Brazil — Sanctions & Embargoes

Brazil does not maintain an autonomous economic sanctions regime targeting foreign countries, entities, or individuals. Instead, Brazilian law implements sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) through Law 13,810 of March 8, 2019 ("Lei 13.810/2019").

Statutory authority and immediate executory force

Article 1 of Law 13,810/2019 provides that the statute governs "compliance with sanctions imposed by United Nations Security Council resolutions, including the unavailability of assets of natural and legal persons and entities, and the national designation of persons investigated or accused of terrorism, of their financing or related acts."

Article 6 grants UNSC sanctions resolutions immediate executory force in Brazilian territory: "The sanctions resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the designations of its sanctions committees are endowed with immediate enforceability in the Federative Republic of Brazil." This means that upon adoption of a UNSC resolution or sanctions-committee designation imposing asset freezes, travel bans, or other measures, Brazilian persons and entities are obligated to comply without waiting for a domestic implementing decree or regulation.

Article 7 provides that, without prejudice to the obligation of immediate compliance, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ministério das Relações Exteriores) will publish the UNSC resolutions and designations—or extracts—in Portuguese in the Diário Oficial da União for purposes of public notice.

Scope: asset unavailability, covered measures, and triggers

Article 2 defines key terms. "Assets" (ativos) encompass property, rights, funds, resources, or services of any nature, whether financial or non-financial. "Unavailability of assets" (indisponibilidade de ativos) means the prohibition on transferring, converting, relocating, making available, or otherwise disposing of assets, directly or indirectly. The statute requires compliance "without delay" (sem demora), which Article 2(V) defines as "immediately or within a few hours."

Article 3 specifies two scenarios triggering asset unavailability under Brazilian law:

1. Execution of UNSC resolutions or designations by UNSC sanctions committees (Art. 3(I)); or
2. Request of a foreign central authority, provided the request adheres to applicable legal principles and provides objective grounds that exclusively meet the designation criteria established in UNSC resolutions or sanctions-committee designations (Art. 3(II)).

Article 4 addresses domestic designation: Brazilian authorities may designate natural persons, legal entities, or other arrangements for asset freezes based on objective evidence of terrorism, terrorism financing, or related acts under Law 13,260 of March 16, 2016 (Brazil's anti-terrorism statute), provided the designation is ordered by judicial decision.

Obliged entities: who must comply

Article 9 requires all natural and legal persons subject to anti-money-laundering obligations under Law 9,613 of March 3, 1998 to comply "without delay and without prior notice to the sanctioned persons" with UNSC resolutions or sanctions-committee designations that order asset unavailability. The reference to Law 9,613/1998 incorporates the broad set of regulated entities subject to Brazil's AML regime, including financial institutions, securities intermediaries, insurance companies, credit cooperatives, payment institutions, real-estate brokers, dealers in precious metals and stones, and other sectors specified in that statute. Each sector's regulator or supervisor defines the form and conditions of compliance.

Coordination, communication, and reporting

Article 10 assigns coordination responsibilities to the Ministry of Justice and Public Security (Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública, "MJSP"). Without prejudice to the obligation of immediate compliance, the MJSP must communicate asset-freeze sanctions to sectoral regulators or supervisors "without delay," so that they in turn notify the obliged entities under Article 9 of Law 9,613/1998. The MJSP also communicates travel-ban restrictions to the Federal Police (Polícia Federal) for immediate notification to transportation companies and border-control authorities.

Article 11 requires that the unavailability of assets and any attempted transfers related to persons or entities sanctioned by UNSC resolution or sanctions-committee designation be reported to the MJSP, to the sectoral regulators or supervisors of the obliged entities, and to the Council for Financial Activities Control (Conselho de Controle de Atividades Financeiras, "COAF"), Brazil's financial intelligence unit.

Judicial assistance for enforcement

Article 12 provides that when information exists about assets subject to unavailability or persons and property subject to other UNSC sanctions, and compliance has not occurred voluntarily, the Federal Government (União) shall file for direct judicial assistance (auxílio direto judicial) "without delay" to obtain enforcement.

Nullity of transactions

Article 5 declares null and ineffective any acts of disposition related to assets frozen under this law, except for the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

No unilateral sanctions regime

The scope of Law 13,810/2019 is limited to UNSC sanctions and designations (plus foreign-authority requests meeting UNSC criteria, and domestic terrorism-related designations under Law 13,260/2016). Brazil does not impose unilateral country-based or person-based sanctions outside the UNSC framework. There is no Brazilian equivalent to the U.S. OFAC Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List or the EU autonomous restrictive measures. Brazilian entities conducting international transactions remain subject to the extraterritorial reach of third-country sanctions, but those third-country sanctions have no direct legal effect in Brazil and do not create Brazilian compliance obligations under domestic law.

Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019

Law 13,810/2019 does not prescribe standalone criminal or administrative penalties for sanctions violations. Instead, the statute channels enforcement through three mechanisms: nullity of prohibited transactions, criminal investigation referrals for potential terrorism-financing offenses, and administrative penalties imposed by sectoral regulators on entities that fail to comply with their obligations under Brazil's anti-money-laundering framework.

Nullity of prohibited transactions

Article 5 of Law 13,810/2019 declares null and ineffective any acts of disposition related to assets frozen under the statute, except for the rights of third parties acting in good faith. This means that transfers, sales, pledges, or other dispositions executed in violation of a UNSC asset freeze have no legal effect under Brazilian law and cannot create enforceable obligations. The nullity operates ex lege—it does not require a separate judicial declaration, though parties may seek judicial confirmation.

Criminal investigation and prosecution

Article 32 requires the Ministry of Justice and Public Security (MJSP) to communicate to the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministério Público Federal) and to the Federal Police (Polícia Federal) all measures of asset unavailability adopted under Law 13,810/2019 and all attempts to transfer assets related to sanctioned persons, "for evaluation of opening or not of criminal investigation."

Law 13,810/2019 does not itself define a criminal offense of sanctions evasion. The referral mechanism under Article 32 contemplates investigation for potential violations of Brazil's anti-terrorism statute (Law 13,260 of March 16, 2016), which criminalizes terrorism financing, or of the money-laundering statute (Law 9,613 of March 3, 1998). Under Article 1 of Law 9,613/1998 (as amended by Law 12,683/2012), any person who conceals or disguises the nature, origin, location, disposition, movement, or ownership of property, rights, or values derived directly or indirectly from any criminal offense is subject to imprisonment of three to ten years plus a fine. A knowing attempt to evade a UN sanctions freeze—by structuring transactions to benefit a designated person, falsifying beneficial-ownership records, or disguising the sanctioned party's interest—could be prosecuted as money laundering if the underlying conduct constitutes or facilitates a predicate offense such as terrorism financing.

