Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons – Afghanistan) List 2025

Principal statutory concepts used in the instrument are “designated person or entity” and “declared person,” as created by reference to paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b) of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (s 3; s 4). The instrument treats those as legal labels and applies them to named entries in Schedule 1.

• Designation (s 4(1)). Each person or entity listed in an item of a table in Schedule 1 is “designated as a designated person or entity for Afghanistan.” The instrument does not define in its text what legal consequences follow from that designation; it simply records the fact of designation under the referenced Regulations. The Schedule entries are the operative source for who is designated.
• Declaration for travel prevention (s 4(2)). Each person mentioned in an item of a table in Part 1 of Schedule 1 is declared “for the purpose of preventing the person from travelling to, entering or remaining in Australia.” That purpose is explicit in the instrument. The effect is the conferral of status described as a basis for preventing travel, entry, or remaining in Australia; the instrument does not itself set out the operational border-control or administrative mechanisms that will give effect to that prevention.

Schedule structure and content. Schedule 1 consists of a Part 1 list headed “Designated and declared persons” and a tabular presentation of identifying data for each individual (Schedule 1, Part 1). The table supplies name, aliases, years of birth (sometimes multiple possible years), place of birth, citizenship, the instrument of first designation/declaration (this instrument), and “additional information” fields that include titles (often phrased as “so‑called …”), and ethnicity.

Commencement mechanics. The whole instrument commences the day after registration (s 2(1)). The instrument also contains an explicit note that any information placed in column 3 of the commencement table is not part of the instrument and may be edited in published versions (s 2(2)). That procedural statement affects how published explanatory material or metadata associated with the instrument should be treated when assessing the instrument’s legal text.

Authority. The instrument is made under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b) of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (s 3). The instrument itself does not reproduce those paragraphs; it uses them as enabling authority for the acts of designation and declaration recorded in s 4 and Schedule 1.

Format and record. For each named person the instrument records the instrument itself as “Instrument of first designation and declaration,” which serves as an official traceable entry for compliance systems that track when and by which instrument a designation occurred (Schedule 1 entries).

Primary persons. The instrument directly affects the four named individuals in Schedule 1, Part 1:

• Sheikh Muhammad Khalid Hanafi (Schedule 1, Item 1);
• Neda Mohammad Nadeem (Schedule 1, Item 2);
• Shaikh-Al-Hadith Mawlawi Abdul‑Hakim Sharei (Schedule 1, Item 3);
• Abdul Hakim Haqqani (Schedule 1, Item 4).

For the persons listed, the instrument both designates them for the purposes of paragraph 6(a) and declares them to prevent travel to, entry to, or remaining in Australia (s 4(1)-(2); Schedule 1, Part 1).

Entities and intermediaries. The instrument does not list entities. It designates “persons or entities” under the authority cited (s 4(1)), but Schedule 1 here contains only individual persons. The instrument does not specify secondary legal consequences for third parties who deal with these persons. It does not, in its text, carve out exemptions or set licences, nor does it identify which Commonwealth agencies must act. Therefore, but only based on the instrument itself, those who will need to consider the designation in the course of their operations are:

• Commonwealth agencies responsible for immigration and border control, because the instrument expresses a travel-prevention purpose (s 4(2));
• Compliance, legal and screening units in private firms and financial institutions that screen customers and counterparties against the Australian sanctions list, because the instrument creates new listed entries (Schedule 1);
• Any person or organisation that conducts activities where dealing with a “designated person or entity” could be restricted under the broader sanctions framework, noting that the instrument records the designation status but does not itself describe the universe of transactional prohibitions (s 4(1)).

Who pays. The instrument does not enact specific monetary costs or fines. Direct burdens will fall on:

• The listed individuals, by changing their legal status and, in the case of the declared-person entries, by creating an explicit basis for preventing their travel to, entry to, or remaining in Australia (s 4(2));
• Organisations and intermediaries that must update screening systems, compliance procedures and any relevant internal risk assessments to reflect the new listings (Schedule 1 identification data). Those updates carry operational costs (staff time, software updates, false-positive clearance) even though the instrument does not itemise them.

Decision-makers. The instrument is made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and signed by the Minister (cover sheet). The legal authority invoked is the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (s 3). The instrument itself does not allocate enforcement powers to particular agencies, nor does it provide for internal review or appeal rights; it records the Ministerial decision in list form.

Geographic reach. The designations are expressly “for Afghanistan” (s 4(1) and Schedule 1 heading). The text does not itself link the designations to any particular domestic geographic restrictions beyond the declared-person travel-prevention purpose (s 4(2)), nor does it claim extra-territorial application beyond what the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 may provide.

