London: The British government has signaled that prosecution or other legal measures could be pursued over the frozen £2.5 billion ($3.2 billion) from Russian businessman Roman Abramovich’s sale of Chelsea Football Club. Abramovich had intended for the proceeds to support victims of the Ukraine war, but the funds remain untouched amid an ongoing dispute over their distribution.
Following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the UK imposed sanctions on Abramovich as part of a broader crackdown on Russian oligarchs, leading to the urgent sale of Chelsea in 2022. However, the terms surrounding the freezing of the proceeds remain unclear, and nearly three years later, the money has yet to be allocated.
Britain insists that the funds should be used exclusively for Ukraine in alignment with a broader European effort to hold Moscow accountable for the destruction caused by its invasion. In contrast, Abramovich advocates for a more flexible approach that would benefit all war victims.
When asked by Reuters to provide a central document detailing the Chelsea sale terms, the UK government declined, citing potential interference with “law enforcement”. Officials suggested that legal concerns could involve “prevention or detection of crime,” “apprehension or prosecution of offenders,” and “administration of justice”.
The specifics of any potential wrongdoing or the individuals under suspicion remain unclear. Abramovich has consistently denied having close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his legal representatives assert that no legal cases against him exist in the UK.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy indicated that Britain could initiate legal action regarding the funds. However, he did not provide further details, telling the Financial Times over the weekend that litigation was not his “first instinct.”
Unresolved Legal Questions
Chelsea experienced its most successful period under Abramovich before the club was sold in May 2022 to a consortium led by U.S. investor Todd Boehly and private equity firm Clearlake Capital.
In December, Reuters filed a Freedom of Information request with the UK finance ministry, seeking access to the licence that authorized the Chelsea sale. The request also covered related documents from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, which oversees sanctions compliance.
The text of the licence should clarify how the money was intended to be used. However, the UK finance ministry refused to release the documents, citing data protection laws and law enforcement considerations, which it described as an “absolute exemption” that outweighed public interest.
No Charges Against Abramovich
Kobre & Kim, a New York-based law firm representing Abramovich, stated that “as far as it is aware, there are no law enforcement investigations in the UK involving Mr. Abramovich, and to suggest otherwise would be false.”
The UK Treasury and the National Crime Agency, which investigates corruption, declined to comment on the matter. A search of court records for Abramovich and other board members from the time of the sale found no pending cases.
Natalia Kubesch, a legal officer at Redress, a charity advocating for the funds’ release, noted that the government’s recent stance suggested a deepening deadlock. “It shows how serious the stalemate is and suggests a complete breakdown in talks,” she said.
Kobre & Kim dismissed those comments as inaccurate and speculative, emphasizing a recent government statement that confirmed ongoing discussions.
Also Read | Spain to Impose Heavy Fines for Failing to Label AI-Generated Content
Both the Conservative-led government at the time of the sale and the current Labour administration have remained tight-lipped about the affair. When Reuters previously requested a copy of the Deed of Undertaking between Abramovich and the government, the Department of Culture, Media, and Sport denied the request, citing “breach of confidence” concerns. Notably, no mention of “law enforcement” was made at that time.
A former government official, who was involved in the process and spoke on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the deal was executed under significant time pressure to keep Chelsea operational.
“Ultimately, it was not the deal anyone would have ideally designed,” the official admitted. However, they added, “It had left some hope that the funds might be used for the right ends and not spent by him.”
