{"id":590093,"date":"2025-11-24T04:40:18","date_gmt":"2025-11-24T04:40:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/590093\/"},"modified":"2025-11-24T04:40:18","modified_gmt":"2025-11-24T04:40:18","slug":"safe-haven-to-sanctions-how-jersey-sheltered-roman-abramovichs-billions-roman-abramovich","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/590093\/","title":{"rendered":"Safe haven to sanctions: how Jersey sheltered Roman Abramovich\u2019s billions | Roman Abramovich"},"content":{"rendered":"

For decades the Channel Islands<\/a> tax haven of Jersey has played a big role in moving fortunes made in some of the world\u2019s most despotic countries into the west, attracting overseas oligarchs with a mix of low tax and high levels of financial secrecy.<\/p>\n

It is a secrecy that extends to Jersey\u2019s relationship with the UK government. As a crown dependency, Jersey<\/a> has its own parliament, but belongs to the king. The relationship between the two jurisdictions remains something of a black box, with very little public information on how the big decisions are made, or to what extent Westminster is consulted.<\/p>\n

That changed last week, when Jersey itself released the details of a two-year legal battle with Roman Abramovich, the Russian billionaire and former Chelsea football club proprietor. On Monday, after a gagging order was lifted, the Jersey royal courts began publishing a series of previously undisclosed judgments<\/a>. Fifteen have been released so far, running to 370 pages.<\/p>\n

They reveal for the first time how, in 2016 and 2017, Abramovich and four of his closest associates were given safe harbour by the tax haven, which granted them residency under a special scheme for ultra-high net worth individuals. Abramovich\u2019s application was approved in September 2017, the files show.<\/p>\n

It appears he approached Jersey about residency in the summer of that year.<\/p>\n

The oligarch was also granted permission by the Jersey government to relocate companies controlling the bulk of his fortune to the crown dependency, a five-mile-by-nine-mile swathe of green that sits just off the northern coast of France. Transfers of assets from his offshore network to Jersey took place in 2017, and again in 2021, months before Russia\u2019s full-scale invasion on Ukraine, when holdings worth $7bn (\u00a35.3bn) were relocated, according to the judgments. In 2016, a company of which Abramovich was the ultimate beneficial owner was also granted a licence to operate in Jersey. The company\u2019s name was anonymised but it appears to have been a family office, set up to manage his wealth. It advised on \u201cphilanthropic activities\u201d, the acquisition of aircraft, yachts and cars, and investments in Europe and North America.<\/p>\n

The move was tacitly approved by the British government, the judgments suggest. The records show, in rarely shared detail, how London was extensively consulted on what was considered a politically sensitive matter involving a high-profile individual known for his close ties to Vladimir Putin\u2019s regime.<\/p>\n

The judgments record at least seven background checks and four face-to-face meetings between officials in Jersey and London over several years.<\/p>\n

In none of these communications did UK officials raise objections, despite heightened sensitivity around Kremlin-linked figures after Russia\u2019s annexation of Crimea in 2014.<\/p>\n

The door remained open even after the diplomatic storm triggered by the 2018 Salisbury poisonings<\/a>, a botched assassination attempt on a double agent and his daughter by Russian operatives.<\/p>\n

It was not until Russia\u2019s assault on Kyiv that the tide turned against Abramovich, the judgments suggest. In April 2022 Jersey authorities froze $7bn of assets<\/a> suspected of having been connected to him, and searched a number of premises on the island. The oligarch had by then been placed on the UK and Jersey sanctions lists. In January <\/strong>2023, a court ruling revealed the raids were part of a criminal investigation by the Jersey attorney general into suspected money laundering and breaches of sanctions.<\/p>\n

It has since emerged that the money laundering investigation is focused on whether Abramovich obtained his wealth through corruption, while he was building his oil and gas business, Sibneft, during the 1990s, in Russia\u2019s newly privatised economy. The claims rely on evidence Abramovich himself gave in a 2012 court case in London.<\/p>\n

His lawyers have denied he was involved in corruption, and they have claimed the decision to investigate him is politically motivated. A lawyer from one of the corporate entities set up to manage his wealth says the oligarch was \u201cencouraged\u201d to bring his assets to Jersey, and that what followed after the invasion of Ukraine was a case of \u201cstate-engendered entrapment\u201d.<\/p>\n

In a legal fightback which began in 2023, Abramovich and associated parties have sought to overturn the asset freeze, the judgments show. Jersey\u2019s court of appeal ruled against them this summer.<\/p>\n

In a second and more unusual case, which was also rejected by the island\u2019s court of appeal, Abramovich sued for judicial review of the attorney general\u2019s decision to investigate him. The move was an attempt to shut down the investigation before any charges had been brought.<\/p>\n

The rulings have been anonymised and redacted to protect the identity of Abramovich\u2019s associates, after judges decided they had a right to privacy. The names of the companies they managed have also been removed to prevent identification.<\/p>\n

The main cases and other related disputes were originally heard in private, and the judgments left unpublished until all routes for appeal had been exhausted. Last week, Abramovich\u2019s bid to have the Jersey court decisions overturned was rejected by the judicial committee of the privy council, bringing an end to this particular battle.<\/p>\n

One of the main levers through which the British government continues to exert influence over its colonies, the committee, which normally sits in Parliament Square in London, acts as a supreme court for the UK\u2019s overseas territories, crown dependencies and some commonwealth countries.<\/p>\n

