Roman Abramovich asserts ownership of Chelsea sale proceeds
Roman Abramovich’s legal representatives have declared that the £2.35 billion proceeds from Chelsea’s sale remain entirely his property and warned the Russian oligarch is prepared to contest any seizure attempts, reports BritPanorama.
The letter, dispatched on Monday, directly challenges Sir Keir Starmer’s December ultimatum demanding the sanctioned Abramovich “pay up now” or face court proceedings. Abramovich’s counsel maintains there exists “no legal basis” for the Government’s threats regarding the frozen funds.
The correspondence emphasises that although the money is currently frozen, it belongs to Fordstam Limited, Abramovich’s UK-registered company. The legal team accuses ministers of acting without proper authority, claiming the Government “has now chosen to threaten litigation and to issue a licence unilaterally, without having a legal basis for doing so.”
This marks the first public disclosure of communications from Abramovich’s camp to UK authorities. The impasse dates back to April 2022, when the Royal Court of Jersey imposed a freezing order on $5.25 billion worth of Abramovich’s assets, after he pledged to donate the proceeds from Chelsea. Jersey’s attorney general identified Abramovich as a suspect in a criminal investigation, triggering an ongoing legal battle as the Russian, who denies any wrongdoing, seeks to clear his name.
Complicating matters further, Fordstam carries an outstanding £1.5 billion debt to Camberley International Investments, the Jersey-based parent company also subject to an assets freeze. A fundamental disagreement remains over how the charitable funds should be distributed. The Government insists money must be spent exclusively within Ukraine to prevent it from reaching Russia, while Abramovich, alongside organisations including Save the Children, argues the humanitarian crises resulting from the conflict extend beyond Ukrainian borders.
Despite the standoff, Abramovich’s lawyers insist he remains dedicated to fulfilling his original charitable pledge. The letter states: “The proposal to donate these proceeds was initiated by Mr Abramovich prior to the imposition of sanctions, and he remains fully committed to ensuring that the funds are used for charitable purposes. As such, any donation will be made voluntarily by our clients.”
The Prime Minister’s December intervention represented the second occasion in six months that ministers had threatened legal action against the billionaire. Former officials involved in earlier negotiations have cautioned that attempting to seize the funds would constitute a “nuclear option” that could unsettle financial markets.
In this complex saga, where money, politics, and humanitarian intent collide, the outcome may well reverberate beyond the immediate parties involved, echoing a broader struggle over accountability and the power dynamics in international finance.