Information providers and publishers. The instrument includes a note about commencement-table column 3 material not being part of the instrument (s 2(2)), which affects publishers and databases that reproduce ancillary descriptive text; they must treat that material as non‑operative and liable to post‑publication editing.

Duties created by this instrument are procedural and status-creating rather than operationally prescriptive in the text. The instrument itself creates legal statuses and identifies the listed persons; it does not set out a schedule of prohibitions, licensing pathways, civil remedies or criminal penalties. Key duties and rights as apparent from the instrument are:

• Duty to recognise designation and declaration entries. The instrument records the Minister’s designation and declaration in the sanctions list (s 4(1)-(2); Schedule 1). That creates an administrative duty for organisations that rely on the list to recognise the entries insofar as their own obligations require list-checking and compliance updates. The instrument does not specify which organisations are legally obliged to act but provides the formal list entries that such duties would reference.

• Effect on travel to Australia for declared persons. The instrument explicitly declares each person in Part 1 of Schedule 1 “for the purpose of preventing the person from travelling to, entering or remaining in Australia” (s 4(2)). That language produces a legal basis for preventing travel and entry, and therefore can be read to create a right for Commonwealth border-control authorities to refuse visa issuance, entry clearance, or permission to remain. The instrument itself does not prescribe which agency will exercise what steps, and it does not list procedural steps for challenging a travel denial on the face of this instrument.

• Rights and remedies. The instrument does not state any rights of review, appeal or administrative review. It records the designation/declaration and the date/instrument of first designation and declaration (Schedule 1). If rights of review or judicial review exist, they are not provided in this instrument and would need to be sought in the underpinning statutory or regulatory framework (the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 and any relevant administrative law), but that material is not reproduced here.

• Information disclosure and identifiers. The Schedule supplies multiple identifying data points for each person: names and numerous aliases, multiple possible years of birth, place of birth, citizenship, and additional descriptors such as titles and ethnicity (Schedule 1, Part 1). The presence of multiple aliases and uncertain birth years places an operational duty on compliance and border-control systems to accept and match variant identifiers. Conversely, it places a duty on listed persons or their agents to be aware that multiple identifier variants are recorded.

• Record retention and provenance. Each item in Schedule 1 records “Instrument of first designation and declaration” as this instrument. That provides a documentary provenance duty for administrators and publishers of sanctions lists to reference this instrument as the origin for the listing.

• Absence of licences or exemptions. The instrument contains no licensing regime, exemptions, delisting procedure or transitional arrangements. It does not set duties on any private parties beyond the implicit requirement to update their screening processes where those parties are subject to sanctions compliance obligations.

In short, the instrument creates legal status changes that impose travel-prevention consequences explicitly and create obligations in practice for list‑checking entities. It does not itself spell out the operational prohibitions, enforcement mechanisms, or review rights; these will be found or exercised under the autonomous sanctions framework referenced in s 3.

The instrument contains no express penalty provisions or enforcement procedures of its own. It records designations and declarations and invokes the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 as the enabling authority (s 3; s 4). Because the instrument does not reproduce the operative enforcement or penalty provisions that may exist in the Regulations or elsewhere, the instrument itself does not:

• prescribe criminal or civil sanctions;
• define enforcement agencies or their powers; or
• specify licence mechanisms or penalty quantum.

The instrument does, however, state a clear operational purpose for the declared persons: preventing them from travelling to, entering or remaining in Australia (s 4(2)). That creates a statutory purpose that requires enforcement activity in practice: border-control measures, visa processing decisions, and any administrative or operational steps necessary to prevent entry or remaining in Australia. The instrument does not assign which agency or official is to exercise those powers in this instrument’s text. Practically, the travel-prevention purpose implies the necessity of actions by actors competent to control entry and stay; the instrument does not itself define those actors or authorise a specific enforcement mechanism.

Because penalties and enforcement are not set out here, users of this instrument must consult the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (the enabling instrument cited in s 3) and any associated administrative instructions for:

• the particular prohibitions and contraventions that attach to a “designated person or entity” under paragraph 6(a);
• any criminal or civil penalties for breaches of sanctions obligations;
• the licensing scheme for permitted dealings, if any; and
• the administrative procedures and enforcement powers available to Commonwealth agencies.

The instrument’s silence on penalty details is itself an operational fact with consequences: lawyers, compliance officers and border authorities cannot take this instrument alone as a rulebook of enforcement. They must use it as the formal record of designation/declaration and then refer to the wider regulatory and administrative framework to determine the specific legal consequences and enforcement steps. The Schedule’s identification data and the recorded instrument-of-first-designation provide the necessary provenance for enforcement actions, but the substantive enforcement content is not in the instrument.