A \u2018reputational risk\u2019 to Jersey<\/p>\n

The decision to allow Abramovich to move his wealth to Jersey was not taken lightly. Barry Faudemer, the former head of enforcement at the Jersey Financial Services Commission, clearly had concerns.<\/p>\n

A report he prepared for ministers in late 2016, quoted in the judgments, claimed: \u201cAbramovich\u2019s close association with Putin raises a reputational risk to the island, particularly given the increasing perception of Russia as a rogue state intent on the use of military action to achieve its goals.\u201d<\/p>\n

He also expressed fears that Abramovich could use a Jersey-registered company \u201cto launder the proceeds of corruption on behalf of third parties including Putin. The island will have no oversight of the activities of the company (unregulated)\u201d.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, Faudemer said, Abramovich already had \u201cextensive business interests in the island\u201d, he already had homes in the UK and US, and he had \u201csuccessfully operated in the UK for many years as the owner of Chelsea football club without incident\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cIdentifying evidence sufficient to support a refusal to grant a licence is likely to be problematic,\u201d he concluded.<\/p>\n

In May 2016, a first approach about residency was made by an associate of Abramovich, who is anonymised in the judgments as XB. It was made clear that Jersey had much to gain. \u201cThese approvals were given in the knowledge that, if they were granted, [Abramovich\u2019s] substantial wealth would be migrated to Jersey with all the financial benefits which that would bring to the island,\u201d one judgment states, summarising the case put forward by the oligarch.<\/p>\n

Jersey\u2019s ministers were keen to make it work, but they wanted to proceed with care. A back channel was opened between St Helier and London.<\/p>\n

Robert MacRae, then Jersey\u2019s attorney general, approached a contact in the directorate of national security at the UK\u2019s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), as it was then known.<\/strong> Over the following months, as each residency application was submitted, UK officials ran checks on Abramovich and all but one of his associates, making sure they were not under investigation by any law enforcement agency.<\/p>\n

After the Salisbury poisonings, all the checks were redone, again via the FCO. In February 2019 the checks on Abramovich were repeated, with Jersey officials concerned about a \u201chardening of attitudes towards those with Russian connections\u201d.<\/p>\n

There are accounts of four face-to-face meetings between UK and Jersey officials, including one between Faudermer and the UK regulator the Financial Conduct Authority<\/a> (FCA).<\/p>\n

After each of the checks detailed in the judgment, the FCO official gave the all-clear. They also expressed an interest in continuing to receive information about those wanting Jersey residence. One email sent by the FCO official about Abramovich read: \u201cOn RA \u2013 we have no significant concerns, issues or adverse traces on this [redacted]. He in particular has a large footprint but not of significant concern or investigation. The information itself however is very helpful in building a wider picture of activity in this space and subject matter however.\u201d<\/p>\n

No political objections from London<\/p>\n

MacRae also told officials in his own government that there were no political objections from London to opening the door to Abramovich and his billions. In a note written to the attorney general, a Jersey government official recorded:<\/p>\n

\u201cI noted from our brief conversation the following:<\/p>\n

You have undertaken appropriate and extensive enquiries.
As a result you have confirmed that there is insufficient evidence to prevent this application from proceeding; and that should there have been sufficient evidence the matter would have been referred to senior ministerial level within the UK government.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the judgments, Abramovich never took up residence in Jersey. In 2018 he secured Israeli citizenship.<\/p>\n

Abramovich is now pursuing a claim of \u201cconspiracy\u201d against the Jersey government<\/a>. His lawyers said no charges have been brought against Abramovich since the commencement of the Jersey investigation over three years ago and there are no criminal proceedings in the jurisdiction involving him. In a statement last week they said that to their knowledge, \u201cno progress has been made\u201d on the attorney general\u2019s investigation.<\/p>\n

His lawyers stressed that in the published judgments, the judges had not been required to rule on whether there had been any corruption or admission of corruption by Abramovich regarding his dealings at Sibneft, and that they had not reached any conclusions on this matter. They said the UK courts had in 2012 made no finding that Abramovich broke any law in respect of his business dealings. \u201cThere was no suggestion in our client\u2019s defence that his acquisition of the relevant entity was achieved through corruption, and our client denies these allegations.\u201d<\/p>\n

A spokesperson for Jersey\u2019s attorney general welcomed the privy council\u2019s decision, adding: \u201cThe investigation by the Economic Crime and Confiscation Unit in the Law Officers\u2019 Department in relation to Mr Abramovich and others remains live.\u201d<\/p>\n

Quick GuideContact Guardian Business about this storyShow\"\"<\/p>\n

The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know.<\/p>\n

If you have something to share on this subject you can contact the Business team confidentially using the following methods.<\/p>\n

Secure Messaging in the Guardian app<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said.<\/p>\n

If you don’t already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS<\/a>\/Android<\/a>) and go to the menu. Scroll down and click on Secure Messaging<\/b>. When asked who you wish to contact please select the Guardian Business<\/b> team.<\/p>\n

SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, telephone and post<\/strong><\/p>\n

If you can safely use the tor network without being observed or monitored you can send messages and documents to the Guardian via our SecureDrop platform<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Finally, our guide at theguardian.com\/tips<\/a>\u00a0lists several ways to contact us securely, and discusses the pros and cons of each.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Illustration: Guardian Design \/ Rich Cousins<\/p>\n

Thank you for your feedback.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"For decades the Channel Islands tax haven of Jersey has played a big role in moving fortunes made…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":590094,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[12,26],"class_list":{"0":"post-590093","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-world","8":"tag-news","9":"tag-world"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115602838862031382","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/590093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=590093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/590093\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/590094"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=590093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=590093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=590093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}