Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Business
4 March 2022

Could the government really seize oligarchs’ houses?

Wealthy people with links to the Kremlin own swathes of luxurious London property, and Michael Gove is considering how to take it from them.

By Emma Haslett

For years, it’s been an open secret that Russian oligarchs have used ultra high-end London property to store and launder their wealth. Now, with the government looking for ways to hit Vladimir Putin where it hurts, the capital’s property sector is under scrutiny. On Thursday (3 March) the Financial Times reported that the cabinet minister Michael Gove is looking for ways to seize property assets owned by Russian oligarchs with links to the Kremlin without compensating them. This sounds simple in theory – but what are Gove’s options?

There’s a reason the UK capital is known as “Londongrad”:  according to campaigning organisation Transparency International, since 2016 property worth £1.5bn has been bought by Russians accused of corruption or links to the Kremlin. Of that total, £830m is held by companies registered offshore, allowing their owners to remain anonymous. On Wednesday (2 March), Keir Starmer used parliamentary privilege to name Igor Shuvalov, Putin’s former deputy prime minister, who “owns two flats, not five minutes’ walk from this house”.

The government does have plans to target those using London property to launder money, including those with links to the Kremlin. The Economic Crime Bill, announced on Monday, is designed to target transactions like these by requiring foreign buyers to sign a register, preventing them from hiding their identities. But, as Starmer pointed out, under that legislation oligarchs will have an 18-month grace period after it comes into effect to make other arrangements. Given the urgency of the situation, Gove will need something else.

Cameron Brown, a QC at Red Lion Chambers who specialises in fraud and corruption, says Gove’s easiest option is to use Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs). These were introduced in 2017 to target money launderers, forcing the defendant to prove where their wealth comes from or face having it seized. But they’re not straightforward. Not only are they controversial, because the burden is on the defendant to prove why the state is wrong, making it effectively a “guilty until proven innocent” situation, but they’re also expensive. “[Defendants] throw huge amounts of assets at them to defend them,” says Brown. “They instruct expensive, high-end lawyers, and lots of them, because they have the resources.”

In a 2018 report published by the Intelligence and Security Committee, Lynne Owens, the head of the National Crime Agency (NCA) until last year, said the targets of UWOs were “wealthy people with access to the best lawyers” whose bottomless bank accounts were exhausting her team’s resources.

Another option, says Brown, is to legislate separately, although even if the government rushes that legislation through it will still take time.

London’s oligarchs are already concerned. On Sunday (27 February) the foreign secretary, Liz Truss, said the government has plans to impose sanctions on a “hit list” of oligarchs. On Thursday (3 March) Nigel Kushner, chief executive at W Legal, told the Today progamme that he had been approached by oligarchs who are worried about what will happen, even if it hasn’t yet: “90 per cent of those who… I have advised come to me after they’ve been sanctioned,” he said. “This week it’s been bizarre, because they’ve not yet been sanctioned.”

Content from our partners
How do we secure the hybrid office?
How materials innovation can help achieve net zero and level-up the UK
Fantastic mental well-being strategies and where to find them

Meanwhile, the Times reported that Roman Abramovich is so anxious that he is not only flogging his football club, but he’s also looking to sell his £150m, 15-bedroom home next door to Kensington Palace and his £22m, three-storey flat on Chelsea Waterfront.

That might not be easy: Henry Pryor, a property buying agent who deals with high-end homes, says with sanctions on the horizon, any agent appointed by Abramovich would have to apply for approval from the National Crime Agency. “In the current climate I suspect they would be waiting a long time to get it,” he says.

While Gove looks at how to seize the properties, the government must sanction individuals swiftly. Because while it’s easy to empty a bank account quickly, selling off a property is harder. “In reality one cannot easily transfer or sell large holdings or any property overnight,” Kushner told me. But he cautioned: “The government also needs to make sure that there is a proper basis to apply sanctions on individuals. This cannot simply be based on a lousy reputation or hearsay.”

[See also: For companies that invested in Russia, unloading toxic assets is a difficult business]

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

Topics in this article: , ,