Netherlands sentences engineer in landmark sanctions case
A Dutch court has sentenced a semiconductor engineer to three years in prison in the first-ever prosecution for digital exports of technical assistance under Netherlands sanctions law, marking a significant precedent for enforcing technology transfer restrictions.
Separately, but on the same day, the Amsterdam District Court ordered a Dutch company to forfeit €1,013,956 ($1,184,605) in profits from providing goods and services for construction of the Kerch bridge connecting Crimea to mainland Russia, in violation of EU sanctions imposed after Russia’s 2014 annexation.
The Rotterdam District Court convicted the engineer for sharing sensitive microchip manufacturing technology with contacts in Russia through encrypted messaging apps, representing what experts describe as a groundbreaking case for digital sanctions enforcement.
‘The semiconductor case is in fact a significant case, as it is – to my knowledge – the first ever case in the Netherlands on digital exports or technical assistance,’ said Yvo Amar, Partner at Agorax in Amsterdam. ‘Never before have we seen a case in the Netherlands relating to the digital export of instructions for the manufacturing of dual-use items, in this case semiconductors.’
The conviction establishes important legal precedent for prosecuting violations involving digital transfer of restricted technology.
Between January 2023 and August 2024, the engineer shared files containing information about setting up microchip production lines with Russian contacts through Signal, Telegram and Google Drive, after illegally accessing his employers’ computer systems to obtain classified technical documents.
‘The suspect, a long-standing high-tech industry employee, shared technological knowledge with a person in Russia over a period of eighteen months,’ the court stated, describing the actions as ‘extremely serious’ given their potential to strengthen Russia’s military capabilities.
‘The offender managed to export the instructions by entering the computers of two companies, both of which were his employers, and sending the instructions from those computers,’ Amar explained.
Detection occurred only when the companies discovered unauthorised system access and reported the violations to authorities. ‘The reason we hardly ever see these cases is that it is extremely difficult for authorities to find and trace these kinds of violations,’ Amar noted.
However, he said, corporate reporting of such breaches is increasing. ‘We see this more and more, and employers are generally very willing to report such violations as it will often make them less prone to criminal enforcement.’
The shared files included detailed information about semiconductor manufacturing processes and SMOS technology used in products listed under EU dual-use goods regulations, which the court found constituted prohibited technical assistance under sanctions targeting Russia’s defence and security sectors.
In the Rotterdam case, the company was convicted in November 2024 of violating the EU Sanctions Act by selling ‘beach jackets and accessories’ and providing technical assistance for the bridge construction. The case was part of broader enforcement targeting seven Dutch companies involved in work on the project in violation of sanctions.
‘The initial conviction, on 28 November 2024, of the company involved was in fact a significant case, as it was one of several criminal convictions relating to the construction of the bridge,’ Amar noted.
The asset forfeiture represents standard Dutch practice in white-collar crime cases, Amar observed. ‘It does not have a punitive objective, but it does of course aim to deter companies from engaging in these kinds of violations,’ he said.
The semiconductor case could have been prosecuted under export controls rather than sanctions law, but prosecutors chose the sanctions route ‘probably for technical reasons of Dutch criminal law,’ Amar said.
Neither the engineer nor the company were identified in the court judgments, following standard Dutch practice in publishing criminal decisions.
