Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill — New Clause 29 — Asset Freezing in Respect of Individuals Considered for Sanctions — 7 Mar 2022 at 21:34

The majority of MPs voted not to forbid individuals named as being considered as a subject of sanctions from selling their assets or moving funds or assets out of the UK.

MPs were considering the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill.[1][2][3]

The proposed new clause rejected by a majority of MPs in this vote was titled: Asset freezing in respect of individuals considered for sanctions and began:

  • (1) The Secretary of State may by notice publish the name of a person being considered as a subject for sanctions.
  • (2) A person in respect of whom a notice has been published under subsection (1) is immediately subject to the provisions of this section.
  • (3) A person in respect of whom a notice has been published under subsection (1) is prohibited from—
  • (a) selling any assets they own or have an interest in,
  • (b) moving any assets they own or have an interest in out of the United Kingdom, or
  • (c) moving any of their funds out of the United Kingdom.
  • (4) ‘Assets’ in subsection (3)(a) or (b) includes (but is not limited to)—
  • (a) land;
  • (b) houses, flats or other private accommodation;
  • (c) commercial, industrial, agricultural and other buildings, premises or property;
  • (d) businesses;
  • (e) personal possessions, works of art, jewellery or collectibles with an individual value of more than £500;
  • (f) motor vehicles;
  • (g) yachts or boats; and
  • (h) aircraft.
  • ...

The rejected new clause continued with definitions and provisions for related offences.

The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory statement from its proposer:

  • This new clause would prevent individuals whom the Secretary of State has named as being considered as a subject for sanctions from selling their assets or moving funds or assets out of the UK.

The explanatory notes to the Bill[3] state:

  • Sanctions are an important foreign policy and national security tool. They are restrictive measures which are designed to be temporary and can be used to coerce a change in behavior, to constrain behavior, or to communicate a clear political message to other countries or persons.


Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alba0 1050.0%
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con299 (+2 tell) 9085.6%
DUP0 6075.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 3060.0%
Lab0 163 (+2 tell)082.5%
LDem0 10076.9%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 1050.0%
SNP0 36080.0%
Total:299 234083.6%

Rebel Voters - sorted by vote

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

John BaronBasildon and BillericayConaye
Peter BoneWellingboroughwhilst Con (front bench)aye
David DavisHaltemprice and HowdenConaye
Jonathan DjanoglyHuntingdonConaye
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)aye
Julian LewisNew Forest Eastwhilst Con (front bench)aye
Tim LoughtonEast Worthing and ShorehamCon (front bench)aye
Jason McCartneyColne ValleyConaye
Julian SturdyYork OuterCon (front bench)aye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive