Category: Sanctions Programs
UNSCR 1373
Also known as: UNSCR 1373, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, Resolution 1373 (2001), S/RES/1373, S/RES/1373(2001)
Simply put
UNSCR 1373 is a counterterrorism resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 28 September 2001, following the 11 September attacks. It requires UN member states to take steps to suppress terrorism, including restricting the movement, organisation, and fund-raising activities of terrorist groups. Because it is a Security Council resolution, member states are expected to give it effect through their own national laws and frameworks.
Formal definition
UNSCR 1373 (S/RES/1373(2001)), adopted by the Security Council at its 4385th meeting on 28 September 2001, obliges UN member states to implement measures against terrorism financing, including through targeted financial sanctions applied to persons and entities involved in terrorism. Unlike list-based regimes maintained centrally by the UN, UNSCR 1373 generally operates as a framework under which individual member states are responsible for designating persons and giving effect to sanctions domestically (for example, Australia's Counter-Terrorism (UNSC 1373) sanctions framework and Saudi Arabia's implementation as a member state). Practitioners should note that the precise designation mechanisms, listed persons, and legal effect are determined by each implementing jurisdiction's national instruments, which should be consulted for operational obligations. This entry is regulatory in nature; the resolution establishes state obligations rather than directly imposing duties on obliged entities absent domestic transposition.
Why it matters
UNSCR 1373 is a foundational instrument in the international counter-terrorist financing architecture. Adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on 28 September 2001 in the wake of the 11 September attacks, it committed UN member states to suppress terrorism by placing barriers on the movement, organisation, and fund-raising activities of terrorist groups. For compliance professionals, its significance lies in how it operates: rather than maintaining a single central UN list of designated persons, UNSCR 1373 generally functions as a framework under which each member state is responsible for making designations and giving effect to targeted financial sanctions through its own domestic law.
Who it's relevant to
Sanctions and Compliance Officers
Officers responsible for sanctions screening need to understand that UNSCR 1373 does not produce a single centralised list. Instead, obligations arise from the domestic frameworks of each jurisdiction in which a firm operates, such as Australia's Counter-Terrorism (UNSC 1373) sanctions framework. Screening programmes should account for jurisdiction-specific designations rather than assuming a uniform global list, and the applicable national instruments should be consulted for operational requirements.
Financial Intelligence and CTF Analysts
Analysts focused on counter-terrorist financing should recognise UNSCR 1373 as a core element of the international CTF framework, aimed at restricting the movement, organisation, and fund-raising activities of terrorist groups. Its state-led designation model means analysts must track how relevant jurisdictions have transposed and applied the resolution when assessing exposure to sanctioned persons and entities.
Legal and Regulatory Teams
Legal professionals should note that UNSCR 1373 is regulatory in nature: it creates obligations on UN member states rather than directly on obliged entities absent domestic transposition. Determining a firm's actual legal duties requires reviewing the national instruments that give the resolution effect in each applicable jurisdiction, as designation mechanisms and legal effect differ between implementing states.
Compliance Teams in Multiple Jurisdictions
Firms operating across borders should be aware that because each member state implements UNSCR 1373 through its own laws, the persons designated and the scope of obligations may diverge between jurisdictions. Cross-border programmes should be calibrated to the specific national frameworks in force wherever the firm has exposure, and should not assume equivalence across implementing states.
Inside UNSCR 1373
Framework for Counter-Terrorism Financing Obligations
UNSCR 1373 (2001) is a UN Security Council resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter that establishes binding obligations on all UN member states to combat terrorism and its financing, requiring states to criminalize the willful provision or collection of funds intended to be used for terrorist acts.
Asset Freezing Obligation
The resolution requires states to freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, attempt to commit, participate in, or facilitate terrorist acts, and of entities owned or controlled by such persons.
Domestic (Autonomous) Designation Basis
Unlike list-based regimes tied to a UN consolidated list, UNSCR 1373 does not itself name specific individuals or entities; it obliges each state to identify and designate targets through its own national mechanisms, which is why implementing regimes vary across jurisdictions.
Prohibition on Making Funds Available
States are required to prohibit their nationals and persons within their territory from making funds, financial assets, or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who commit or facilitate terrorist acts.
International Cooperation and Information Sharing
The resolution calls on states to afford one another mutual assistance in criminal investigations and to cooperate through exchange of information to prevent and suppress terrorist acts and their financing.
Common questions
Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about UNSCR 1373.
Does UNSCR 1373 provide a list of designated individuals and entities that firms must screen against, like the Al-Qaida/ISIL (Da'esh) sanctions list?
No, and this is a key distinction. UNSCR 1373 does not itself contain or generate a consolidated UN list of designated persons. Unlike the regime under UNSCR 1267 and its successors (which maintains a specific UN Security Council Consolidated List for Al-Qaida/ISIL and associated persons), Resolution 1373 obliges each member state to identify and designate persons and entities on its own initiative according to its national criteria and processes. As a result, designations made under 1373 authority vary by jurisdiction, and firms typically must screen against the relevant national or regional lists that implement it (for example, domestic terrorist asset-freezing lists) rather than a single global 1373 list. Exact list coverage should be confirmed against the applicable national regime.
