I read with great interest the foreign secretary’s opinion piece announcing the development of legislation for a new sanctions regime that specifically targets irregular migration and organised immigration crime (Journal, 8 January).
As a fellow barrister specialising in human rights, anti-corruption and sanctions, I am very curious about the scope and powers of the proposed law. Sanctions can play an important role in deterring the operation of criminal networks, by freezing their UK assets and cutting them off from UK financial and other services. Similar to tactics used by US prosecutors to bring down Al Capone in the 1930s, UK-based members of human trafficking networks may be easier to prosecute for violating sanctions than for the trafficking itself.
However, as I wrote back in 2020, the UK already has a sanctions regime for targeting persons involved in human trafficking and their wider networks of enablers and facilitators. If need be, the scope of this regime can be fairly easily and quickly broadened through secondary legislation.
More importantly, sanctions are only effective when they are backed by robust and well-resourced enforcement. As we have witnessed since the launch of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a barrage of sanctions without proper enforcement quickly loses its deterrent effect.
I fully support David Lammy’s ambition to tackle the abuse and exploitation of migrants by targeting trafficking gangs and their enablers, and hope that this is combined with an accessible and efficient asylum-claim-processing system.Alex PrezantiCo-founder and lead counsel, State Capture: Research and Action
• The government intends to change legislation to allow law enforcement to disrupt people-smuggling gangs by restricting their access to finance, as well as travel and social media, as part of its determination to “smash the gangs” (Report, 2 January). This will involve allowing law enforcement to apply directly to the high court for a restrictive order prior to a criminal conviction.
It should be recognised that serious crime prevention orders (SCPOs) with these effects can already be obtained prior to conviction. However, the take-up has been very low. Government statistics show that between 2011 and 2021, only two applications were made to the high court for an SCPO in the absence of a conviction. This compares with 1,057 SCPOs being obtained in the crown court following conviction. It will be important to see how the legislation sets the burden of proof and procedural requirements for obtaining the new interim orders, and whether this will be effective in encouraging greater take-up by investigators, while also ensuring that cases do not get snarled up in extensive legal challenges.
Second, as your piece recognises, preventive orders on their own will not alter the fundamentals of the smuggling market. SCPOs are undoubtedly effective in impacting on individual criminals and groups that cause significant harm to society, but ultimately criminal markets are driven by demand. While the global conditions remain to drive migrants towards Europe, experience suggests there will always be bad actors that seek to capitalise on this.Ian Mynot Director, Advanced Financial Crime ConsultingDublin, Ireland
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.