Skip to content

PLENITUDE INSIGHTS: Sanctions on Mainland China

12 July 2021
cover page of paper on China sanctions

PLENITUDE INSIGHTS: Sanctions on Mainland China

China’s recently passed Anti Foreign Sanction Law gives it broad discretion to penalise companies for obeying countries restrictive measures against China, including the US, EU, UK and Canada.

Although it remains unclear how China will use the new legislation, our paper takes a comprehensive look at China’s Anti Foreign Sanction Law along with an explanation of existing US, EU, UK and Canadian sanctions imposed on China.

China is no stranger to economic sanctions. In fact, the US has maintained sanctions against China from the inception of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 until 1972. Sanctions were reimposed on China by the US and the European Union following the Tiananmen Square student riots in 1989, which are still maintained today. The Donald Trump Administration in August 2018 signed the National Defence Authorisations Act for the fiscal year of 2019 (NDAA 2019), which banned Huawei and ZTE equipment from being used in the US. This was seen as the ‘first blow’, in the latest series of sanctions programmes that would be imposed on China by Western Governments and would ultimately push China into creating their own ‘Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law’ and to reform their old alliance with Russia and other countries that have been adversely affected by Western sanction programmes like Iran and Turkey.

Conclusion

With the introduction of this new radical Chinese legislation to counteract Western sanctions, it will undoubtedly change the way global financial institutions interact with China. However, as China is still keen to attract foreign investment and business, this may influence the Authorised Regulator of China to choose a more conservative approach in the implementation of the AFSL.

Further, it should be anticipated that in implementing countermeasures under Article 3 and 6(2), that the Authorised Regulator will evaluate “territory” in a manner consistent with the State Council’s interpretation. As written, by referring to the territory of the People’s Republic of China without qualification, the geographical scope of the AFSL would include Hong Kong and Macao which are generally subject to their own legislation.

Speak to us to request a demonstration

Plenitude are Financial Crime, Risk and Compliance specialists, offering advisory, transformation services and innovative cloud-based RegTech subscription products.

We help our clients meet their regulatory obligations and reduce their financial crime risk exposure by providing deep subject matter expertise, advisory and transformation services

Find out more
Group 1-1