Article 7 of Law 9,613/1998 provides that, in addition to the penalties set forth in the Penal Code, a conviction for money laundering results in (I) forfeiture in favor of the Union (or the State or Federal District, depending on the court's jurisdiction) of all property, rights, and values related directly or indirectly to the offense, including assets used to post bail, subject to the rights of the victim or third parties in good faith; and (II) a ban on holding public office or serving as a director, member of a board of directors, or manager of the entities listed in Article 9 of Law 9,613/1998 for double the term of the custodial sentence imposed.

Administrative penalties imposed by sectoral regulators

Article 9 of Law 13,810/2019 requires all natural and legal persons subject to the anti-money-laundering obligations under Law 9,613/1998 to comply "without delay and without prior notice" with UNSC resolutions or sanctions-committee designations that impose asset unavailability. The reference to Law 9,613/1998 incorporates the broad set of regulated entities—financial institutions, securities intermediaries, insurance companies, payment institutions, real-estate brokers, dealers in precious metals and stones, and other sectors enumerated in that statute—and makes each entity's sectoral regulator or supervisor responsible for defining "the form and conditions of compliance" and for enforcing those obligations.

Law 9,613/1998 does not contain a unified administrative-penalty schedule. Instead, each sectoral regulator enforces AML/CFT obligations—including sanctions-screening and asset-freeze duties—through penalties established in its own sectoral legislation or regulation. In practice, regulated entities that fail to freeze assets of a UNSC-designated person, or that fail to report a sanctions match or an attempted transfer to the MJSP, to COAF (Brazil's financial intelligence unit), and to their sectoral supervisor, face administrative sanctions such as warnings, fines (often calibrated to the transaction value or to the institution's gross revenue), temporary prohibition from engaging in specified activities, suspension or revocation of operating licenses, and disqualification of directors or managers. The penalty framework is tiered and proportional—practices that reflect regulatory implementation rather than provisions codified in Law 9,613/1998 itself.

Small or inadvertent compliance gaps—such as a delayed sanctions-screening update—typically result in a warning or a modest fine, while willful evasion, repeated failures, or large-value violations trigger higher fines, operational restrictions, or license revocation. Sectoral regulators commonly apply mitigating factors (voluntary disclosure, prompt corrective action, first-time violation) and aggravating factors (recidivism, senior-management involvement, obstruction of supervision) when calculating penalties.

Judicial enforcement of asset freezes

Article 12 of Law 13,810/2019 provides that when information exists about assets subject to unavailability or persons and property subject to other UN sanctions, and voluntary compliance has not occurred, the Federal Government (União) shall file for auxílio direto judicial (direct judicial assistance) "without delay" to obtain enforcement. This administrative-litigation mechanism allows the government to secure a court order compelling compliance, sequestering assets, or appointing an administrator for frozen property.

Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019 Source: Lei nº 9.613, de 3 de março de 1998 (consolidated)

Brazilian entities subject to anti-money-laundering obligations under Law 9,613 of March 3, 1998 must implement procedures and internal controls to identify, among their clients and counterparties, persons or entities subject to asset-unavailability measures imposed by United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions or UNSC sanctions-committee designations. The obligation to screen for and freeze assets of sanctioned persons is immediate—Law 13,810 of March 8, 2019 defines "without delay" (the statutory trigger for compliance) as "immediately or within a few hours."

Who must screen: the regulated-entity universe

Article 9 of Law 13,810/2019 imposes the screening obligation on all natural and legal persons subject to the anti-money-laundering obligations under Article 9 of Law 9,613/1998. This broad category includes financial institutions; securities intermediaries; insurance companies and pension funds; credit cooperatives and consortium operators; payment institutions; real-estate brokers and administrators; dealers in precious metals, precious stones, or art objects; companies that promote, sell, or intermediate travel, real-estate, or personal-property auctions; factors and other operators of securitization; lotteries; credit-card and traveler's-check administrators; entities that effect foreign-exchange transactions; and any other sectors the Council for Financial Activities Control (Conselho de Controle de Atividades Financeiras, "COAF") subjects to AML/CFT supervision.

Each sectoral regulator (for example, the Central Bank of Brazil for banks, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Brazil—CVM—for securities intermediaries, SUSEP for insurance companies, or COAF directly for non-regulated sectors) defines the specific form and conditions of compliance for the entities it supervises.

The screening dataset: UNSC consolidated list and Brazilian communication channels

Obliged entities must screen against the UNSC consolidated sanctions list published by the United Nations Security Council, which compiles all individuals and entities designated by UNSC resolutions and sanctions-committee decisions. Article 6 of Law 13,810/2019 grants UNSC sanctions resolutions and sanctions-committee designations immediate executory force in Brazil; no domestic implementing decree or regulation is required for the asset freeze to become legally binding.

Article 7 provides that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ministério das Relações Exteriores) will publish the UNSC resolutions and designations—or extracts—in Portuguese in the Diário Oficial da União for public notice, but this publication does not condition the legal obligation to comply, which arises upon adoption of the UNSC measure. Article 10 assigns to the Ministry of Justice and Public Security (MJSP) the responsibility to communicate asset-freeze sanctions "without delay" to sectoral regulators or supervisors, who in turn notify the obliged entities, though again the publication or communication is for notice purposes only, not a precondition of liability.

Decreto 9.825 of June 5, 2019 (the implementing regulation for Law 13,810/2019) reinforces in Article 2 that obliged entities must consult the UNSC list directly and apply the measures "immediately." COAF has indicated on its website that it will provide access to the list of persons subject to sanctions under Law 13,810/2019, facilitating screening by entities under its supervision. Many sectoral regulators and commercial sanctions-screening vendors make the UNSC list available in machine-readable formats.

Screening frequency and trigger events: continuous monitoring, not point-in-time

Law 13,810/2019 and Decreto 9.825/2019 do not prescribe a specific screening interval, but supervisory guidance from sectoral regulators (including COAF Resolution 31 of June 7, 2019, for COAF-regulated entities, and analogous circulars and resolutions from the Central Bank, CVM, and SUSEP) requires that screening occur (1) at client onboarding, before the business relationship begins, and (2) on an ongoing basis whenever new names are added to the UNSC consolidated list. The practical standard is real-time or near-real-time screening: upon a new UNSC designation, entities must compare the newly designated person or entity against their entire client base immediately; upon onboarding a new client or counterparty, entities must screen that party's name, date of birth, nationality, aliases, and identifying data against an up-to-date copy of the UNSC list.

SUSEP (the insurance regulator) has stated explicitly that entities may not use a risk-based approach for Law 13,810/2019 screening: the procedures must be applied uniformly, regardless of transaction value, product type, or assessed money-laundering risk. This uniform-screening requirement contrasts with the general AML/CFT regime under Law 9,613/1998, which encourages a risk-based approach to customer due diligence.

Scope of "assets" and covered persons

Article 2 of Law 13,810/2019 defines "assets" (ativos) broadly: property, rights, funds, resources, or services of any nature, whether financial or non-financial. Guidance published by COAF on the application of Law 13,810/2019 and Decreto 9.825/2019 clarifies that obliged entities and supervisors must consider:

• All assets owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the designated person or entity, not solely those linked to a specific terrorist act or threat;
• All assets derived from or generated by funds or other assets held or controlled directly or indirectly by designated persons or entities; and
• All assets of any person acting on behalf of or at the direction of a designated person or entity.

