News & Comment

The Home Secretary said disrupting gangs’ finances would make it harder for them to operate, alongside separate work against Channel crossings by the Border Security Command, which is still being set up. But sanctions expert Tom Keatinge, director of the Centre for Finance and Security at the RUSI think-tank, warned that there had to be a “nexus between the target of the sanctions and the UK” for them to be enforced. “If there isn’t, we’re shouting loudly but not achieving anything,” he added. “There’s a high risk that two years from now we’re discussing what impact these sanctions have had on the flow of people crossing the Channel in small boats, and the answer is nothing.” Keatinge said that “naming and shaming” people smugglers on a sanctions list could spark voluntary action by international banks, and that if EU countries take similar action the impact could be greater. But he warned that historically sanctions have served mainly as a diplomatic “messaging tool” rather than means of having a real-world impact on criminal groups.

Jamie MacColl, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a defence and security thinktank, described the proposals as the “most significant intervention” by a government against ransomware gangs. He said requiring the reporting of attacks and of any intention to pay could disrupt criminals. “The proposal to mandate reporting of ransomware incidents is sensible and will improve law enforcement’s ability to disrupt criminals,” he said. “By shining a light on organisations that pay, it may also cause some victims to think twice about paying a ransom.” He added, however, that a selective payment ban might not work because ransomware outfits tend to be opportunistic and are not discerning enough to avoid specific sectors.