The growing use of sanctions as a foreign policy tool has generated relevant legal discussions about the limits of state jurisdiction in the international scenario. In this context, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (“Global Magnitsky Act“) stands out — a United States legislation sanctioned in 2012 and expanded in 2016 — as an instrument for the extraterritorial application of sanctions aimed at accountability for human rights violations and acts of corruption on a global scale.
Initially enacted with a specific focus on cracking down on violations committed by Russia, the Global Magnitsky Act was later modified to allow for the imposition of sanctions against any foreign person identified as responsible for conduct that qualifies as serious, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator or the country in which the acts were committed. The legislation authorizes the President of the United States to adopt restrictive measures based on credible evidence that indicates the individual’s responsibility for extrajudicial punishment, acts of torture, other severe human rights violations, or significant involvement in corrupt practices, such as bribery and misappropriation of public funds.
The sanctions provided by the Global Magnitsky Act include the prohibition of the individual’s entry into U.S. territory, the freezing of assets located in the United States or transiting through the financial system under U.S. jurisdiction, as well as the prohibition of transactions with individuals or legal entities that are subject to U.S. law. Although it is a domestic law, the application of these measures may have impacts of international scope, due to the central position occupied by the United States in the global financial system and the predominance of the dollar as a settlement currency in cross-border commercial transactions.
It is important to note that the Global Magnitsky Act itself provides for limitations on its application. Section 3, subsection (C), expressly provides that the authority conferred to freeze goods and restrict transactions does not extend to the imposition of sanctions related to the importation of goods. This provision functions as a material limit on the action of the U.S. Executive Branch within the scope of economic sanctions under this specific legislation.
In practice, the effects of sanctions vary according to the international exposure of the sanctioned individual or entity. A study published in March 2025 by LSJ Online, based on interviews conducted with twenty people subject to sanctions in the context of the Global Magnitsky Act for involvement in corruption cases, revealed that approximately one-third of respondents do not suffer significant asset impacts. On the other hand, most reported significant losses resulting from the cooperation between government authorities and private agents to restrict commercial and financial relations with the individuals sanctioned and their companies. The study also pointed out that, in several cases, the imposition of sanctions gave rise to the opening of subsequent investigations in other jurisdictions, evidencing the amplifying nature of the effects of these measures.[1]
In this scenario, it becomes increasingly relevant that companies, financial institutions, and economic agents in general adopt structured international compliance policies, with effective mechanisms for monitoring sanctions lists, conducting due diligence in business relationships, and continuously assessing regulatory and reputational risks. In-depth knowledge of the regulatory scope and practical effects of international sanctions such as the Global Magnitsky Act is an essential element for risk management in a global environment marked by increasing regulatory interconnection and regulatory activism of economic powers. For more information on international sanctions, please contact us.
[1] See The Future of Magnitsky laws, available at The future of Magnitsky laws – Law Society Journal. Accessed June 10, 2025.