This instrument is explicitly made under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b) of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (s 3). Therefore, its legal interaction is framed by that enabling nexus: the instrument creates list entries that will be interpreted and given effect within the legal and administrative context established by the Regulations. The instrument itself does not reproduce or restate the provisions of the Regulations, nor does it amend them.

Direct statutory interaction:

• Enabling instrument. The Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 is the statutory source invoked for the legal authority to designate and declare (s 3). Any downstream legal consequences, such as prohibitions on dealings, asset-freeze mechanisms, licensing arrangements, penalties and enforcement processes, will depend on the content of those Regulations and associated primary legislation and administrative guidance. The instrument is thus a subordinate instrument that records designations and declarations within an existing legal framework.
• Commencement and publication. The instrument commences the day after registration (s 2(1)). It contains a procedural provision that material inserted into column 3 of the commencement table is not part of the instrument and may be edited in published versions (s 2(2)). That affects how the instrument will be represented in statutory databases or public lists and therefore influences the interaction between the instrument and information dissemination obligations under other laws or policies.

Administrative and operational interaction:

• Border and immigration rules. Section 4(2) declares the listed persons “for the purpose of preventing the person from travelling to, entering or remaining in Australia.” That creates a specific intersection with immigration and border-control administration: the instrument provides the authority or basis for preventing travel/entry, which will be operationalised under immigration and border-control procedures, even though this instrument does not specify the statutory basis for the exercise of those procedures. How those procedures operate in practice will depend on the cross‑application of immigration law and administrative practice with the sanctions designation, none of which are set out in this instrument.
• Sanctions compliance regimes. For regulated entities (financial institutions, designated reporting entities, insurers, maritime operators and others), the designation entries are inputs into compliance programmes that cross-reference statutory sanctions lists. The instrument supplies the list entries and identifying material that those regimes use to block transactions or to conduct enhanced due diligence. The instrument does not itself specify obliged persons or reporting obligations; interaction with those obligations will be governed by the various statutory regimes that require sanctions screening.

Procedural interaction:

• Record provenance. Each Schedule item lists the instrument as the “Instrument of first designation and declaration,” which will be used by agencies and courts, where relevant, to determine when and by what authority a person became listed.
• Non-operative metadata. The specific clause that declarations about column 3 text are not part of the instrument (s 2(2)) interacts with information law and publication practices; it makes clear that ancillary descriptive material sometimes presented with instruments is not part of the legally operative text.

Limitations on cross-reference in this note. This instrument does not itself state how it interacts with any specific piece of primary legislation (for example, migration law, financial services law, or criminal law). Those interactions depend upon provisions outside the text. Users must therefore consult the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 and other applicable statutes and administrative instruments for the detailed legal effects and enforcement modalities.

This instrument, as contained in the provided text, is the original instrument made and dated 5 December 2025. Section 2 contains a commencement table that records that “The whole of this instrument” commences “The day after this instrument is registered” (s 2(1)). The instrument contains a note that the commencement table relates only to provisions as originally made and will not be amended to deal with later amendments of the instrument; this is a standard drafting caution (s 2(1) and associated note). The instrument does not itself contain any amendment provisions or any prior instruments to be repealed or varied.

The Schedule entries record “Instrument of first designation and declaration: Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons - Afghanistan) List 2025” for each listed individual (Schedule 1, Part 1). That label establishes the instrument as the foundational listing entry for these persons.

The instrument also contains a procedural statement under s 2(2) that “Any information in column 3 of the table is not part of this instrument. Information may be inserted in this column, or information in it may be edited, in any published version of this instrument.” That clause creates a mechanism for editable metadata or publishing notes to be adjusted post-registration without affecting the legal text. It functions as a non‑operative place for ancillary information and is part of the instrument’s original drafting.

No later amendments, revocations, or superseding instruments are recorded in the text provided. The instrument does not itself set a review date or automatic sunset. Any change to the list entries, additions or removals would require a further instrument made under the same regulatory authority, or an amending instrument, none of which are included here.

For practitioners tracking change, the key provenance markers are:

• the instrument title and date (5 December 2025);
• the commencement rule that the instrument takes effect the day after registration (s 2(1));
• the Schedule’s designation that this instrument is the “Instrument of first designation and declaration” (Schedule 1 entries);
• the non‑operative metadata column rule (s 2(2)) which warns that published explanatory material may be edited.

If and when the list is amended, the amendment instrument should be expected to cite this instrument and to identify additions or deletions by item identifiers consistent with the Schedule; none of that is in the present instrument text.

