Who loses under sanctions?

Sanctions have always been one of those tricky subjects. In my mind, there has to be a place for the tools of soft diplomacy... and, yet, what do economic sanctions actually accomplish?

Today I stumbled across this article from the Financial Times, titled "How sanctions made Burma's richest man." Referring to a man too close to the Burmese government for American interests, it describes,

"European and US nationals are banned from doing business with him – and his estranged wife, oldest son, mother, brother or sister-in-law. Yet his wine cellar is stocked with a series of vintages from Chateaux Petrus and Margaux, while a Rolls-Royce and a Lamborghini stand next to the Ferrari. His palatial Rangoon home sits down the street from the dilapidated villa where Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi spent more than 15 years under house arrest."

If only the powerful, well-connected, and government officials have continued to be able to profit while under sanctions, one can't help but wonder who are they hurting? Is it just those who would have made up a middle class through trade and foreign exchange?

I am neither for nor against the sanctions, because I do not have the economic background to really examine whether they are successfully impacting the intended individuals, but articles like this one make me nervous and frustrated. I want there to be some sort of soft diplomacy magic pill that puts all the right pressure on regimes that abuse their people.