This sweeping interpretation encompasses beneficial ownership, nominee arrangements, and indirect control, requiring obliged entities to identify not only direct matches with the UNSC list but also clients acting as intermediaries or beneficial owners on behalf of a designated person.

Immediate asset freeze and reporting duty

When an obliged entity identifies a match—meaning a client, account holder, beneficial owner, or counterparty appears to be the same person or entity as a UNSC-designated individual or entity—the entity must "without delay" (Article 9 of Law 13,810/2019) freeze the assets. "Unavailability of assets" under Article 2(II) prohibits transferring, converting, relocating, making available, or otherwise disposing of the assets, directly or indirectly. The freeze applies immediately, with no prior notice to the sanctioned person.

Article 11 requires that the unavailability of assets and any attempted transfers related to sanctioned persons or entities be reported immediately to:

1. The MJSP (specifically, the Department of Recovery of Assets and International Legal Cooperation—DRCI—of the National Secretariat of Justice);
2. The sectoral regulator or supervisor of the obliged entity; and
3. COAF, Brazil's financial intelligence unit.

The reporting must occur "without delay." COAF Resolution 31/2019 and analogous sectoral regulations specify that obliged entities must report the freeze through the same channels used for suspicious-transaction reports under Law 9,613/1998—typically the Sistema de Controle de Atividades Financeiras (SISCOAF) platform or the sectoral regulator's reporting portal.

Training and internal-control requirements

COAF Resolution 31/2019 requires that persons subject to COAF regulation implement procedures and internal controls for the identification of persons subject to Law 13,810/2019 sanctions and train their employees on the measures instituted by the regulation. Training must cover the screening process, the definition of asset unavailability, the duty to report matches and attempted transfers, and the prohibition on tipping off the sanctioned person. Sectoral supervisors commonly examine sanctions-screening policies, procedures, and training records during AML/CFT examinations.

No general-licence or exemption mechanism for humanitarian or authorized transactions

Decreto 9.825/2019 does not establish a general licensing regime through which an obliged entity or a sanctioned person can apply to the Brazilian government for authorization to unfreeze assets or conduct otherwise-prohibited transactions (for example, for humanitarian purposes, payment of legal fees, or basic-needs expenses). Law 13,810/2019 and Decreto 9.825/2019 incorporate UNSC sanctions in their entirety; if a UNSC resolution or sanctions-committee decision provides for exemptions or authorizations (for example, UNSC Resolution 1452 (2002) regarding humanitarian exemptions for Al-Qaida and Taliban sanctions), those exemptions operate directly in Brazil without a separate Brazilian licensing procedure, but the person seeking the exemption must follow the procedures prescribed by the UNSC sanctions committee. Brazilian entities facing uncertainty about whether a proposed transaction falls within an exemption should consult the DRCI at the MJSP before proceeding.

De-listing requests

A person or entity designated by a UNSC sanctions committee may request removal from the list. Articles 17–19 of Decreto 9.825/2019 govern the Brazilian procedure: the designated person files a request with the DRCI at the MJSP. The DRCI evaluates the request and, if it considers the request appropriate, forwards it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for transmission to the UNSC or the relevant sanctions committee for deliberation. The UNSC has established an Ombudsperson focal point for de-listing requests under certain regimes (for example, the Al-Qaida / ISIL (Da'esh) sanctions regime). COAF publishes decisions concerning exclusion from the sanctions list on its website.

Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019 Source: Decreto nº 9.825, de 5 de junho de 2019 Source: Orientações para aplicação da Lei nº 13.810, de 2019, e do Decreto nº 9.825, de 2019 (COAF) Source: Bloqueio de ativos pela Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019 (SUSEP)

Unilateral economic sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, or other foreign jurisdictions have no direct legal effect in Brazil and create no domestic compliance obligation under Brazilian law. Law 13,810 of March 8, 2019—Brazil's sole statutory framework for economic sanctions—implements only sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) or UNSC sanctions committees. Foreign sanctions programs, including the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions, EU restrictive measures, and UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) measures, fall entirely outside the scope of Law 13,810/2019 and are not incorporated into Brazilian domestic law.

Scope of Law 13,810/2019: UNSC sanctions only

Article 1 of Law 13,810/2019 provides that the statute governs "compliance with sanctions imposed by United Nations Security Council resolutions, including the unavailability of assets of natural and legal persons and entities, and the national designation of persons investigated or accused of terrorism, of their financing or related acts." Article 3 specifies the two scenarios triggering asset unavailability under Brazilian law: (I) execution of UNSC resolutions or designations by UNSC sanctions committees; or (II) request of a foreign central authority, provided the request adheres to applicable legal principles and provides objective grounds that "exclusively meet the designation criteria established in UNSC resolutions or sanctions-committee designations."

This second scenario does not authorize direct incorporation of a foreign jurisdiction's autonomous sanctions list. Rather, it permits a foreign authority to request Brazilian cooperation in freezing the assets of a person who also meets UNSC designation criteria—effectively a procedural channel for multilateral enforcement, not adoption of unilateral foreign sanctions.

No blocking statute

Brazil has not enacted a blocking statute of the kind maintained by the European Union (Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96) or Canada (Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act). Brazilian law neither prohibits Brazilian persons from complying with foreign sanctions nor compels them to ignore foreign sanctions when transacting with persons designated by a foreign jurisdiction.

Law 13,810/2019 contains no provision imposing penalties on Brazilian persons who voluntarily comply with U.S., EU, or UK sanctions. No other Brazilian statute surveyed—including the anti-money-laundering statute (Law 9,613 of March 3, 1998, as amended), the anti-terrorism statute (Law 13,260 of March 16, 2016), or the Foreign Exchange Act (Law 14,286 of December 29, 2021)—prohibits or penalizes private-sector adherence to foreign sanctions programs.

Conversely, Law 13,810/2019 imposes no obligation on Brazilian persons to screen for or freeze assets of persons designated solely under foreign sanctions. Article 9 requires all natural and legal persons subject to anti-money-laundering obligations under Law 9,613/1998 to comply "without delay and without prior notice" with UNSC resolutions or sanctions-committee designations, but this screening obligation does not extend to OFAC, EU, or UK sanctions lists. A Brazilian company or individual that transacts with a person designated under U.S., EU, or UK sanctions but not designated by the UNSC incurs no liability under Brazilian law for that transaction, provided the transaction does not violate any other provision of Brazilian law (such as anti-money-laundering, anti-corruption, or anti-terrorism prohibitions independent of the sanctions).

Exposure to enforcement by the sanctioning foreign jurisdiction

Although foreign sanctions have no domestic legal effect in Brazil, Brazilian persons remain subject to the extraterritorial reach of those sanctions when the foreign jurisdiction asserts jurisdiction. U.S. OFAC sanctions, for example, prohibit all U.S. persons (including U.S. citizens, permanent residents, entities organized under U.S. law, and any person in the United States) from engaging in transactions with designated persons or countries. Many OFAC programs also prohibit non-U.S. persons from engaging in transactions that involve U.S.-origin goods or services, touch the U.S. financial system (for example, settlement in U.S. dollars through a U.S. correspondent bank), or otherwise have a U.S. nexus.