The instrument as provided contains no record of litigation, challenges, or adjudications referring to it. The document is an administrative instrument in its original form (dated 5 December 2025) and does not include annotations or marginal notes concerning legal proceedings.

Because this instrument is a schedule entry that records a Ministerial designation and declaration under the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (s 3; s 4), any litigation that might arise would typically concern administrative law review of the decision to designate or declare, or enforcement action taken pursuant to the designation. No such proceedings are recorded in, or referenced by, the instrument itself.

Practitioners looking for litigation history relevant to these entries should note two points arising from the instrument’s form:

• The instrument supplies explicit provenance for each listing (the instrument title and date are recorded with each Schedule item). That provenance will be the starting point for any judicial review or statutory appeal procedures; the Schedule’s “Instrument of first designation and declaration” field identifies the instrument to be challenged, if a challenge were to be brought (Schedule 1 entries).
• The instrument does not set out any internal review, merits-review, or delisting procedures in its text. If a listed person seeks legal challenge, the relevant review avenues and procedural requirements will be located in the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 and any other applicable legislation, which are not reproduced in this instrument.

Because the instrument provides no litigation notes, databases, or precedent references, the absence of litigation history here does not mean no litigation exists; it simply means none is recorded in or attached to this instrument. Practitioners must search court and tribunal records and consult the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 and associated administrative materials to determine whether legal challenges have been mounted against these or similar designations.

The instrument’s limited scope and drafting features produce several practical issues to watch for in compliance, enforcement and legal analysis. The following points are grounded in the text:

1. Multiple aliases and inconsistent identifiers. Each Schedule item lists multiple “also known as” names and in some cases multiple years of birth (for example, Sheikh Muhammad Khalid Hanafi: birth years 1970, 1971, 1972; Abdul Hakim Haqqani: birth years 1956, 1957, 1967) (Schedule 1, Part 1, Items 1 and 4). That multiplicity increases the risk of both false negatives (missed matches) and false positives (innocent persons with similar names) in automated screening systems. Screening rules must account for multiple spellings and birth-year variants.

2. “So‑called” titles and descriptive fields. The Schedule includes descriptive fields such as “Title: ‘so-called Minister for the Ministry of Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice’” and ethnicity information (Schedule 1, Item 1). Such descriptions are useful for identification but are not legal definitions of office-holding. Reliance on titles alone for enforcement decisions can be problematic because these are descriptive entries in the Schedule, not statutory determinations of public office in Australian law.

3. Travel-prevention phrasing is specific and partial. The instrument declares persons “for the purpose of preventing the person from travelling to, entering or remaining in Australia” (s 4(2)). That is a specific statutory-purpose statement. It does not in itself spell out broader consequences such as asset freezes, prohibitions on business dealings, or third-party obligations. Treating designation under s 4(1) as equivalent to full transactional prohibitions without consulting the Regulations may cause misapplication.

4. No operational enforcement text. The instrument does not specify enforcement agencies or procedures. Practitioners should not assume that the instrument itself confers powers on a particular agency; enforcement activity will depend on other regulatory texts and administrative arrangements.

5. Commencement clause and publication metadata. Section 2(2) states that any information in column 3 of the commencement table is not part of the instrument and may be edited in published versions. That suggests publishers may add or alter ancillary explanatory text. Lawyers and compliance officers should rely on the instrument’s operative clauses (s 1-4 and Schedule) rather than ancillary publication notes when determining legal obligations.

6. No internal review or delisting procedure included. The instrument contains no statement about how a listed person can seek delisting or internal administrative review. Absent express procedural text, mechanisms for challenge and remedy must be sought outside the instrument, and practitioners should not assume a particular process exists solely because the instrument is silent.

7. Ethnicity and sensitive identifiers. The Schedule records ethnicity for some entries (for example, “Ethnicity: Pashai” for Item 1). Use of ethnic identifiers in public lists raises privacy, discrimination and data-accuracy considerations in downstream use. Those operating screening systems should handle sensitive personal data in accordance with applicable privacy obligations, not the instrument alone.

8. Designation vs declaration distinction. The instrument designates persons under paragraph 6(a) and declares them under paragraph 6(b) (s 3; s 4(1)-(2)). The legal consequences of each label are not delineated in the instrument. Treating the two labels as interchangeable without checking the Regulations is a potential source of error.

9. Single-instrument provenance. Each Schedule entry records this instrument as the instrument of first designation and declaration. That is helpful, but any subsequent amendment, delisting, or replacement will be a different instrument. Relying on a cached copy of this instrument without confirming currency against the official sanctions list may miss later changes.

