Among the individuals and entities named on the U.S. Treasury’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List, maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), one question comes up more than any other: “My situation has changed, can I come off the list?” It is a fair question. A listing rarely reflects a person or company forever: businesses are sold, positions are vacated, controlling ties are severed, and activities wind down. But there is a wide gap between saying that circumstances have changed and persuading OFAC to remove you, and not every petitioner crosses it.

This article explains what OFAC counts as a change of circumstances, which kinds of change it treats as meaningful, and how to turn an altered situation into a working basis for delisting.

What OFAC means by a change of circumstances

Changed circumstances are a documented shift in the facts that justified the original designation. The operative word is justified. OFAC does not list a person in the abstract; it lists them for a specific set of reasonsЬ involvement in particular conduct, control over blocked property, a role within a sanctioned organization, or a relationship with someone already designated. For changed circumstances to matter, the change has to reach that underlying reason, not the details around it.

Put differently, the petitioner has to show that the factual foundation of the listing no longer holds. Someone designated as an executive of a sanctioned company weakens that foundation by leaving the role. The same person who merely relocates or acquires a new passport, while keeping the role, has not changed the circumstances that count.

Why the passage of time is not a basis

The most common misconception is that sanctions expire on their own. They do not. An SDN listing has no statute of limitations and does not lapse automatically with the passing years. As long as OFAC believes the original basis still holds, the designation stays in force no matter how much time goes by.

So the argument “I have been listed for years, my life is entirely different now” does not stand on its own. OFAC does not weigh how long someone has spent under sanctions; it weighs whether the reason they were listed has changed. Time matters only as the backdrop against which concrete, verifiable change has occurred, and never as a basis in itself.

The kinds of change OFAC takes seriously

Not every change is relevant. In practice, OFAC responds most readily to a handful of categories:

• Divestment and loss of control. Where the designation rests on ownership of a blocked company, what counts is a real drop below the 50 percent rule threshold and a genuine loss of control (substantiated, not nominal).
• Departure from a position. Resigning a role as officer, director, or other controlling figure in a sanctioned entity, where that role was the basis.
• Cessation of the sanctionable activity. A complete, verifiable end to the operations that led to the listing.
• Severing ties with a designated person. Ending the business, financial, or representative relationship on which the designation was based.
• Remedial measures. Steps that show changed behavior: a compliance program, returned assets, and terminated contracts.

What unites these is that the change must be genuine, complete, and capable of verification. A partial or reversible step, like transferring shares to a relative on paper while keeping real control, rarely persuades OFAC.

Evidence: proving the change is real

The burden is on the petitioner. OFAC starts from the premise that its original decision was sound, and it is the petitioner who must show convincingly that the changed circumstances are real. Assertion is not enough; documentation is decisive.

Depending on the matter, that can mean:

• corporate records evidencing a sale of shares or a restructured ownership chain (purchase agreements, registry extracts, audited financials);
• resignation letters and board resolutions confirming departure from a role;
• financial records showing that the disputed operations have stopped;
• independent confirmation from third parties: auditors, regulators, banks;
• internal policies and proof that compliance procedures are in place.

The fuller and more independent the record is, the more likely OFAC is to treat the change as authentic rather than a paper rearrangement of the old situation.

The delisting petition and litigation strategy

Changed circumstances are the substance of the argument; the delisting petition and any lawsuit are how that argument reaches OFAC and the court. The request itself is filed under 31 C.F.R. § 501.807, and which documents actually work in such a petition, and which OFAC sets aside, is the subject of a separate article in this series.

In practice, the administrative petition is the first track. OFAC can take its time, request additional information, and is not bound by tight deadlines. When that route stalls, a second track opens: a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The Zadornov matter, which we cover separately, shows the pattern. Mikhail Zadornov was added to the SDN List in 2022 as chairman of the management board of Otkritie Bank. The change here was concrete: on January 1, 2023, he left that post (the very role that was the basis for his designation). A petition under § 501.807 followed in December 2023; when it sat undecided, he filed suit in the D.D.C. in July 2024. The result was removal from the SDN List in April 2026.

Practical steps for petitioners

If your circumstances have genuinely changed, it pays to move in order:

• Pin down the original basis. Read OFAC’s press release and your SDN List entry to see exactly why you were designated. The argument is built around that reason.
• Match the change to the basis. Assess honestly whether the change reaches the core reason or only adjacent facts.
• Assemble the evidence early. The documents proving the change should be ready, and independently verified where possible, before you file.
• Prepare the petition under 31 C.F.R. § 501.807. The changed circumstances are set out in a structured argument, tied to that evidence.
• Plan the second track. If administrative review drags, a considered litigation posture strengthens your hand.

The bottom line

Changed circumstances are one of the strongest and most misunderstood grounds for removal from the SDN List. They work not when a petitioner’s life has simply become different, but when the specific reason OFAC imposed sanctions has disappeared, and that disappearance can be proved. Time on the list is irrelevant; the facts and the documentation behind them decide the matter.

A well-built petition resting on a genuine, verifiable change is a realistic path to delisting, especially alongside a thought-through litigation strategy. The attorneys at Fesenko, P.C. Law Offices help clients gauge their prospects, assemble the evidentiary record, and carry a matter through the administrative and, where needed, judicial tracks.