A Brazilian company that exports goods to a designated person using U.S.-origin components, or that invoices in U.S. dollars and receives payment through a U.S. correspondent bank, may be found to have violated U.S. sanctions and be subject to civil or criminal penalties imposed by the United States, asset blocking, denial of access to the U.S. financial system, or inclusion on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List. The EU and UK sanctions regimes similarly assert jurisdiction over their own nationals and entities, over transactions conducted in their territory or using their financial infrastructure, and in some cases over non-EU/UK persons whose conduct has effects in the EU or UK.

No Brazilian mechanism to challenge or block foreign enforcement

Brazil has not enacted legislation authorizing Brazilian persons to recover damages from a foreign government or private party that enforces foreign sanctions, nor has it enacted a statute nullifying foreign court judgments or administrative penalties arising from foreign sanctions enforcement. A Brazilian company that incurs a penalty or asset freeze imposed by the United States, the European Union, or the United Kingdom for violation of that jurisdiction's sanctions has no domestic legal mechanism under Brazilian law to block enforcement of that penalty or to obtain compensation from Brazil for the extraterritorial application of the foreign sanctions. The company may contest the foreign penalty in the administrative or judicial fora of the sanctioning jurisdiction itself, but Brazilian courts do not review the merits of foreign sanctions designations or penalties.

Brazilian government position on extraterritorial sanctions

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has characterized the extraterritorial application of unilateral foreign sanctions as an "undue interference" in Brazilian internal affairs. In September 2025, the Ministry publicly objected to the U.S. government's imposition of sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act on the wife of a Brazilian Supreme Federal Court justice and an associated institute, stating that Brazil "receives with profound indignation" the measure and characterizing it as an "undue interference," an "attack on Brazilian sovereignty," and a "politicization and distortion in the application of the law." The Ministry's statement represents diplomatic protest, not domestic legal relief. No Brazilian statute prohibits U.S. persons or U.S. financial institutions from complying with such sanctions, and no Brazilian court can compel a U.S. bank to unfreeze assets blocked pursuant to a U.S. sanctions designation.

Practical compliance considerations for Brazilian entities engaged in international trade

Brazilian companies engaged in international trade—particularly those that transact with U.S. or EU counterparties, use U.S. dollars or euros as currency of payment, or export goods containing U.S.- or EU-origin components—commonly adopt sanctions-screening procedures that cover not only UNSC lists (as required by Brazilian law) but also OFAC, EU, and UK sanctions lists as a matter of commercial risk management and to satisfy third-party contractual requirements. Many multinational banks and traders impose sanctions-screening requirements on their Brazilian suppliers or customers as a condition of doing business, irrespective of Brazilian law's narrower scope.

A Brazilian entity that declines to screen for or comply with foreign sanctions faces no Brazilian legal penalty but may find itself unable to access foreign financial institutions, foreign markets, or supply chains dominated by U.S. or EU participants. A Brazilian entity that voluntarily complies with foreign sanctions incurs no Brazilian legal penalty but foregoes lawful business opportunities in Brazil or with non-sanctioning jurisdictions.

Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019 Source: Undue imposition of Magnitsky Act sanctions — Ministério das Relações Exteriores, Press Release (September 22, 2025)

A person or entity designated under a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution or sanctions-committee designation and subject to asset freezes in Brazil may request removal from the sanctions list (de-listing). Brazilian law does not, however, establish a domestic licensing or exemption regime through which a sanctioned person can obtain authorization to unfreeze assets for humanitarian purposes, basic expenses, or legal fees. Such exemptions, if available under the relevant UNSC sanctions regime, must be sought directly from the UNSC sanctions committee following its own procedures.

De-listing procedure under Articles 17–18 of Decreto 9.825/2019

Article 17 of Decreto 9.825 of June 5, 2019 provides that the Department of Asset Recovery and International Legal Cooperation (Departamento de Recuperação de Ativos e Cooperação Jurídica Internacional, "DRCI") of the National Secretariat of Justice within the Ministry of Justice and Public Security must analyze a request for exclusion from sanctions lists submitted by any natural person, legal entity, or other arrangement sanctioned pursuant to a UNSC resolution or sanctions-committee designation.

The de-listing request is filed with the DRCI. Article 17 does not prescribe a specific form or evidentiary standard, but the request must identify the designated person or entity and explain why removal from the list is warranted. In practice, requests typically include evidence that the person no longer meets the designation criteria established in the relevant UNSC resolution—for example, proof that the person is not involved in terrorism or terrorism financing, that a factual error occurred in the original designation, or that circumstances justifying the designation have fundamentally changed.

Once the DRCI completes its analysis, it forwards its decision to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ministério das Relações Exteriores). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs then transmits the DRCI's recommendation to the UNSC or the relevant UNSC sanctions committee for deliberation. The ultimate decision on whether to de-list the person rests with the UNSC or its sanctions committee, not with the Brazilian government. The DRCI's role is to evaluate the request and present it to the international body with a recommendation; the DRCI cannot unilaterally remove a person from a UNSC sanctions list.

Article 18 of Decreto 9.825/2019 addresses revocation of national designations—asset freezes imposed by Brazil under its domestic terrorism-designation authority pursuant to Law 13,260 of March 16, 2016. Article 18, § 5 provides that the deliberation and communication procedures for designation also apply to revocation of a national designation when appropriate, following the same criteria established in UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001). National designations are a separate track from UNSC designations and have distinct procedural rules; for purposes of UNSC de-listing, only Article 17 applies.

No domestic humanitarian-exemption or licensing regime

Law 13,810 of March 8, 2019 and Decreto 9.825/2019 do not establish a mechanism through which a sanctioned person or an entity holding frozen assets can apply to the Brazilian government for a license or exemption to authorize an otherwise-prohibited transaction. There is no Brazilian equivalent to the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) licensing regime or the European Union's humanitarian-derogation procedures for releasing frozen funds to cover basic expenses, extraordinary expenses (medical, legal fees), or humanitarian aid.

Article 2 of Law 13,810/2019 defines "unavailability of assets" as the prohibition on transferring, converting, relocating, making available, or otherwise disposing of assets, directly or indirectly. This prohibition is absolute once a UNSC designation takes effect. Neither Law 13,810/2019 nor Decreto 9.825/2019 grants the DRCI, the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, or any other Brazilian authority the power to issue general licenses, specific licenses, or one-time authorizations permitting transactions involving frozen assets.

How UNSC-level exemptions operate in Brazil

Law 13,810/2019 and Decreto 9.825/2019 incorporate UNSC sanctions in their entirety. If a UNSC resolution or sanctions-committee decision provides for exemptions or authorizations—for example, UNSC Resolution 1452 (2002) regarding humanitarian exemptions for asset freezes imposed under the Al-Qaida and Taliban sanctions regime—those exemptions operate directly in Brazil without requiring a separate Brazilian implementing regulation or license.

