Grammatically, both sentences mean the same thing. Consider these very common sentences which display the same structure:
The man gave me the pencil.
English speakers understand that when two objects come after the verb without prepositions, the first is likely the indirect object (the recipient) while the second is the direct object (the thing given).
While this sentence can be parsed as you propose (to make "the pencil" a description of "me"), it would be almost impossible for a native speaker to understand it that way, even if you used very exaggerated inflection.
The man gave the pencil to me.
In this case the order of the objects has been reversed, but the roles have been preserved by inserting the preposition "to" to show which is the indirect object.
Since your sentences about the loan follow this same pattern, they are grammatically and semantically correct, but native speakers will find them hard to understand. There are three reasons for this:
1) The verb "to sanction" is not often, at least on American English, used to refer to approvals granted in the ordinary course of business. It suggests a declaration from a higher external authority, perhaps a government official, that a certain course of action is lawful. Applications are "approved" or "granted". Business decisions are "approved" or "affirmed" by those higher up in the organization.
2) This sentences structure is not usually used with the verbs "sanction" and "approve". But, it is used with "grant" and "give". So you could say "The bank gave me a loan".
3) The verb "to sanction" has a second, nearly opposite, meaning: to take strong action to discourage disapproved conduct. The unusual wording and usage in your sentence will confuse many listeners who will not know which meaning of "sanction" is intended.
There are many idiomatic phrases which you could use. A good one is:
The office approved my loan application.
less formally, this can be shortened to:
The office approved my loan.