UK Export Control: Voluntary Disclosures ( Vol Dec) and HMRC Compound Settlements

1. This note summarises the current position on voluntary disclosure and HMRC’s use of
   compound settlements for breaches of UK export control and trade sanctions legislation.
2. HMRC’s power to compound an offence — accepting a monetary settlement in place of
   prosecution — derives from section 152(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act
3. The power is discretionary, requires the offender’s acceptance, and does not result in a
   criminal conviction.
4. Export control offences arise under the Export Control Order 2008, and sanctions offences
   typically under the relevant sanctions regulations (for example, the Russia (Sanctions) (EU
   Exit) Regulations 2019). Section 152 CEMA is the mechanism HMRC uses to compound both.
5. HMRC’s published criteria indicate that a compound settlement will normally only be offered
   where the exporter has both: (a) committed a breach that was inadvertent or due to
   weaknesses in internal controls, rather than intentional evasion; and (b) voluntarily disclosed
   the breach to HMRC, cooperated fully with the investigation, and remediated the underlying
   failing.
   There is nothing in Sec 152 CEMA 1979 that requires anything in point b.
6. Published settlement figures show a clear upward trend: approximately £4.35 million across
   11 settlements in 2024; approximately £5.83 million across 6 settlements in 2025; and
   approximately £7.22 million across 4 settlements in 2026 to date. HMRC has attributed part
   of this rise to increasing voluntary disclosure volumes for unlicensed exports, incorrect
   licence usage, and breaches of licence conditions.
7. Since mid-2026, HMRC has for the first time named parties to a compound settlement.
   Airbus Operations Limited paid £6,409,388 in July 2026 — the largest settlement on record
   — following a voluntary disclosure of OGEL/SIEL record-keeping breaches. Petrofac Facilities
   Management Limited paid £569,157.07 in June 2026 for breaches of the Russia sanctions
   regime, also identified through its own voluntary disclosure.
8. HMRC has indicated that it considers whether to name a settling party on a case-by-case
   basis, and that making a voluntary disclosure does not, of itself, guarantee anonymity.

2
8. Businesses that identify a possible breach should take advice promptly and consider whether
a voluntary disclosure to HMRC is appropriate, given the material difference in outcome —
and now, potentially, in publicity — between disclosed and undisclosed breaches.

BEC comment:
I write as, an ex HMCE /HMRC Higher Investigation Officer, who served for
nearly 10 years, within its Export Control Criminal Investigation Team (aka
Customs A/B) and had first-hand knowledge of compounding for Export
control offences [‘confessed’ by Voluntary Declarations] ; was asked the lead
the team dealing with them ( I declined, as I did not feel that it was
appropriate/cost effective for Criminal Investigation officers to manage routine
compliance issues ).
There were occasions I did submit cases for compounding, but none were from
Vol Decs, rather those uncovered by proactive activity by HM Revenue &
Customs, often where I could not evidence, intentional evasion, to the Criminal
standard.

A few points of note :-

1. There is NO legal requirement to submit Voluntary declarations for
   Export Control offences in the UK.
2. In the event HM Revenue & Customs somehow uncover breaches, the
   option to Compound exists whether you have disclosed or not .
3. The decision to Prosecute lies solely with the CPS.
4. Many Voluntary Declarations are submitted ( or were) as a result of
   Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Compliance staff
   (DBT of old) “encouraging” Traders to submit a Vol Dec to HM Revenue
   & Customs ; a Vol Dec is a written confession to a Crime or Crimes and
   very easy for HM Revenue & Customs to progress, with just a calculator .
5. A Govt lawyer, who I discussed this with, described it as a “shakedown” .

3
6. Creating a Full prosecution folder for the same Offences to give to the
CPS, ( without a Vol Dec) is an onerous and time-consuming process.
7. Submitting a Vol Dec does not indemnify you from Prosecution.
8. As to whether I would ever recommend submitting a Vol Dec, well I think
that’s clear & for clients, I have set out the very limited legal powers of
Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Compliance staff
(DBT) when they conduct Open licence visits.

UK Export Control Voluntary Disclosures & HMRC Compound Settlements
Compiled from HMRC/ECJU Notices to Exporters (NTEs) and legal commentary — for professional
reference, not legal advice.

1. Legal basis
   HMRC’s power to “compound” an offence or proceedings — accepting a monetary settlement
   instead of prosecution — comes from s.152(a), Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (as
   widened in 2005 to allow compounding before proceedings are even started). It is discretionary,
   requires the offender’s acceptance, and results in no criminal conviction. Export control breaches are
   prosecuted as offences under the Export Control Order 2008 and, for sanctions breaches, the
   relevant sanctions regulations (e.g. the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019) — so s.152
   CEMA is the mechanism HMRC uses to compound these too.
2. Voluntary disclosure & the compound settlement test
   HMRC’s published criteria (repeated across recent NTEs) are consistent: a compound settlement will
   normally only be offered where the exporter has both:

• committed a breach that was inadvertent or due to weaknesses in internal controls — not
  intentional evasion, and
• voluntarily told HMRC about the breach (a “voluntary disclosure”) and generally cooperated
  fully with the investigation and remediated the underlying failing.
  HMRC has said it considers naming a settled party on a case-by-case basis — historically settlements
  were anonymised, but 2026 has seen the first two cases where the company was named (see below).