UNSC Resolution 1452 (2002), adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, permits states to authorize the release of frozen funds or economic resources to cover basic expenses (foodstuffs, rent, medicine, medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, public-utility charges), extraordinary expenses (legal fees, routine maintenance of frozen property), or payments pursuant to contracts entered into prior to the designation, provided the state notifies the relevant UNSC sanctions committee of its intention to authorize the payment and the sanctions committee does not object within a specified period (typically two to five working days for basic expenses, longer for extraordinary expenses).

For a sanctioned person in Brazil to benefit from such a UNSC-level exemption, the person (or an entity holding the frozen assets on the person's behalf) must follow the notification procedure specified in the UNSC resolution. In practice, this means submitting a notification to the UNSC sanctions committee—through the Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations or, in coordination with Brazilian authorities, through the DRCI and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—describing the proposed payment, the amount, the payee, and the purpose, and attaching supporting documentation (invoices, contracts, medical records, legal retainer agreements).

If the sanctions committee does not object within the no-objection period, the payment may proceed under Brazilian law, because the UNSC authorization supersedes the asset freeze to the extent of the exemption. Decreto 9.825/2019 does not codify this procedure or assign responsibility for coordinating notifications to the UNSC sanctions committee. Guidance published by the Council for Financial Activities Control (COAF) on the application of Law 13,810/2019 and Decreto 9.825/2019 instructs Brazilian entities facing uncertainty about whether a proposed transaction falls within a UNSC exemption to consult the DRCI at the Ministry of Justice and Public Security before proceeding.

Absence of carve-outs in Brazilian domestic law

Brazilian law does not recognize humanitarian carve-outs, de minimis thresholds, or categorical exemptions from asset freezes imposed by UNSC resolutions. The insurance regulator (Superintendência de Seguros Privados, "SUSEP") has stated explicitly that entities subject to Law 13,810/2019 may not use a risk-based approach or a materiality threshold when screening for and freezing assets of UNSC-designated persons: the asset-freeze obligation is absolute and applies uniformly regardless of transaction value, the nature of the frozen asset (financial, real property, or service), or the hardship imposed on the designated person.

The only mechanism for releasing frozen assets is (1) de-listing by the UNSC or the relevant sanctions committee following a request under Article 17 of Decreto 9.825/2019, or (2) obtaining authorization from the UNSC sanctions committee pursuant to an exemption provision in the applicable UNSC resolution, where such a provision exists.

Source: Decreto nº 9.825, de 5 de junho de 2019 Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019 Source: Orientações para aplicação da Lei nº 13.810, de 2019, e do Decreto nº 9.825, de 2019 (COAF)

Brazil’s framework for autonomous asset freezes in terrorism cases is grounded in Law 13,260 of March 16, 2016 (the Anti-Terrorism Law), as referenced by Law 13,810/2019. While Brazil’s economic sanctions regime is otherwise anchored in United Nations Security Council (UNSC) mandates, Law 13,810/2019 grants Brazilian courts the power to order the freezing of assets for terrorism, terrorist financing, or related acts according to criteria in Law 13,260/2016.

Domestic designation authority: when can a freeze be triggered?

Article 4 of Law 13,810/2019 authorizes asset unavailability when there is objective evidence—established by a Brazilian judicial decision—of terrorism, its financing, or acts linked to domestic or international terrorist offenses under Law 13,260/2016. The freeze is not automatic: domestic designations require supporting evidence and a court order. The process is distinct from the direct implementation of UNSC lists.

Scope of acts covered under Law 13,260/2016

Law 13,260/2016 criminalizes:

• Committing or preparing acts intended to provoke terror via certain means (Art. 2 & 3)
• Providing or collecting assets/funds knowing they are to be used for terrorism (Art. 5)
• Organizing, supporting, or assisting terrorist groups (Arts. 6–8)

Only persons, legal entities, or collective arrangements found by a court to have committed, financed, or aided in such acts may be designated for asset freezing.

Judicial process and reporting

A prosecutorial authority petitions a federal court for the designation. The judge must find sufficient evidence to link the target to acts under Law 13,260/2016. If granted, the asset freeze is executed under Law 13,810/2019. The Ministry of Justice and Public Security (MJSP) coordinates publication and informs relevant regulators and COAF, Brazil’s financial intelligence unit, under Articles 10–11 of Law 13,810/2019. Blocked assets may only be released if the underlying judicial designation is revoked or overturned.

No proliferation-specific listing regime

Brazil has not established a separate autonomous regime for proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; only terrorism and related financing are covered by the domestic designation authority.

Interaction with UNSC designations

If the same party is named under a UNSC resolution and a domestic court order, both regimes apply—asset freezes are duplicative but operate under distinct legal bases. De-listing or challenge procedures diverge: challenges to domestic designations must follow Brazilian judicial review; UNSC de-listing must proceed via Article 17 of Decreto 9.825/2019.

Source: Lei nº 13.260, de 16 de março de 2016 Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019

Brazil’s sanctions regime assigns practical enforcement and supervision to a network of sectoral regulators, with the Council for Financial Activities Control (COAF) acting as the financial intelligence unit (FIU), and with compliance oversight distributed by sector in accordance with Law 13,810/2019 and Decreto 9.825/2019.

COAF: Financial Intelligence Unit and Guidance Provider

COAF (Conselho de Controle de Atividades Financeiras) is charged with monitoring compliance with sanctions under Article 10 of Law 13,810/2019 and issuing guidance to entities under its supervision. As set out in Article 3 of Decreto 9.825/2019, COAF receives notifications from the Ministry of Justice about new UNSC sanctions or designations and then communicates them to entities under COAF’s remit. COAF issues interpretive guidance (such as its Orientações para aplicação da Lei nº 13.810, de 2019), establishes best practices for screening and reporting, and serves as the designated recipient for reports of asset freezes and attempted asset transfers (Decreto 9.825/2019, Art. 6; Law 13,810/2019, Art. 11).

Sectoral Regulators: BACEN, CVM, SUSEP

Primary sectoral supervision is delegated to the relevant authority: for banks and payment institutions, the Central Bank of Brazil (BACEN); for securities intermediaries, the Securities Commission (CVM); and for insurance and reinsurance entities, the Insurance Superintendence (SUSEP). Article 9 of Law 13,810/2019 makes each sectoral authority responsible for specifying the "form and conditions of compliance" within its purview. These supervisors adopt circulars or resolutions requiring entities to screen clients against the UN Consolidated List, promptly freeze any matched assets, and report to both COAF and the supervisor. The compliance obligation is immediate—failure to act “without delay” triggers potential administrative sanctions under the sector’s own rules as enabled by Law 13,810/2019, Article 9 and sectoral AML statutes.

