← Back to dashboard 🔒 Premium — subscriber access

Sanctions Intelligence Report

Classification: ANALYTICAL PRODUCT Generated: 2026-07-19 01:31 CEST Methodology: Court-case intelligence × procurement data × OFAC SDN cross-match


Executive Summary

Analysis of 2531430 court-derived organizations reveals an 99.6% court coverage gap, while 91.3% of the tracked procurement spend remains unsanctioned.

Key Findings

Metric Value
Organizations analyzed 2531430
Currently sanctioned (OFAC) 10025 (0.4%)
NOT sanctioned 2521354 (99.6%)
High-confidence evasion enablers 25451
Hidden suppliers (defense-linked) 269
Network hubs (degree ≥ 5) 71439
Financial enablers identified 1616

Consistency Snapshot

Check Value
Procurement unsanctioned spend 91.3% of €444.9B
Court visibility gap 181 of 2888921 orgs
Supplier universe 99,034 total / 1,000 searchable
Audit status WARN (0 fails, 1 warnings)
Latest source timestamp 2026-07-19T01:09:26+02:00

🔒 Premium brief — full access

This brief's evidentiary detail, specific targets, and designation recommendations are available to vetted compliance teams, law firms, and government analysts — as single-brief purchases or under a portfolio monitoring retainer. The teaser above shows the headline methodology; the full document includes case-number citations, target INNs, SDN-adjacency numbers, and recommended secondary-designation scope.

Already subscribed? Open the full brief with your analyst credentials. Otherwise, subscribe to portfolio monitoring for the full library, or commission this brief on its own.

Read the full brief → See access options Request by email
Basis and limitations. Findings in this brief are derived from public records — kad.arbitr.ru arbitration filings, EGRUL registry extracts, zakupki.gov.ru procurement contracts, and official sanctions lists — and from algorithmic scoring described in the methodology. Scores are triage outputs, not legal determinations. Court co-litigation measures litigation frequency with listed parties, not culpability; procurement links may reflect arm's-length commerce. Named entities may dispute factual errors via derek.linz@linzalytics.com (subject "Dispute request"); the review process and timelines are on the methodology page, and material corrections are logged at /intel/corrections.html with dates.