The mere fact that an entry appears on the SDN List does not, by itself, indicate which agency made the decision to designate the person. OFAC maintains and administers the SDN List, but depending on the applicable legal authority, the designation itself – and the subsequent delisting – may fall within the competence of different US government agencies. This determines not only the procedural route for a request, but also which agency will review the arguments on the merits.
1. Framing the question
A sanctioned person may, in the circumstances provided by law, seek removal from the list by arguing, among other things, that there was insufficient basis for the designation or that circumstances have materially changed.
The first step in the analysis should therefore be to establish not only the fact that the person appears on the SDN List, but also the specific legal authority, the date and criterion of designation, and the agency that made the designation decision.
In practice, an entry on the SDN List is often mistakenly equated with a decision by OFAC. This is understandable: OFAC publishes and administers the SDN List. However, OFAC expressly distinguishes between persons designated by OFAC itself and persons designated by the State Department, who may likewise appear on the OFAC-administered list.
2. The Interagency allocation of authority
The US sanctions mechanism is built on an interagency basis. The authority to designate a particular person is defined not by where the entry happens to be published, but by the relevant statute and executive order.
Executive Order 14024, for instance, authorizes designations under certain criteria to be made either by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, or by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury. As a result, within a single sanctions program, designation decisions may be made by different agencies depending on the applicable criterion and legal authority.
OFAC nonetheless retains the function of publishing and administering the sanctions lists. That is precisely why a single list can contain persons whose designations were made by different government agencies.
3. Procedural consequences
The fact that an entry appears on a list administered by OFAC does not, by itself, determine that OFAC’s procedure will apply to that person.
If OFAC made the designation decision, the administrative reconsideration procedure under 31 C.F.R. § 501.807 applies. In June 2026, OFAC launched the Reconsideration Portal for submitting delisting petitions and announced a move to a more structured electronic process.
If the State Department made the designation decision, it is the State Department – not OFAC – that has substantive jurisdiction over the matter. That said, the initial submission of a delisting request is currently made through OFAC: OFAC assigns it a reference number, confirms receipt, and forwards the materials to the State Department for substantive review. As a result, the address to which the request is initially submitted and the agency that ultimately reviews it on the merits may not be the same.
Here there is a caveat: practice on this point is not yet settled. OFAC’s own FAQ 897 and its guidance page on filing removal direct persons designated by the State Department to the State Department’s own website, without describing any intake mechanism through OFAC. At the same time, according to practitioners, the State Department’s own webpage had not yet been updated as of the launch of the Reconsideration Portal (June 2026) and continued to direct petitioners to email OFAC. In other words, the two agencies’ published guidance is not, at present, fully aligned, and the correct channel for an initial submission concerning a State Department designation should be confirmed directly before filing.
The key question, then, is not only where the document is physically sent, but which agency has substantive jurisdiction over the matter and under what legal authority the designation decision was made.
4. How to establish the agency and the basis for designation
For purposes of this analysis, it is not enough to rely on the sanctions list search-tool entry alone. The entry itself must be checked against official materials reflecting the basis and history of the designation.
The Federal Register is the key source: the relevant notice usually makes it possible to establish the date of the decision, the applicable legal authority, and the criterion applied. Additional sources should include OFAC’s official materials, including its Recent Actions section and the Archive of Changes, as well as Treasury Department press releases and State Department materials.
It is particularly important to establish the full chain: (1) the unique identification of the entry; (2) the date of the original designation; (3) any subsequent changes; (4) the applicable Executive Order, statute, or other legal authority; (5) the exact subsection of the criterion; (6) the agency that made the designation decision; and (7) whether other independent bases for designation remain in effect.
5. Name matches
A separate distinction must be drawn between a person actually appearing on a sanctions list and a situation where a bank or other entity mistakenly identifies an unrelated person as a sanctions target.
The administrative reconsideration procedure is intended for persons who are actually sanctions targets. If a person is not on a sanctions list but has encountered a block due to a name match or other identification error, OFAC recommends contacting the Compliance Hotline rather than using the delisting procedure.
This distinction has significant practical consequences: pursuing the wrong procedural route can waste considerable time without achieving the desired result.
6. Multiple bases for designation
A single person may be subject to several independent bases for designation, arising at different times and under different legal instruments. The analysis should therefore not be limited to the question of who originally designated the person.
It is necessary to establish which agency made each designation decision, when, under what legal instrument, and on what criterion — and whether other independent designation bases remain in effect.
This is especially important when building the evidentiary record. Proving a change in one circumstance does not automatically eliminate another, independent basis for designation.
7. Initial legal diagnostics
Before preparing a full delisting petition, it is advisable to compile a brief map of the person’s sanctions status, covering:
- identification of the entry and its unique number;
- the date of the original designation and the history of any changes;
- each independent basis for designation;
- the agency that made the designation decision under each basis;
- the public description of the facts underlying the designation;
- related persons and entities, where legally relevant;
- a preliminary determination of the agency with substantive jurisdiction and the available procedural route.
8. The cost of an error at the initial-assessment stage
Errors made at the initial-assessment stage can prove costly precisely because they appear insignificant on their face.
For example, evidence of a person’s exit from a company’s ownership may take months to prepare, while another independent basis for designation remains in place all along. Likewise, a legal position may be built around the procedure of one agency, even though substantive review actually falls to another.
The “linked to” field, or similar elements of a list search entry, deserves separate attention. The existence of such a link in the underlying data structure should not, by itself, automatically be treated as an independent legal criterion for designation. A correct initial assessment does not guarantee removal from a sanctions list. Its purpose is different: to identify the correct procedural route, surface every basis that remains in effect, and pin down precisely what must be proven before substantial money and time are committed to the matter.
9. Practical conclusion
A person’s presence on the SDN List answers the question of their current sanctions status, but not necessarily the question of which agency made the designation decision or which agency will review a delisting petition on the merits.
A professional analysis should therefore begin with establishing the legal authority, the criterion, and the history of the designation. Only after that should one select the procedure, build the evidentiary record, and address the legal position to the agency with actual substantive jurisdiction.
If OFAC made the designation decision, OFAC’s administrative reconsideration procedure under 31 C.F.R. § 501.807 applies. If the State Department made the decision, the initial submission likewise goes through OFAC, but substantive review is carried out by the State Department.
Sources
- OFAC, FAQ 897 — How can I ask OFAC to remove me or my organization from an OFAC sanctions list?
- OFAC, FAQ 1261 — If my delisting petition … is denied, may I petition for removal again?
- OFAC, How to Request Removal from an OFAC Sanctions List
- OFAC, Launch of OFAC Reconsideration Portal, June 29, 2026
- 31 C.F.R. § 501.807 — Procedures governing delisting petitions
- U.S. Department of State, Sanctions Delisting — guidance for persons designated by the Department of State
- Executive Order 14024 — Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation
- OFAC, Archive of Changes to the SDN List
- Curtis, LLP. OFAC Launches Reconsideration Portal and Publishes New Guidance to Streamline Delisting Petitions.