Portugal does not have an autonomous, across-the-board prohibition on the export or import of services, but a number of sector-specific service bans apply in Portugal because they are laid down in directly applicable EU sanctions regulations.

The most extensive restrictions currently concern Russia and Belarus. Under Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, as amended, EU persons are prohibited from providing a broad range of services to the Russian government and persons established in Russia, including accounting, auditing, bookkeeping, tax consulting, business and management consulting, public relations, architectural and engineering, IT consultancy, legal advisory (subject to exceptions), advertising, market research, product testing, technical inspection, software, cloud computing and certain technology-related services. Additional restrictions apply in sectors such as financial services, transport, energy and telecommunications. Similar service restrictions exist under other EU sanctions regimes where applicable. Portugal has not adopted separate national prohibitions on the export or import of services beyond those established under EU law.

Similar to the position regarding services, Portugal has not adopted separate national prohibitions on the export or import of goods beyond those established under EU sanctions legislation.

There are extensive EU sanctions prohibiting or restricting the export, sale, supply, transfer, purchase or import of certain goods to or from specific countries, sectors, governments, entities and individuals. The most significant example concerns Russia and Belarus. Under Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 and Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as amended, EU persons are prohibited from exporting or importing a wide range of goods, including military and dual-use items, advanced technology products, industrial goods, aviation and maritime-related products, energy-related equipment, luxury goods, certain machinery and electronics, and various raw materials and commodities. Additional restrictions apply to goods used in strategic sectors such as defence, energy, transport and telecommunications. Similar trade restrictions exist under other EU sanctions regimes, where applicable.

In Portugal, there is no specific case law on the impact of international sanctions on the performance of contractual obligations. However, the relevant legal framework is set out in Law No 97/2017 of 23 August, which states that acts carried out in breach of restrictive measures adopted by the UN or the EU are null and void and that the entities responsible for implementing those measures are not liable to pay compensation in respect of contracts whose performance has been affected, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by those sanctions. In practice, when the performance of a contract requires an act prohibited by the regime of restrictive measures, fulfilment of that obligation is no longer enforceable.

In Portugal, there is no case law that directly addresses the enforcement of judgments when issues related to international sanctions arise, but judicial practice shows that the courts block or restrict acts whenever they conflict with restrictive measures. This approach is particularly clear in proceedings linked to sanctions against Russia, in which the Lisbon Court of Appeal affirmed the direct application of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, upholding account freezes and blocks on funds and refusing transactions that would deprive the restrictive measures of their useful effect. Regarding the matters concerning sanctions against Iran, the Évora Court of Appeal kept the suspension of banking operations and refused to release funds when the route of inheritance through intermediaries suggested an attempt to circumvent the sanctions regime. Therefore, although there is no case law that specifically deals with the enforcement of judgments when sanctions issues arise, the practice of the Portuguese courts shows that acts are restricted or blocked whenever there is a conflict with restrictive measures, thereby ensuring the effectiveness of the sanctions.

Designation decisions are taken at international level: by the United Nations Security Council and, in the case of European Union sanctions, by the Council of the European Union, which places the persons concerned on the lists set out in the annexes to the sanctions regulations.

At a domestic level, Portugal does not have autonomous designation lists. However, the implementation of restrictive measures falls within the joint competence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the member of the government responsible for the relevant sector, through acts that identify the addressees of the measures. This is supported by the Directorate-General for Foreign Policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Office for Planning, Strategy, Evaluation and International Relations (GPEARI) of the Ministry of Finance, which co-ordinates the implementation of the measures and performs the functions assigned to them by the acts adopting those measures.

Although the legislation does not formally provide for an “indirect designation” of entities by virtue of being owned or controlled by designated persons, in practice they are treated as falling within the scope of the restrictive measures whenever they constitute property, whenever they are in the possession of, or are owned or controlled by designated persons.

The concepts of “ownership” and “control” are clarified in various EU regulations whereby: “owned” means, in practical terms, that the designated person holds 50% or more of the property rights or a majority shareholding in the entity; and “controlled” means that, even without holding a majority shareholding, the designated person has decisive powers over the entity, namely to appoint or remove most of the members of the management, director or supervisory bodies, to use all or part of its assets, to manage its activities on a unified basis, or otherwise to exercise a dominant influence over that entity.