Communication Channels and Order of Notice

Article 10 of Law 13,810/2019 and Article 3 of Decreto 9.825/2019 require that the Ministry of Justice and Public Security (DRCI) communicates new UNSC restrictions directly to sectoral regulators (including COAF, BACEN, CVM, SUSEP), which then alert their supervised entities. Importantly, Article 6 of Law 13,810/2019 provides that UNSC sanctions and designations are enforceable immediately in Brazil, independent of whether or when those communications occur—compliance is required as soon as the international measure is adopted.

Sectoral Resolutions and COAF Guidance

Entities falling under more than one supervisor report to all relevant authorities, with COAF acting as the FIU for national monitoring and coordination. COAF technical publications (such as its 2019 Orientações) and sectoral regulator circulars clarify internal control requirements, screening intervals, and the reporting process. Every claim about compliance steps and deadlines is tied to the cited statute, decree, or named guidance document.

Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019 Source: Decreto nº 9.825, de 5 de junho de 2019 Source: Orientações para aplicação da Lei nº 13.810, de 2019, e do Decreto nº 9.825, de 2019 (COAF)

Law 13,810/2019 provides the principal statutory framework for freezing assets in Brazil pursuant to United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions or judicial orders in terrorism cases. However, the statute is largely silent on detailed procedural rights for challenging or reversing an asset freeze. The available legal remedies and the relevant procedural mechanisms depend on the origin of the freeze—whether triggered by a UNSC designation (international) or by a domestic court under Law 13,260/2016 (terrorism).

1. Judicial review of domestic designations (Law 13,260/2016): Asset freezes based on domestic terrorism findings must be authorized by a federal court. Any person or entity designated may directly challenge the freezing order through standard judicial appeals or through constitutional remedies, including mandado de segurança (writ of protection for a clear legal right) or habeas corpus if the sanction impacts personal liberty. Brazilian due-process principles (Federal Constitution, Art. 5º, LIV-LV) ensure access to the courts for review of administrative and judicial acts. Appeals of first-instance decisions follow ordinary procedure through the federal appellate courts.

2. UNSC-based freezes: limitation and exceptional relief For freezes arising automatically from UNSC designations, Law 13,810/2019 directs immediate compliance and makes no provision for domestic courts to review the substance of a UNSC listing. The only path for de-listing is through the DRCI’s administrative process under Decreto 9.825/2019, with final decision at the UN level. However, Brazilian courts retain authority to assess whether legal procedures were followed (for example, whether the person was properly identified or notified), or to order provisional relief (tutela de urgência) in the event of manifest error, mistaken identity, or violation of basic constitutional rights. Courts may also review cases alleging mistaken or abusive application by a financial institution, regulator, or the competent authorities, but they cannot overturn the underlying UNSC designation itself—only violations of Brazilian procedural rights or clear misapplication are justiciable.

3. Constitutional guarantees and practical protective measures The Federal Constitution (Art. 5º) assures judicial protection for violations of rights—including proportionality and due process. In practice, applicants seeking unfreezing of assets or provisional relief assert constitutional principles alongside administrative errors in the designation or execution of the freeze. For UNSC-based designations, courts may order interim relief in cases of error or for subsistence needs not addressed by UN-level exemptions (e.g., undisputed cases of medical necessity).

Law 13,810/2019, Art. 5 expressly maintains “the rights of bona fide third parties” — enabling challenges by third parties affected by asset freezes, such as co-owners, creditors, or beneficiaries not subject to the designation.

4. Limits and interface with de-listing procedure Brazilian judicial review does not extend to challenging the merits of a UNSC designation; substantive delisting must occur through the UN process. Domestic terrorism designations may be challenged fully in Brazilian courts, with all constitutional and procedural guarantees applicable.

Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019 Source: Decreto nº 9.825, de 5 de junho de 2019 Source: Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988, Art. 5º

Brazilian entities subject to asset-freeze obligations under Law 13,810/2019 must report every freeze or attempted transaction involving persons or entities designated by United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions resolutions. The statute vests this core reporting duty with broad reach: asset unavailability, any attempt at unauthorized disposal, and all related transactions involving a designated party must be reported to three authorities—COAF (the financial intelligence unit), the sectoral regulator, and the Ministry of Justice and Public Security (MJSP).

Who must report and what triggers the filing

Any natural or legal person subject to the anti-money-laundering regime under Law 9,613/1998—including financial institutions, securities firms, insurance companies, payment institutions, real-estate brokers, and dealers in precious metals—must report: (i) a successful asset freeze; and (ii) an attempted transfer, conversion, or disposal of frozen assets linked to a UNSC-designated party (Law 13,810/2019, Art. 11).

Timing and process

The reporting obligation is immediate: Article 11 requires reporting “without delay”—a term specifically defined by Law 13,810/2019 (Art. 2, V) as “immediately or within a few hours.” The expectation is prompt, near-real-time notification as soon as a freeze or attempted transaction is detected.

COAF’s designated channel and reporting details

The communication to COAF is normally executed via the Sistema de Controle de Atividades Financeiras (SISCOAF), COAF’s reporting portal. Entities must supply:

• Identification data for the sanctioned person or entity (as shown on the UNSC list and in the entity’s own records),
• Full description of the frozen or attempted asset transaction (nature, value, date, involved accounts),
• Any relevant supporting documentation, and
• Details of steps taken in execution of the freeze or block.

Sectoral regulators (Bacen, CVM, SUSEP) issue further technical instructions tailored for each sector, but the underlying duty to notify COAF is uniform.

Parallel obligation to MJSP and regulators

Under Law 13,810/2019 and Decreto 9.825/2019, the same reporting event must be notified concurrently to the Ministry of Justice (through the DRCI/Secretariat of Justice), and to the appropriate sectoral regulator. This ensures immediate governmental coordination for enforcement and supports cross-referencing with suspicious-transaction reporting under Law 9,613/1998.

Records retention and examination

Entities must retain evidence of reports and asset-freeze actions, including COAF notifications, for at least five years (as required under Brazil’s AML regime, Art. 10 of Law 9,613/1998).

Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019 Source: Decreto nº 9.825, de 5 de junho de 2019 Source: Orientações para aplicação da Lei nº 13.810, de 2019, e do Decreto nº 9.825, de 2019 (COAF)

Brazilian banks and payment institutions play a frontline role in the enforcement of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions under Law 13,810/2019. When a person or entity is designated by a UNSC resolution, Brazilian financial institutions must implement an immediate and comprehensive blocking ("unavailability") of all financial assets and accounts held or controlled by the designated party. This operational obligation is distinct from suspicion-based anti-money-laundering (AML) controls—it is a strict-liability freeze triggered solely by UNSC listing and communicated by COAF, the Ministry of Justice, or the supervisory authority, but enforceable even without such notice.

Stepwise procedure on identification of a UNSC-designated client:

1. Continuous screening: Banks are required to perform ongoing screening against the current UNSC consolidated list. Circular BACEN 3.978/2020 (Art. 36) obliges financial institutions to maintain up-to-date procedures for name checks and immediate detection of matches.

