Restrictive measures, such as asset freezes and sanctions, have become a central tool of the European Union's foreign policy. Since 2014, and especially since 2022, the EU has frozen the assets of thousands of individuals and entities, often in response to actions like undermining territorial integrity, supporting regimes, or involvement in terrorism. These measures are reviewed by the European Union Tribunal in Luxembourg, which assesses their legality under EU law. While often treated as a matter of administrative law, these measures also carry significant criminal implications. This article examines the legal and criminal dimensions of such listings, focusing on the connection to criminal procedures, the ability to challenge them, and the criminal risks they create. Asset freezes are based on two legal foundations: a decision by the Council of the EU under the common foreign and security policy, and a directly applicable regulation. Individuals and entities are listed in an official publication, and their assets are frozen. These measures are preventive, not punitive, and are based on criteria such as involvement in terrorism, public funds embezzlement, or support for certain regimes. Despite their political nature, they are subject to judicial review. The Court of Justice of the European Union has established that listings must be based on a "sufficiently solid factual basis." Recent rulings have annulled listings based on weak evidence, such as family ties or outdated procedures. This review ensures that fundamental rights are respected, even when the listings are based on international sanctions or UN resolutions. The connection between asset freezes and criminal law varies depending on the nature of the listing. In some cases, such as those targeting individuals accused of public funds embezzlement, the listing is directly tied to ongoing criminal proceedings in a third country. In others, like anti-terrorism measures, the listing depends on a national authority’s decision, which must be regularly reviewed. In cases involving political or economic criteria, such as sanctions against Russia and Belarus, the connection to criminal law is indirect, with evidence like press reports or foreign decisions used to support the listing. The strength of this connection determines the strategy for challenging the listing. In cases with a direct criminal link, the role of a criminal lawyer is crucial in assessing the validity of the procedures and evidence. The criminal risks associated with being listed are significant. Providing funds to a listed individual, helping them avoid asset freezes, or providing false information to authorities can constitute criminal offenses. A directive (EU) 2024/1226, adopted in April 2024, harmonized these offenses across the EU, with penalties including imprisonment and fines. France, however, has not yet implemented this directive, and the European Commission has issued a formal notice of non-compliance. Until the directive is transposed into national law, prosecutions rely on existing customs laws. This creates uncertainty for individuals and entities listed by the EU, as the legal consequences of their actions may depend on evolving regulations. The potential for asset confiscation further compounds the risks, as frozen assets may be seized through criminal proceedings even if the listing is later annulled.