Is UNSCR 1373 directly binding law that obliged entities can be prosecuted under?
Not directly in most systems. UNSCR 1373 is a resolution of the UN Security Council addressed to member states, requiring them to take specified measures such as criminalising terrorist financing and freezing terrorist-related funds. It generally does not create obligations enforceable against private firms or individuals until a state transposes it into domestic law through legislation or regulations. The enforceable obligations that apply to obliged entities therefore flow from the national implementing instruments, which differ across jurisdictions. Firms should look to their domestic legal framework, not the resolution text itself, to identify their specific duties and potential liabilities.
How does UNSCR 1373 relate to an obliged entity's sanctions screening program in practice?
In many jurisdictions, the domestic measures implementing UNSCR 1373 produce national counter-terrorism designation lists that firms are expected to screen against as part of their sanctions and terrorist-financing controls. Operationally this is often integrated with other sanctions screening processes, but the underlying legal basis and the specific lists differ from those arising under other UN regimes. Firms should confirm which national lists give effect to 1373 in each jurisdiction where they operate and ensure their screening covers those lists in addition to any other applicable domestic, regional, or UN measures.
What should a firm do when a screening match arises against a person designated under a national measure implementing UNSCR 1373?
A screening alert is a signal to review, not a determination of wrongdoing. Where a firm identifies a potential match against a person designated under the applicable national implementation of 1373, it should typically follow its established procedures for confirming or discounting the match, applying any asset-freezing or transaction-blocking obligations required by the relevant domestic law if the match is confirmed, and making any reports required to the competent national authority. The specific freezing, prohibition, and reporting obligations, along with permitted exemptions or licensing routes, are set by the national regime and should be confirmed against it.
Does the terrorist-financing criminalisation contemplated by UNSCR 1373 change how an obliged entity handles suspicion of terrorist financing?
The resolution calls on states to criminalise the wilful provision or collection of funds for terrorist purposes, but the resulting criminal offences and the corresponding reporting duties for obliged entities are defined in domestic law. For a compliance function, the practical consequence is that suspicion of terrorist financing generally triggers reporting obligations under the applicable national regime, which may differ from money-laundering reporting in terms of thresholds, recipients, and terminology. A report reflects suspicion warranting further review by authorities and does not itself establish that an offence has occurred.
How should a firm operating across multiple jurisdictions handle differences in how UNSCR 1373 is implemented?
Because 1373 relies on national designation and implementation, the same resolution can result in divergent lists, criteria, freezing mechanics, and reporting requirements across jurisdictions. A firm with cross-border operations should generally map which national instruments implement 1373 in each relevant jurisdiction, ensure its screening covers each applicable list, and account for differences in obligations rather than assuming a single harmonised standard. Where regimes diverge or overlap, the firm should apply the requirements of each jurisdiction to which it is subject and confirm the precise obligations against the relevant local regulation.
Common misconceptions
UNSCR 1373 comes with a UN list of designated persons that obliged entities can screen against, similar to the UNSCR 1267 regime.
UNSCR 1373 does not maintain a UN consolidated list. It requires each state to make its own domestic designations, so the targets and the lists that practitioners screen against are jurisdiction-specific and may differ between countries. Exact designation lists should be confirmed against the applicable national regime.
UNSCR 1373 and anti-money laundering obligations are the same type of control.
UNSCR 1373 concerns terrorist financing and the freezing of assets of designated persons, which is conceptually distinct from money laundering controls. Terrorist financing can involve funds from legitimate sources, whereas money laundering concerns the proceeds of crime; sanctions screening under a counter-terrorism regime is also distinct from broader CDD or PEP screening.
A screening match against a UNSCR 1373 designation establishes that the person has committed a terrorist offence.
An asset-freezing designation is an administrative or preventive measure, not a criminal conviction. A match or freeze does not by itself establish criminal wrongdoing; the compliance obligation to freeze and report is separate from any criminal-law determination of guilt.
Best practices
Screen against the specific national designation lists that implement UNSCR 1373 in each jurisdiction where you operate, rather than assuming a single global list exists, and confirm applicable lists against the relevant national regime.
Treat the freezing obligation as requiring action 'without delay,' and ensure your operational procedures can identify, block, and escalate matches promptly rather than on a batch or periodic basis.
Maintain clear separation between counter-terrorist-financing sanctions screening and other controls such as AML transaction monitoring, PEP screening, and CDD, so that each obligation is addressed on its own terms.
Document that an asset freeze is a preventive compliance measure and avoid characterizing a match or freeze as proof of criminal conduct in internal records or external communications.
Establish procedures to handle prohibitions on making funds or economic resources available directly or indirectly, including to entities owned or controlled by designated persons, and validate these controls against the applicable national implementing regulation.
Support international cooperation obligations by maintaining processes for lawful information sharing and responding to competent authority requests in line with the applicable jurisdiction's rules.