LSEG Risk Intelligence has launched a new dataset aimed at tackling one of the most persistent challenges in modern compliance: identifying securities that are indirectly linked to sanctioned entities through complex ownership structures.
The launch of the Sanctioned Securities Data File, developed in partnership with data analytics firm BIGTXN, comes with initial analysis revealing that approximately one-third of all sanctions-linked instruments are connected not through explicit designation, but via ownership and control relationships.
The hidden risk of ownership
While financial institutions have robust systems for screening against explicit sanctions lists, the “50 per cent rule” and similar control-based regulations create significant blind spots. A company may not appear on a sanctions list itself, but if it is owned or controlled by a sanctioned parent, its securities fall within the scope of regulation.
LSEG’s analysis highlights that traditional list-based screening often lacks the granularity to detect these indirect exposures consistently. By mapping sanctions designations to real financial instruments, the new dataset aims to provide the systematic clarity firms need to avoid accidental non-compliance.
Chris Moyser, head of strategy at LSEG risk intelligence, commented: “Sanctions regimes today extend far beyond simple lists of designated names. Financial institutions need a systematic way to understand how those designations translate into real exposure across securities, ownership structures and corporate actions. The Sanctioned Securities Data File is designed to bring that clarity – helping firms identify risk that is often difficult to detect using traditional screening approaches.”
Active risks in the market
The data also reveals that sanctions compliance is far from a retrospective exercise. According to LSEG, approximately 60 per cent of sanctions-linked instruments remain active based on current platform coverage. This underscores that sanctions exposure is an ongoing operational challenge for trading, investment, and post-trade functions, rather than just a legacy issue.
At the instrument level, the impact is heavily concentrated in capital formation mechanisms. Rights, entitlements, debt instruments, and structured products collectively account for 80 per cent of sanctioned instruments.
Geographically, the data confirms the continued dominance of Russian-imposed measures. Russia accounts for 60 per cent of total issuance in the sanctions-instrument landscape. However, regimes administered by the European Union, the United States, New Zealand, and Ukraine are also noted as material contributors, illustrating the increasing complexity of multi-jurisdictional compliance.