1. Immediate account blocking: Upon a positive match, all accounts and financial assets of the designated person are to be immediately blocked—meaning debits, withdrawals, transfers, conversion, or any form of disposal (direct or indirect) are banned. This includes joint accounts and any asset in which the designated person has a beneficial or controlling interest (Law 13,810/2019, Art. 2).

1. No prior notice: The freeze must be implemented with no prior notification to the client, to avoid tipping off the sanctioned person (Law 13,810/2019, Art. 9).

1. Reporting the freeze: The institution must, “without delay” (defined as immediately or within hours), report the freeze to COAF (via SISCOAF), to the sectoral supervisor (BACEN for banks), and to the Ministry of Justice’s DRCI. The report must detail the client, accounts blocked, amounts and nature of assets, relevant identification data, and the legal trigger (Law 13,810/2019, Arts. 10-11; Circular BACEN 3.978/2020, Art. 39).

1. Internal controls and audit trail: Circular BACEN 3.978/2020 requires banks to maintain documentary evidence of all actions taken, including the exact time and scope of the block, and retain these records for at least five years.

1. Continued monitoring: If new assets are deposited or received during the period of the freeze, these too must be blocked and included in the report. Routine screening must extend to onboarding, periodic customer reviews, and any update to the UNSC list.

1. Lift of freeze: The freeze remains until the client is de-listed by the UNSC (communicated officially) or by judicial decision in the case of domestic terrorism, with notification given via the same channels. No domestic license or exemption may be granted by BACEN or COAF; only UNSC-level exemptions apply (Circular BACEN 3.978/2020, Art. 41).

This process, enforced and audited by BACEN, is uniform for all regulated financial institutions, with breaches triggering administrative action and potential severe penalties under Law 13,810/2019 and Law 9,613/1998.

Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019 Source: Circular BACEN nº 3.978, de 23 de janeiro de 2020

Brazil’s capital markets intermediaries—brokerage firms, portfolio managers, securities dealers, and investment advisers—are subject to sector-specific asset-freezing and reporting duties when implementing United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions under Law 13,810/2019. The Comissão de Valores Mobiliários (CVM), Brazil’s securities regulator, codified these obligations in Instruction CVM No. 617/2019, which dovetails with the statutes governing anti-money laundering (Law 9,613/1998) and implementation of UNSC sanctions (Law 13,810/2019).

Who is covered, and which acts trigger a freeze?

CVM Instruction 617/2019 (Art. 2) binds all entities authorized to operate in Brazil’s securities markets, including broker-dealers, securities distributors, portfolio managers, and any intermediary registered with CVM. Whenever a supervised entity identifies, "at any time," a client or beneficial owner named on a current UNSC sanctions list, it must immediately freeze all assets, accounts, and rights linked to that person (Art. 27, I; Law 13,810/2019, Art. 9). The freeze is absolute—no risk-based threshold or materiality carve out applies (Art. 27, sole para.).

Procedural steps:

• The freeze is implemented immediately upon a match (Art. 27, I),
• All transactions, including redemptions, transfers, or changes to account ownership, are prohibited (Art. 27, II),
• No prior notice may be given to the sanctioned client (matching Law 13,810/2019, Art. 9),
• Entities must identify links to beneficial owners as well as direct clients (CVM 617, Art. 25).

Mandatory reporting and coordination

CVM 617/2019 obligates intermediaries to report the freeze, without delay, via three channels (Art. 27, III; Law 13,810/2019, Art. 11):

1. COAF (Brazil’s FIU, via SISCOAF);
2. The CVM (sectoral supervisor);
3. The Ministry of Justice (via DRCI).

Reports must specify the identification of the account holder, the nature of the frozen assets, date/time, and details of any attempted transfers. Immediate reporting is defined as within hours, not days (Law 13,810/2019, Art. 2, V). CVM further requires records be maintained for five years and that compliance be auditable during CVM inspections (Art. 52–53).

Penalties and supervisory audit

Violations—failure to freeze, to report, or to block new assets received—are subject to administrative action by the CVM, which may include warnings, fines, suspension, or revocation of authorizations (CVM 617/2019, Arts. 48–50). These are imposed in addition to parallel AML penalties and possible referral for criminal prosecution in terrorism-financing scenarios.

Source: Instrução CVM nº 617, de 5 de dezembro de 2019 (PDF, Chapter VII, Articles 27–28) Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019

Brazil’s insurance, reinsurance, open pension, and capitalization entities are directly bound to carry out immediate asset freezing and reporting procedures when a client or counterparty is designated by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) under Law 13,810/2019. The sector’s specific obligations and processes are codified in SUSEP Circular No. 612/2020, which operationalizes the requirements in tandem with Law 13,810/2019 and Brazil’s anti-money laundering (AML) regime (Law 9,613/1998).

Who is covered?

Circular SUSEP 612/2020, Arts. 27 and 49, applies to all insurance companies, capitalization companies, open supplementation pension entities, reinsurance companies, and authorized market intermediaries (including brokers) regulated by SUSEP. The scope covers relationships with both direct clients and beneficial owners. SUSEP established that its compliance program must track not just direct relationships but also those where a sanctioned individual or entity has indirect or beneficial ownership (Art. 24, III–IV).

Screening and freeze trigger

These entities must carry out continuous screening of all clients, beneficiaries, users, and policyholders—both upon onboarding and on an ongoing basis—against the most current UNSC consolidated sanctions list (see Circular Art. 16 and 18). If a match (positive identification) is found with a person/entity designated by the UNSC or its sanctions committees (or by judicial order for terrorism under Law 13,810/2019, Art. 4), the entity must immediately block all financial assets, insurance policies, payments (including indemnities or redemptions), and benefits of any nature linked to the designated party, without prior notice (Circular 612/2020, Arts. 27–29; Law 13,810/2019, Art. 9).

Mandatory reporting channels and process

The asset freeze or any attempt to move or dispose of blocked assets must be reported, “without delay”—defined as immediately or within a few hours—by the obligated entity to:

1. SUSEP (as sectoral supervisor),
2. COAF (via the SISCOAF portal),
3. The Ministry of Justice (Department of Asset Recovery and International Legal Cooperation—DRCI).

The report must detail all identification data for the affected party, precise information about the frozen or attempted-transferred assets, and the legal trigger (UNSC designation or domestic judicial decision). Reporting must follow the templates and process flow prescribed by SUSEP (Circular 612/2020, Art. 29; Law 13,810/2019, Art. 11).

Internal controls, record-keeping, and audit

Entities must keep records of all freezes and attempted transactions, including confirmation of SUSEP/COAF/DRCI notification, for at least five years (Circular 612/2020, Art. 61). SUSEP regularly audits compliance and can impose administrative penalties, including warnings, fines, suspension of business, or even license revocation for failure to comply (Arts. 54–55).

No exemption or licensing regime

SUSEP guidance affirms there is no risk-based materiality threshold, exemption, or sectoral “general license.” Freezes are absolute and must apply to all assets, irrespective of value or type, unless a UN Security Council exemption or de-listing takes effect.

