UK Court Rejects Russian Oligarch's Bid to Overturn Denied License Applications
The U.K. High Court on Oct. 26 rejected an application from Russian oligarch Mikhail Fridman to overturn the U.K.'s decision to refuse three licenses for payments related to the businessman's property and his management company. The court said the U.K.'s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation legally concluded that a license may not be granted if the payment is made "directly" or "indirectly" to another designated individual or entity.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In Fridman's case, the court said it's undisputed that the payments to his management company would go indirectly to Nigina Zairova, a sanctioned party and the sole director of AHL. The court said a "common thread" running through the Russia sanctions is that restrictions on designated parties are extended to those owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the designated party.
The court also said the meaning of "directly or indirectly" refers to the "purpose of the sanctions regime," which, in this case, encourages Russia to halt its efforts to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. One way to do this is by freezing the assets of sanctioned parties. To do this effectively, the sanctions extend the restrictions on the assets of a designated person to entities "owned or controlled directly or indirectly" by designated persons, the opinion said.
The court also sustained OFSI's rejection of Fridman's license requests for a monthly payment from AHL to Ideaworks for internal phonelines, audio and TV equipment, and for payments for staff costs. OFSI legally said the payments for the audio and TV equipment did not amount to "basic needs," and while OFSI was allowed to grant licenses for payments for already-rendered services, the court said it didn't have the grounds to issue licenses for future services.