4

3. Published compound settlements (chronological)
   NTE / date Exporter Amount
   2026/17 — Jul
   2026

Airbus
Operations Ltd

£6,409,388.00

2026/16 — Jun
2026 (2
settlements)

Not named £216,530.30
£20,889.15

2026/15 — Jun
2026

Petrofac
Facilities
Management
Ltd (PFML)

£569,157.07

2025/31 —
Sep 2025

Not named £620,515.04

2025/18 —
May 2025

Not named £1,160,725.67

2025/08 —
Jan–Mar 2025
(3 settlements)

Not named £10,900.00
£431,232.20
£3,231,762.40

2025/05 —
Mar 2025

Not named ~£373,326.07†

2024/28 —
Aug–Sep 2024
(3 settlements)

Not named £402,417.75
£37,743.34
£1,480,785.44

2024/29 —
Aug 2024

Not named £58,426.45

2024/08 —
Jan–Mar 2024
(7 settlements)

Not named £12,700 · £33,822.64 · £971,726 · £139,841.85 · £92,817.40 · £56,915.27 · £1,058,781.79

5

NTE / date Exporter Amount
2023/17 —
Aug 2023

Not named ~£1,000,000‡

2019/05 —
Apr 2019

Not named “more than £80,000”

† Reported by Osborne Clarke’s March 2025 regulatory outlook, referencing NTE 2025/05; not
independently cross-checked against the NTE’s own document text. ‡ Figure as stated in HMRC’s
later NTE 2024/29, which records six Russia-sanctions compound settlements since Feb 2022
totalling £1,363,129, “including one in August 2023 for £1 million” (i.e. NTE 2023/17).
4. Named exporters — a shift in HMRC transparency
Airbus Operations Limited — £6,409,388, the largest UK export control compound settlement on
record. Over a sustained period before November 2022, Airbus breached OGEL/SIEL record-keeping
and register conditions under Article 29 ECO 2008 (contrary to Articles 38(1)(a)–(b)). The case
followed a voluntary disclosure and full cooperation with HMRC’s investigation.
Petrofac Facilities Management Limited (PFML) — £569,157.07, for breaches of the Russia sanctions
regime (making sanctioned industrial goods available to a Russia-connected person and providing
related technical assistance) while divesting Russian operations in 2022–23. HMRC’s press material
around this case set out, for the first time, the factors weighed when deciding whether to name a
settling party.
Until mid-2026, HMRC compound settlements were consistently anonymised in NTEs. These two
2026 cases are the first in which the exporter has been named — both followed voluntary disclosure,
which HMRC has indicated does not, by itself, guarantee anonymity going forward.
5. Trend, based on the figures above
~£4.35m
2024 · 11 settlements
~£5.83m
2025 · 6 settlements
~£7.22m
2026 (to Sep) · 4 settlements
Published totals have risen each year, driven mainly by a small number of very large settlements (the
£3.23m Feb-2025 case, the £1.16m May-2025 Russia case, and the £6.4m Airbus case) rather than by
settlement count. HMRC’s own commentary (NTE 2024/08) attributes the broader rise to increasing
voluntary disclosure volumes for unlicensed exports, incorrect licence usage and licence-condition
breaches — consistent with the pattern you’ve observed.
These totals cover only settlements individually disclosed with a figure in an NTE; they are not a
complete record of every HMRC compound settlement (some NTEs, e.g. 2023/09 and 2023/03, are
not broken out above) and exclude prosecutions, warning letters and cases resolved without a
published settlement figure.

6

Sources

• Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, s.152 — legislation.gov.uk
• Notices to exporters collection — GOV.UK / ECJU
• NTE 2026/17 (Airbus), NTE 2026/15 (PFML), NTE 2026/16
• NTE 2025/31, NTE 2025/18, NTE 2025/08, NTE 2025/05
• NTE 2024/28, NTE 2024/29, NTE 2024/08
• NTE 2023/17, NTE 2019/05
• Mayer Brown — “HMRC Names Subject of Compound Penalty for the First Time” (Jul

Osborne Clarke — UK Regulatory Outlook, Mar 2025
Pinsent Masons — HMRC sanctions response provides insight to enforcement approach
AM Skinner Solicitors — Making a voluntary self-disclosure to HMRC
Compiled for professional reference from published UK government sources and legal commentary as of 27 September 2026. Figures are as
stated in the cited notices; verify current NTE text directly on GOV.UK before citing in client work, as HMRC updates or corrects notices
from time to time (e.g. NTE 2024/07 was amended after initial publication).