ARTICLE
30 June 2026

Compound Penalty Of £569,157 Imposed On Named Energy Company

DM
Duane Morris LLP

Contributor

Duane Morris LLP, a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in offices across the United States and internationally, is asked by a broad array of clients to provide innovative solutions to today's legal and business challenges.
The UK's HM Revenue and Customs has imposed a substantial compound penalty on Petrofac Facilities Management Limited for breaching Russia sanctions, marking a significant shift in enforcement policy. This case reveals new guidance on when HMRC will pursue compound penalties versus prosecution, and signals a major change in the agency's approach to publicly naming violators. The announcement provides crucial insights into the factors HMRC considers when determining appropriate enforcement actions for strateg
United Kingdom Government, Public Sector
Duane Morris LLP are most popular:
  • within Law Department Performance topic(s)

The UK’s HM Revenue and Customs has announced the imposition of a compound penalty of £569,157 on Petrofac Facilities Management Limited.

This is the first time, in a long time, that HMRC has named the recipient of a compound penalty.

The breaches took place in 2022 and 2023 with the company supplying prohibited goods to individuals connected with Russia and also providing technical assistance in relation to those goods.

The company subsequently self-reported and cooperated with the investigation.

The change in naming policy is addressed:

Naming those involved brings us into line with other enforcement partners whilst sending a clear message on the consequences of breaching sanctions rules.”

The Notice further states that “Where appropriate, HMRC will now include naming as a condition when offering a compound settlement for strategic export and sanctions offences“. It appears that naming will now become more common if not done universally.

The Notice also gives helpful guidance on when HMRC will consider a compound penalty rather than prosecution, noting that a penalty will only be pursued where HMRC considers it has enough evidence to prosecute, and other considerations, including:

  • the seriousness of the alleged offence;
  • whether fraudulent intent can be proven;
  • the extent of the efforts to perpetrate the alleged offence;
  • the type and value of any goods involved;
  • the offender’s previous history;
  • the extent to which the offender has co-operated with any investigation; and
  • the level of financial penalties known to have been imposed by courts for similar offences.

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More