10. Narrow geographic tag. The designation is “for Afghanistan” (s 4(1) and Schedule heading). It is important not to conflate the listed persons’ designation scope with other geographic or universal sanctions regimes without checking the enabling Regulations and any other applicable orders.

In short, the instrument supplies authoritative list entries, but its drafting choices create operational complexity around identification, enforcement pathways, and the exact legal consequences that follow from the designation and declaration statuses.

For lawyers, compliance officers, accountants, border officials and other professionals, compliance steps should be built on the instrument’s text and its explicit links to the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (s 3). The instrument itself supplies authoritative list entries; it does not specify operational prohibitions or enforcement mechanisms. The actions below are drawn from the instrument’s content and are practical steps grounded in the document.

1. Record and provenance update

• In your sanctions register, record the instrument title, date (5 December 2025), and the commencement rule (commences the day after registration) as the source of the listing (s 1; s 2(1)). For each listed person, record this instrument as the “Instrument of first designation and declaration” per Schedule 1.
• Note the non‑operative publication metadata clause (s 2(2)) and ensure any third-party list provider annotations are checked against the official text.

2. Screening and watchlist updates

• Add each Schedule 1 individual to your screening databases with all provided name variants and aliases exactly as listed (Schedule 1, Part 1 “Also known as” fields). Include all alternative transliterations.
• Include all listed place-of-birth, citizenship, and multiple birth-year options in the matching rules (Schedule 1, Part 1). Configure automated systems to accept multiple birth-year possibilities and to escalate potential matches for human review to avoid false positives/negatives.

3. Travel and immigration risk handling

• For visa processing, travel risk, or immigration-related matters, treat the declared-person entries as a basis for preventing travel, entry or remaining in Australia (s 4(2)). That means any person matching these entries should be escalated to the immigration or border-control decision process used to handle declared persons.
• Do not assume from this instrument alone what documentary steps or appeals apply; consult the applicable immigration and sanctions procedures that give operational effect to s 4(2).

4. Transactional and counterparty due diligence

• Where your obligations require screening counterparties against designated persons or entities, ensure that the designation entries in Schedule 1 are included in enhanced due-diligence checks and watchlist databases (s 4(1)). Because the instrument does not itself specify transactional prohibitions, explicitly confirm what prohibitions (if any) arise from designation under paragraph 6(a) of the Regulations before taking enforcement action such as freezing assets or refusing to transact.
• If in doubt about whether a transaction is prohibited, do not rely solely on this instrument; seek written legal advice or regulatory guidance that interprets the Regulations’ consequences for designated persons.

5. Internal policies and training

• Update internal sanctions policies, escalation matrices, and training materials to include the four new entries, their aliases and variants, and the note that these entries are declared for travel prevention (s 4(2)). Emphasise the potential for multiple birth-year records and alias spellings.
• Train staff in how to escalate potential matches and in the limits of the instrument (i.e. the instrument records designations/declarations but does not itself set out penalties or licensing pathways).

6. Privacy and data-handling

• Treat ethnicity and other personally sensitive information recorded in the Schedule as special‑category personal data for the purposes of your privacy framework, and ensure any use of that data complies with applicable privacy obligations; the instrument itself includes ethnicity fields in Schedule 1 and these must be handled appropriately.

7. Legal and regulatory follow-up

• Because the instrument is made under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b) of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 (s 3), consult the Regulations to determine the precise legal consequences of a designation under paragraph 6(a), any licensing or exemption mechanism, and the penalty and enforcement regime applicable to potential breaches. This instrument should be used as an authoritative listing source but not as the sole legal basis for action on penalty matters.

8. Client advice and communications

• If advising clients, be explicit that this instrument records formal list entries and declares travel-prevention for the named persons, but that it does not, in itself, set out all legal prohibitions or enforcement mechanisms. Recommend seeking specific legal advice as to whether particular dealings are prohibited under the broader sanctions framework.

9. Monitor for amendments and delisting

• Add a watch for any subsequent instruments that amend, add to, or remove these entries. The Schedule records this instrument as the “Instrument of first designation and declaration” (Schedule 1), but subsequent administrative actions can change listing status.

10. Border and operational coordination

• If you are an agency responsible for border controls or for operational enforcement, ensure coordination protocols exist for handling persons who match these entries, including immediate escalation to the relevant decision-making authority and steps for refusing entry or removal where lawful and appropriate in accordance with the applicable operational statutes and policies.

In all actions, treat this instrument as an authoritative list entry document that establishes designation/declaration status and the specific travel-prevention purpose (s 4(1)-(2)), and treat the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 as the place where the specific legal consequences and enforcement powers are set out (s 3).