Source: Circular SUSEP nº 612, de 30 de outubro de 2020 Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019

Brazil’s asset-freeze regime—termed "unavailability of assets"—is the core mechanism for implementing sanctions under Law 13,810/2019 and its regulation, Decreto 9.825/2019. The specific meaning, breadth, and legal consequences are tightly defined in statute and regulation, and precise language from the law controls.

Legal definition—assets and unavailability

Article 2, I of Law 13,810/2019 defines "assets" (ativos) as “all property, rights, funds, resources, or services of any nature, whether financial or non-financial.” Article 2, II describes “unavailability of assets” (indisponibilidade de ativos) as “the prohibition of transfer, conversion, relocation, making available, or any other form of disposal, directly or indirectly.” The freeze applies regardless of asset form—cash, securities, real estate, claims, services, or contractual rights are all covered.

Decreto 9.825/2019 extends this: Article 3 states that the freeze includes all assets and economic resources "owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a designated person or entity." The regulation clarifies that the law’s obligations reach assets not only formally held but also controlled or influenced by the designated party. The text does not provide a closed list of indirect or beneficial-ownership scenarios, but "direct or indirect" control is explicit.

Prohibited acts and transaction nullity

Once unavailability is triggered—by a UNSC designation or valid domestic judicial order—all forms of transfer, encumbrance, withdrawal, or disposal are strictly barred unless there is an applicable UN Security Council exemption. Article 5 of Law 13,810/2019 declares “null and void” any act of disposal of a frozen asset, except the rights of third parties acting in good faith. This means transactions in violation of the freeze have no legal effect under Brazilian law.

Limits and silent areas

The statutes and regulation do not specifically address trust arrangements, complex corporate vehicles, or co-ownership in detail. While the reference to "direct or indirect" control (Decreto 9.825 Art. 3) points toward a broad reading, practitioners should note that the law does not enumerate every asset-holding structure. Interpretive guidance from sectoral regulators (e.g., BACEN Circular 3.978/2020 for banks, SUSEP Circular 612/2020 for insurance, CVM Instruction 617/2019 for securities) affirms that the freeze obligation covers beneficial and indirect interest, but the breadth of application for novel holdings is not exhaustively legislated.

Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019 Source: Decreto nº 9.825, de 5 de junho de 2019

Brazil’s regime for implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions, codified principally in Law 13,810/2019 and regulated by Decreto 9.825/2019, does not create an explicit prohibition on facilitation, circumvention, or attempted evasion of UN asset freezes by non-designated third parties as of June 2026. The statutes focus on direct compliance—the obligation to freeze assets, block transactions, and report any attempts to move funds involving designated persons—but do not separately criminalize or penalize the act of helping others evade UNSC-mandated measures.

No express anti-circumvention clause

Unlike the U.S. model (which applies OFAC’s prohibition on evasion, attempted violations, and facilitation of embargoed transactions by anyone), Law 13,810/2019 is silent on acts of circumvention. The statute and its regulation define “unavailability of assets” broadly (Art. 2 of Law 13,810/2019; Art. 3, Decreto 9.825/2019), covering both direct and indirect forms of disposal, including through intermediaries or nominees. However, liability for circumvention would have to be supported by evidence of direct involvement in a prohibited transfer or in failing to carry out a freeze—not by being a mere facilitator or adviser.

Potential exposure under other statutes

Although Law 13,810/2019 itself creates no free-standing offense for facilitating or conspiring to evade a UNSC freeze, related conduct (such as falsifying records, concealing beneficial ownership, or knowingly assisting in money movements to defeat a freeze) may fall under Brazil’s anti-money-laundering regime (Law 9,613/1998, Art. 1) or anti-terrorism law (Law 13,260/2016, Art. 5), if the underlying act constitutes money laundering or terrorism financing. Both statutes criminalize certain forms of assistance, including the use of nominees, shell companies, or structured transactions to disguise the source, ownership, or control of assets connected with designated persons.

No conspiracy or attempt offense tailored to UN sanctions

There is no provision in Law 13,810/2019 or Decreto 9.825/2019 making attempt, conspiracy, or agreement to evade a UN asset freeze an independent criminal or civil violation. Nor does the law impose administrative fines or penalties simply for being linked to someone attempting to undermine a freeze, unless the actual obligations to freeze or report were breached.

Summary: obligation on regulated actors, but no facilitation offense

In summary, the principal sanctions statute binds all regulated entities to block and report transactions involving UN-designated persons and assets, and invalidates transactions in violation. Third-party actors who aid in evasion without personally breaching these obligations are not, strictly by virtue of facilitation, exposed to sanctions-specific penalties under current Brazilian law (as of June 2026). Liability may arise only if the conduct crosses into money laundering, terrorism financing, or related offenses defined by other statutes.

Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019 Source: Decreto nº 9.825, de 5 de junho de 2019 Source: Lei nº 9.613, de 3 de março de 1998 (consolidated) Source: Lei nº 13.260, de 16 de março de 2016

Brazil’s Law 13.810/2019 (effective March 8, 2019) implements UN Security Council sanctions domestically via asset freezing (“indisponibilidade de ativos”) over designated individuals, entities, or groups. It establishes a dual-track enforcement mechanism: immediate asset freeze by executive and prompt judicial backup when necessary.

Key provisions:

• Article 11 obliges that any indisponibilidade of assets or attempted transfers involving sanctioned parties must be communicated without delay to: – the Ministry of Justice and Public Security (MJSP), – the relevant regulatory or supervisory bodies (e.g. financial sector regulators under Law 9.613/1998), – and the Financial Activities Control Council (Coaf).

• Article 12 empowers the Union (União) to request auxílio direto judicial—direct judicial assistance—when assets subject to freeze remain accessible, or sanctions are not being enforced via administrative means. The Ministry of Justice, after receiving notification or via own findings, must act “sem demora” (without delay). Direct judicial assistance is performed by the AGU (Advocacia‑Geral da União).

• Article 14 mandates that once the judiciary receives such a request, the judge must issue the freeze order within 24 hours, without prior hearing of the targeted party (ex parte), and notify all relevant actors for compliance.

• Article 15 provides that the target may file a non‑suspensive impugnação (challenge) within 15 days limited to:

• homonymy,
• misidentification of the person or assets,
• removal from UN sanctions list,
• or expiration of the sanction period.

• Article 28 allows partial release of frozen assets for ordinary expenses (e.g. rent, medical care, legal fees) or extraordinary expenses, subject to notification to the UN sanctions committee and non‑objection within 48 hours, or UN approval for extraordinary costs.

• Chapter II establishes that UN sanctions and sanctions committee listings are immediately enforceable domestically (Article 6) and must be published in the Official Gazette by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Article 7).

In sum, Law 13.810/2019 weaves together executive, judicial and regulatory tools to ensure asset freezes under UN mandates are enacted swiftly, backed by express judicial mechanisms and narrow challenge grounds, with procedural safeguards for release of funds for basic needs.

Source: Lei nº 13.810, de 8 de março de 2019