Why ongoing monitoring is replacing point-in-time compliance checks
For years, compliance programmes have focused on a familiar process: conduct due diligence at onboarding, complete sanctions and PEP checks, …
Insight
The compliance landscape for sanctions screening has become increasingly complex for organisations operating across borders. In June 2026, the UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) and the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published joint guidance designed to help businesses understand the similarities and differences between the UK and U.S. sanctions regimes. The guidance represents a significant milestone in the ongoing OFSI-OFAC Enhanced Partnership, first established in 2022, and provides valuable clarity for firms navigating compliance obligations in multiple jurisdictions.
For many organisations, the publication reinforces an important reality: sanctions compliance is no longer a matter of applying a single set of rules. Businesses must understand how different regulatory regimes intersect, where they diverge, and how their compliance processes can account for those differences.
Why the joint guidance matters
The guidance offers a side-by-side comparison of key areas including:
- Sanctions lists and designation processes
- Licensing frameworks
- Record-keeping requirements
- Reporting obligations
- Jurisdictional scope
- Enforcement approaches
While both regulators share the goal of preventing financial crime and protecting national security, the guidance makes clear that alignment does not mean identical rules. Compliance with one regime does not automatically guarantee compliance with the other.
This is particularly important for multinational organisations, financial institutions, legal firms, and regulated businesses that regularly engage with customers, suppliers, or counterparties across international markets.
Key differences firms should understand
One of the most notable areas highlighted within the guidance is ownership and control.
Under OFAC’s well-known “50 Percent Rule”, ownership stakes held by multiple sanctioned individuals can be aggregated. If one or more sanctioned persons collectively own 50% or more of an entity, that entity may also be considered sanctioned.
OFSI applies a different approach. The UK framework generally does not aggregate ownership interests held by separate designated persons in the same way. Instead, UK authorities assess both ownership and control tests independently.
This distinction can create situations where an organisation may be prohibited under one regime while remaining permissible under another.
The guidance also identifies differences in:
- Licensing and exemptions
- Reporting thresholds
- Record-retention requirements
- Enforcement mechanisms
- Voluntary disclosure processes
For compliance leaders, these differences demonstrate why a one-size-fits-all sanctions programme is no longer sufficient.
Growing expectations from regulators
The publication arrives against a backdrop of increasing sanctions enforcement activity globally.
Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly emphasised the importance of effective screening, robust due diligence, accurate record keeping, and timely reporting. Organisations are expected not only to identify sanctions risks but also to demonstrate that their controls are proportionate, documented, and consistently applied.
Recent enforcement actions have also shown that regulators place significant weight on the quality of compliance systems. Weak screening processes, outdated data, poor monitoring practices, and inadequate escalation procedures can all contribute to breaches and financial penalties.
As sanctions regimes continue to evolve in response to geopolitical developments, businesses need systems capable of adapting quickly to regulatory changes.
Technology’s growing role in sanctions compliance
The OFSI-OFAC guidance demonstrates a broader trend in compliance: the increasing importance of technology-enabled risk management.
Modern sanctions screening platforms enable organisations to:
- Screen customers and businesses against multiple sanctions lists
- Identify politically exposed persons (PEPs)
- Conduct enhanced due diligence
- Monitor regulatory updates
- Maintain audit-ready records
However, technology alone is not enough.
Regulators increasingly expect firms to maintain governance frameworks, staff training programmes, and escalation procedures that support the technology being used. Automated screening should enhance compliance, not replace human oversight.
Moving forward
The new joint guidance provides welcome clarity for organisations operating across both UK and U.S. jurisdictions. More importantly, it highlights a key message for modern compliance teams: understanding sanctions obligations requires a nuanced approach that recognises both similarities and differences between regulatory regimes.
As enforcement activity continues to increase and sanctions frameworks become more sophisticated, firms that invest in strong compliance controls, ongoing monitoring, and reliable screening technology will be better positioned to manage risk and demonstrate regulatory compliance.
For organisations navigating increasingly complex global sanctions requirements, now is the time to review screening programmes, assess monitoring capabilities, and ensure policies reflect the latest regulatory expectations.
Enjoyed this article?
Veriphy hosts regular webinars on identity verification, AML compliance, sanctions screening, KYB and fraud prevention.
Register your interest to receive invitations to future webinars and educational events.
