The EU’s 21st sanctions package has introduced a new risk for physical bunker suppliers: repeated dealings with already-designated vessels can now result in the supplier itself being added to the sanctions list, according to an INSIGHT piece by Paul Henty, Partner at Beale & Co, published on Ship & Bunker.
A Shift From Penalty to Status
Henty explains that previously, EU sanctions compliance for physical suppliers was largely a point-in-time exercise. Suppliers screened a vessel and counterparty before each stem, and if neither appeared on the sanctions list, the delivery could proceed. Under the new package, the criteria for listing vessels now extend to ships providing services—including bunkering and towage—to vessels already designated, as well as those conducting ship-to-ship transfers with them.
According to the article, the Council of the EU has already applied this new ground, designating five bunkering vessels because they had regularly refuelled tankers already on the sanctions list. A crewing agency was also listed for the first time as a fleet service provider, Henty notes.
No Clear Threshold for “Often Enough”
Henty writes that a single breach was previously treated as a matter to manage and remediate. Under the new rules, a pattern of repeated supply to designated vessels can itself become grounds for listing. However, the article states there is no numerical threshold, measurement period, or safe harbour defining how many transactions constitute a pattern significant enough to trigger designation.
Compounding this, Henty notes that the fleet in question is often structured to defeat screening, using name changes, flag changes, and manipulated AIS positions—meaning a stem that appeared clean at the time can later form part of a pattern only visible across a supplier’s own historical records.
Innocence Is Not a Full Defence
The article states that designation is a preventive measure rather than a penalty, meaning that even if a supplier’s dealings were legitimate when they occurred, this does not automatically prevent listing. Henty explains that innocence is relevant to enforcement proceedings concerning an actual breach, but does not necessarily apply to the separate question of designation itself.
Henty does note that listed parties can request delisting from the Council or bring annulment proceedings before the General Court, and that maintaining detailed, interrogable trading records is the strongest practical safeguard, since such records would predate any future listing dispute.
Practical Steps Highlighted
According to the article, suppliers should maintain bunkering history organized by both counterparty and vessel over time, establish internal review triggers for repeat dealings rather than treating each delivery in isolation, and document the reasoning behind any decision to pause or end a commercial relationship. Henty also stresses reviewing existing sanctions clauses, noting that many are triggered only by an actual breach, designation, or listing—events that, under this new regime, arrive after the risk has already materialized.
Does This Matter to You?
This development is directly relevant to physical bunker suppliers, traders, and vessel operators involved in the sale or delivery of marine fuel, particularly in regions where interactions with tankers of uncertain sanctions status may occur. The shift means that sanctions compliance can no longer rely solely on checking a vessel or counterparty against the list at the moment of each individual stem.
According to the source material, repeated dealings—even if each transaction appeared compliant at the time—could contribute to a pattern that results in a supplier being designated. This has implications for how bunkering records are kept, how internal compliance triggers are set, and how sanctions clauses in supply contracts are drafted or reviewed.
Gulf Bunkering does not provide operational or security guidance. This article is for informational purposes only. Operators should consult flag state authorities, P&I clubs, and relevant advisories for decisions relating to transit planning.
Sources: Ship & Bunker (INSIGHT by Paul Henty, Partner, Beale & Co)
