From Tesla to Amazon: More Than 170 Companies Have Listed Sanctioned Firms Among Their Suppliers

Volkswagen, Amazon, Tesla, and Nokia listed one or more gold refiners subject to U.S., EU, or U.K. sanctions in their reports. In total, more than 160 U.S. companies and at least 10 companies from other countries mentioned such facilities in their latest reports, the Financial Times found. The documents merely suggest that metal from these sanctioned facilities may have entered the supply chain: none of the companies whose reports the FT analyzed reported having direct business relationships with them.

The companies in question are Russia’s Uralelectromed and Krastsvetmet, Uganda’s African Gold Refinery, and Rwanda’s Gasabo Gold Refinery, according to the FT. The first two companies were hit with U.S. and British sanctions in 2023 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. imposed sanctions on African Gold Refinery in 2022, accusing it of processing gold illegally mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Last year, the European Union added Gasabo Gold Refinery to its sanctions list due to alleged ties to Congolese bandits, while the U.S. did so only in June 2026—after some of the reports mentioning the company had already been submitted.

In Amazon's report, "Krastsvetmet" is listed among the companies that may have processed the gold used in the company's products. However, Amazon stated that it was unable to verify the accuracy of this list.

Volkswagen named all four companies and explained to the FT that its list includes only potential suppliers: the company cannot determine whether metal from them entered its supply chain, and it has no direct business relationships with them.

Tesla also acknowledged that products from these plants may have ended up in its supply chain. According to the company, industry reports may include companies whose involvement has not been confirmed, due to the very methodology used to compile them. The automaker was unable to determine whether it had actually received metal from them, according to documents reviewed by the FT.

When preparing their reports, companies survey their direct suppliers, who in turn consult their own contractors, the FT explains. As a result, the documents include processors whose involvement in the supply chain can neither be confirmed nor ruled out. Some suppliers do not respond to requests or provide incomplete information, and in subsequent stages of production, metal from different sources is mixed together.

In the U.S., a company can, in principle, be held liable for a transaction indirectly linked to an entity on the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions list, even if it was unaware of that connection, the FT reports, citing lawyers. “A company can be held liable for purchasing goods from organizations on the OFAC list, even if there are five intermediaries between them,” an unnamed former U.S. Treasury Department official told the publication.

As a lawyer specializing in international sanctions explained to the newspaper, OFAC is not currently prioritizing indirect transactions involving small amounts. “This highlights the gap between the scope of [sanctions] requirements and [companies’] actual ability to track every link in their supply chains,” the FT notes.

Current regulatory practices do not guarantee that the approach to questionable ties will remain the same, one lawyer warned in an interview with the FT. According to him, OFAC has so far “turned a blind eye, in a sense,” to indirect transactions with sanctioned entities; however, “what the agencies may currently deem acceptable could prove unacceptable to them in the future.”

This article was AI-translated and verified by a human editor