U.S. Congress Passes Russia Sanctions Legislation

Dec 16, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

A.        Sanctions Against Russian Energy and Defense Sectors

1.         Energy Sector Provisions

The legislation includes several measures targeting Russia’s energy sector.  Specifically, it:

  • authorizes the president to impose three or more of the sanctions (identified in A.3 below) against foreign persons deemed to knowingly make significant investments in “special Russian crude oil projects” (i.e., projects intended to extract crude oil from Russian deepwater (greater than 500-feet depth), Arctic offshore locations and shale formations); in a previous version of this legislation, these sanctions were mandatory, but, under the legislation approved by both the Senate and the House, they are discretionary
  • authorizes the departments of Commerce and Treasury to impose additional licensing requirements for, or restrictions on, the export or re-export of items for use in the energy sector in Russia, including equipment used for tertiary oil recovery
  • requires that, if the president determines that Gazprom is withholding significant natural gas supplies from member countries of NATO or further withholds such supplies from countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova, the president shall restrict U.S. persons from investing in debt with greater than 90 days’ maturity or equity of Gazprom and impose one additional type of sanction (identified in A.3 below) against Gazprom.  

2.         Defense Sector Provisions

In connection with the Russian defense sector, the legislation separately requires the President to impose three or more types of sanctions (identified in Section A.3 below) against:

  • Rosoboronexport
  • Russian-owned or -controlled entities that knowingly manufacture, sell, transfer or broker the transfer of defense articles to Syria or specified countries (e.g., Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova) without authorization from the internationally recognized governments of those specified countries
  • other foreign persons knowingly assisting, sponsoring or providing financial, material or technological support for, goods or services to or in support of, entities identified in the bullet above.

3.         Potential Sanctions

The legislation provides a menu of potential sanctions from which the president may choose:

  • restrictions on U.S. Export-Import Bank assistance
  • restrictions on obtaining U.S. government procurement contracts
  • arms export prohibitions
  • dual-use item export prohibitions
  • property-blocking measures
  • restrictions on banking transactions
  • prohibitions on investment in equity or debt of the sanctioned person
  • visa bans
  • sanctions on principal executive officers of sanctioned entities.

As noted above, the president has the discretion to decide which of the above sanctions will be imposed against the entities identified in Sections A.1 and A.2 above.

B.        Foreign Financial Institutions

The legislation also authorizes extraterritorial sanctions against foreign financial institutions that facilitate certain sanctionable activity with respect to Russia’s energy and defense sectors or Specially Designated Nationals (“SDNs”).  Specifically, discretionary sanctions are available against foreign financial institutions that knowingly:

  • engage in “significant transactions” involving sanctioned entities engaged in activities described in:
    • the Energy Sector Provisions above in Section A.1 (excluding the licensing provisions in bullet 2)
    • the Defense Sector Provisions above in Section A.2 (including Rosobornexport only to the extent that it is participating in the types of activities described in Section A.2).  

The legislation does not provide a definition of what constitutes a “significant transaction.”

  • facilitate “significant financial transactions” on behalf of Russian SDNs designated under the various Ukraine/Russia-related measures.  The legislation does not provide a definition of what constitutes a “significant financial transaction.”

In such cases, the president may restrict foreign financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts in the United States.  These measures are similar to sanctions that OFAC is authorized to impose against non-U.S. financial institutions found to knowingly engage in certain sanctionable activities with respect to Iran.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.