header-logo header-logo

Sanctioned assets: from freeze, to seize, to Kyiv?

24 March 2023 / Maria Nizzero
Issue: 8018 / Categories: Features , International justice , Sanctions , Rule of law
printer mail-detail
115856
Maria Nizzero sets out the complexities of possibly using seized sanctions assets to fund reconstruction in Ukraine
  • The imposition of sanctions has triggered a policy conversation about the potential for permanent confiscation of assets that are currently temporarily frozen under sanctions.
  • However, there are inherent limitations in using sanctions as the basis for permanent asset deprivation.
  • The response to Russian illicit finance should consider short-term and long-term foreign policy goals and desired criminal justice outcomes, and be delimited within the boundaries of the law.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has prompted an unprecedented surge in sanctions-based asset freezes directed at individuals linked to the Russian government. One year on from the invasion, the EU, the UK and the US all announced new packages of sanctions against Kremlin-linked individuals and those who supported its unlawful aggression against Ukraine.

The assets frozen under sanctions are passive and cannot be retrieved. There is a risk, if sanctions measures are dropped as a condition for ending

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll