More than two years after the sanctions were imposed, nearly 20 months after the district court's ruling, and nine months after oral argument in the appeal, a new judgment is in: on Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling against Liechtenstein gold trader Rheingold Edelmetall.

According to the ruling obtained by finews, the sanctions against company founder Axel Diegelmann, his son Fritz Diegelmann, and their affiliated companies remain in place.

Three Judges, Two Key Questions

At the helm sat the same three-judge panel finews had already identified at the oral argument on October 1, 2025: Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas, Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs, and Senior Circuit Judge Harry Edwards. The panel ruled unanimously, with the opinion for the court filed by Judge Katsas.

At its core, the case turned on two questions: does «procuring» «geological materials» — the operative language of the sanctions regulation — cover the purchase of finished gold bars? And does buying such bars from Russian nationals outside Russia amount to operating in the «metals and mining sector of the Russian Federation economy»?

«Argument Forfeited»

On the first question, the court sided clearly with the government: the ordinary meaning of «procure,» it held, is simply «to get by special effort; obtain or acquire» — a definition that also covers the purchase of finished gold bars. The court rejected as without merit the argument advanced by Diegelmann's counsel, Amir Toossi, that in the mining industry «procurement» refers only to obtaining the equipment needed to extract geological materials, not to the materials themselves.

On the second question — whether refined, finished gold bars can even qualify as «geological materials,» or whether that term covers only unprocessed raw materials pulled from the ground — the court declined to rule. It found that Diegelmann's lawyers had never raised the argument before the district court and had therefore forfeited it. As the court states verbatim in a footnote: «Given the Diegelmanns' forfeiture, we have no occasion to consider whether the term ‹geological materials› encompasses refined precious metals such as finished gold bars.»

Central Questions Left Unanswered

That leaves open precisely the question that dominated the oral argument — and that fed Diegelmann's fear that, given how broadly OFAC construes participation in Russia's metals and mining sector, any precious-metals dealer worldwide could be sanctioned for doing business with Russian nationals, regardless of where those nationals live.

The court likewise left open the second foundational question: how close a transaction's connection to Russia must be. It assumed, for argument's sake and in Diegelmann's favor, his own narrow reading of 31 C.F.R. § 589.325 — that a purchase counts as «to, from, or within the Russian Federation» only if the metals were both extracted from the ground within Russia and located in Russia at the time of purchase — and found that, «even on those assumptions, the classified record adequately supports the OFAC sanctions.» Whether a looser connection to Russia would also suffice, the court did not decide.

Rule-of-Law Concerns

For Diegelmann, the ruling is, in the first instance, a defeat. But his central rule-of-law concern has not been resolved. The scope of OFAC's sanctions authority over the commodities trade remains just as unclear as before.

From a rule-of-law standpoint, it remains striking that neither Diegelmann nor his counsel was ever permitted to see the specific allegations in OFAC's classified file — the same file the judges reviewed in camera.

Diegelmann's Options

Diegelmann now has 45 days to file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc with the D.C. Circuit. The fact that the panel ruled unanimously, however, makes these avenues look like long shots.

finews has not yet been able to reach Axel Diegelmann for comment. It cannot be ruled out that he will take the case to the Supreme Court: as the losing party, he has 90 days to file a petition for a writ of certiorari — or, should he first seek rehearing en banc, 90 days from the denial of that petition instead.

Last Stop: The Supreme Court?

The odds of success would likely be slim: there is no apparent circuit split that would make Supreme Court review compelling. What's more, the court deliberately left its thorniest legal questions unresolved — the scope of «geological materials,» the required nexus to Russia, and just how much deference OFAC is owed.

A ruling without a clear-cut holding on the merits gives the Supreme Court little to grab onto — and, with that, little incentive to take up the case at all.