pt.euronews.com
EU Companies Increasingly Involved in Trade with Sanctioned Entities
A Kleptotrace report reveals a rising number of European companies, especially SMEs, unintentionally engaging in trade with sanctioned entities, primarily due to insufficient due diligence and complex shell company networks masking sanctioned owners.
- How are sanctioned entities using complex networks of intermediary companies to circumvent EU sanctions?
- Smaller European companies, lacking resources to assess risk, are especially vulnerable. The report emphasizes the difficulty in verifying ownership and supply chains, with self-declarations from suppliers or clients proving insufficient. This necessitates costly, time-consuming transnational investigations.
- What is the primary impact of the increasing number of European companies unknowingly involved in trade with sanctioned entities?
- The number of European companies unwittingly involved in trade with sanctioned countries or entities is rising, particularly since the Russia-Ukraine conflict began in 2022. This increase is highlighted in a Kleptotrace report by Transcrime, indicating that sanctions are being circumvented through complex networks of intermediary companies, often shell entities.
- What systemic changes are needed to improve the effectiveness of EU sanctions in preventing circumvention by both companies and sanctioned individuals?
- The EU is creating the EU Sanctions Helpdesk to aid SMEs in due diligence. However, the issue extends beyond businesses; many European companies are owned by sanctioned Russian individuals or entities. The report suggests that even after the conflict began, the number of such companies remained high, highlighting systemic weaknesses in sanctions enforcement across national jurisdictions.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the difficulties faced by European companies, particularly SMEs, in navigating sanctions compliance. This focus, while understandable given the report's findings, might unintentionally downplay the responsibility of sanctioned entities and those actively evading sanctions. The headline (if any) would significantly influence the framing.
Language Bias
The language is largely neutral and informative. However, phrases like "balas de pólvora seca" (dry gunpowder bullets) could be considered slightly loaded, implying a significant risk. A more neutral alternative might be 'ineffective'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the challenges faced by European companies in complying with sanctions, particularly SMEs. While it mentions the EU Sanctions Helpdesk, it doesn't detail the Helpdesk's effectiveness or limitations. Additionally, the article omits discussion of potential solutions beyond the Helpdesk, such as increased international cooperation or technological advancements in sanctions compliance. The lack of information on the scale and nature of sanctions evasion by larger corporations also leaves a gap in the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between large corporations readily adapting to sanctions and SMEs struggling to comply. The reality is likely more nuanced, with varying levels of compliance across all sizes of businesses, influenced by factors beyond just size and resources.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the increasing number of European companies unintentionally involved in trade with sanctioned countries, undermining international sanctions and potentially facilitating illicit activities. This weakens the rule of law and international cooperation, hindering efforts towards peace and justice.