UN and American reports accuse private entities in the UAE of supporting parties to the conflict in Sudan and Yemen

These moves come at a time when UN and international reports accuse private entities operating from within UAE territory of being involved in the supply chains of parties to the regional conflict, which puts Abu Dhabi in a delicate diplomatic and economic test.

Regarding the Sudanese file, a special report issued by the United Nations Mission in Sudan, in conjunction with prominent human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, concluded that private entities, intermediaries, and recruiters working from within the Emirates (along with other countries such as Colombia) constitute a major axis in the supply chains of fighters, weapons, and logistical support for the Rapid Support Forces. Although the report clearly indicates deficiencies in local oversight mechanisms, it does not describe these practices as “direct or official supply from the UAE government,” which leaves open the door to interpretation about the state’s responsibility for the actions of private entities operating on its territory.

In the Iranian file, reports issued by the US Department of the Treasury (Office of Foreign Assets Control - OFAC) revealed that Tehran is the one providing the Houthi group with free oil supplies on a monthly basis. However, the paradox lies in the mechanism; Iran used fake companies and smuggling networks based in the emirates of Dubai and Sharjah (including companies such as Arkan Mars Petroleum and Adema Oil) to hide the source of the oil and launder money for the group. American data confirms that these practices represent “exploitation of the free economic system in the Emirates” by Iranian networks, and not Emirati government oil flows.

Washington culminated its campaign with direct financial measures targeting what it calls the Iranian “parallel banking sector” in the Middle East. In a remarkable move, the US Treasury Department accused the Banque Misr branch in the UAE of processing financial transactions estimated at approximately $1.8 billion for the benefit of more than 100 fake companies linked to the Iranian Ministry of Defense and the Revolutionary Guard.

Washington was not satisfied with this accusation, but also threatened to implement “Article 311 of the Patriot Act,” which gives it the authority to completely isolate this activity from the dollar financial system. In parallel, the United States imposed sanctions on several digital currency platforms and exchange companies operating from Dubai, in an attempt to block the outlets for illicit transfers.

For its part, the UAE is adopting an approach that combines categorical official denial with rapid field action. From a legal and financial perspective, the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates immediately launched an urgent and comprehensive audit and inspection process for the branches and companies mentioned in the American reports, in a proactive step to prove full compliance with international standards for combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).

On the diplomatic level, the UAE government strongly denies any official involvement in supplying the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan with weapons or fighters, stressing that its position is limited to supporting diplomatic efforts for peace and providing humanitarian aid to the Sudanese people. However, Abu Dhabi still faces a real challenge in refuting allegations that private individuals and companies are exploiting the flexibility of the country's economic environment to manage these complex networks.