A sanctions case where nothing was exported. The allegation was that an asset freeze was circumvented by carrying on the same activity under new names. The judgment is in Estonian, the translations are this site’s, and it anonymises the designated person and the media brand, so this page does not name them. It also does not name the defendant, who is a private individual.
The rule
EU Regulation 269/2014 freezes the funds and economic resources of listed persons and forbids making funds or economic resources available to them, directly or indirectly. The court described the offence as making funds and economic resources available to the head of a Russian government-owned media organisation who was listed under that regulation.
What the prosecution said, and the court found
According to the judgment, the defendant’s spouse was editor-in-chief of the organisation’s Estonian office, and the defendant helped organise its work. The office was formally closed on 31 December 2019 because of the sanctions. They then carried on the same work under a different arrangement:
- In February 2020 they renamed a company they controlled, so that it would continue the media organisation’s work in Estonia as a new legal entity.
- Two domain names were registered in the company’s name, and a trademark was registered for the new brand.
- In November 2020 they set up a nonprofit to run a web portal under the new brand.
- The company and the nonprofit were funded entirely from Russian sources, through a foundation for Russian compatriots abroad, and the funds were used for salaries, services and a property rent.
- Staff who had worked for the closed office were hired by the nonprofit from July 2020, and, the charge said, the spouse kept working for the listed media organisation and followed its instructions on what the portal published.
After the EU banned broadcasting by the media organisation on 2 March 2022, the prosecution said the site was moved to a server outside Estonia and kept going under the same brand.
The outcome
The Harju County Court convicted the defendant under the summary procedure on 27 January 2025 and gave 3 years and 6 months, reduced to 2 years and 4 months and suspended for 3.5 years, with €7,882.92 payable in place of confiscation. On 6 October 2025 the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed the defence’s appeal, but removed two of the county court’s findings, that three employees were hired in June 2020 and that equipment and other property was placed at the company’s disposal.
What the record shows
- A closure on paper is not the end of the conduct. The formal closure date was the start of the period the court examined.
- The freeze reached the resources, not just the person. The court treated the web domains, and the funds spent on staff and services, as economic resources made available to the listed person.
- Where the money came from mattered. The charge rested on funds being allocated under the listed person’s control by that person’s own staff.
Compare front companies, where the concealed party is the point.