Abramovich business associate Eugene Shvidler fails to overturn UK sanctions
Eugene Shvidler served on the board of companies owned by the former owner of Chelsea football club and now lives in the US. He was placed under sanctions by the UK government in March 2022 as part of measures to target Russia-linked oligarchs and officials after Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine.
Shvidler, who was born in the USSR in 1964, grew up in Moscow but is now a British citizen, had challenged his designation at the high court in 2023 and then appealed against that decision last year. He argued the measures caused disproportionate hardship and discriminated against him as a Russian-born person, while also claiming he was not closely associated enough to Abramovich to justify the Foreign Office's move.
On Tuesday, a majority decision of four supreme court justices to one dismissed the businessman's appeal, saying that sanctions had to be tough to be effective.
The judgment stated: 'Sanctions often have to be severe and open-ended if they are to be effective. The object of the designation in relation to Mr Shvidler is that he should so far as possible be disabled from enjoying his assets and pursuing his wealthy lifestyle.'
The judges added: 'We accept that [the government's] evidence establishes that there is a rational connection between the designation of Mr Shvidler and the aim of this sanction … as the courts … correctly recognised in Mr Shvidler's case, the effectiveness of a sanctions regime depends on the cumulative effect of the measures imposed under that regime. The imposition of sanctions in relation to Mr Shvidler contributes to that cumulative effect.'
However, in a 20 page dissenting judgment, Lord Leggatt said he disagreed with the majority's decision that the sanctions were lawful, describing it as 'Orwellian' and arguing he did not consider the government had shown a rational connection between the freezing of Shvidler's assets and the objective of sanctions.
'I do not consider that the reasons relied on by the government come close to justifying such a drastic curtailment of his liberty,' he wrote.
Shvidler said: 'This supreme court judgment brings me back to the USSR, which I left as a stateless refugee 36 years ago, seeking sanctuary in the US. Back then, individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections and that is how I feel about this judgment.'
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
The UK government imposed sanctions on Shvidler on grounds including that he was associated with Abramovich, who in turn had obtained a benefit from or supported the government of Russia. The Foreign Office argued the men were associated because Shvidler was a long-serving director of Evraz, a steel and mining company in which Abramovich was a leading shareholder. It said he had also served as chair of Millhouse LLC, the Moscow-based arm of the UK company that managed assets for Abramovich and Shvidler himself.
In a related case, the judges unanimously dismissed an appeal by Dalston Projects Ltd, a St Kitts and Nevis company that owns a luxury yacht that has been detained at a London dock. The ultimate owner of the yacht is Sergei Naumenko, a Russian citizen and resident who said he had been prevented from earning substantial income from chartering the vessel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
12 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Five tricks to stop your pension falling short: Experts warn HALF of workers over 60 don't have enough money for retirement – but here's how YOU can catch up fast
Baby boomers face a financial crunch, with figures revealing almost half of workers over 60 won't have enough money to fund the lifestyle they want in retirement. As many as 49 per cent of the still-employed generation aged 60 to 80 are not expected to reach their retirement goals, according to research for The Mail on Sunday.
Telegraph
13 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Iceland under pressure as supermarket price war intensifies
Rapid growth at Iceland has ground to a halt as the frozen food chain comes under mounting pressure in the face of an intensifying supermarket price war. The retailer has told bondholders that underlying profits rose just 0.6pc to £317.6m in the year to the end of March, compared to a 24pc jump the prior year. Revenues were largely flat at £4.2bn over the year, although its 2024 financial year – when sales jumped 6.6pc – was boosted by an additional trading week. Stripping these figures out, sales were up 3pc this year on prior year. The slowdown is understood to have come as Iceland pushes to keep prices lower as supermarkets battle to attract and retain shoppers. Earlier this year, Asda kicked off a price war in an attempt to stem years of declines. Its new chairman, Allan Leighton, has vowed to use a 'war chest' to fund price cuts, improve availability of products and refresh tired stores. The company said this would mean profits would take a 'material hit'. Tesco responded by saying its profits would fall as much as 14pc this year with plans to invest £400m in price cuts. To avoid losing shoppers to rivals, Iceland has been stepping up its programme of multibuy promotions, where customers can buy bundles of products for less than if they bought them separately. This meant that while the number of items it sold last year increased by 5.3pc, it did not see an rise in the value of its sales. Credit rating agency, Fitch, said shoppers continued to turn to Iceland for value 'despite heightened competition'. Its market share has remained flat at between 2.3pc and 2.4pc over the past five years. Fitch added: 'We expect Iceland's product offering to remain competitive for UK food consumers with weaker spending power.' However, the credit ratings agency raised concerns over Iceland's profitability, suggesting the supermarket chain would have to invest in price cuts this year at a time when it is battling higher costs. It said the supermarket, which employs more than 30,000 people, would face 'momentary profit pressure', publishing forecasts suggesting underlying profits could dip this year. Fitch said: 'The company, along with other UK-based retailers, will be hit by the rise in National Insurance and minimum living wage contributions from [this year], which we estimate will result in an additional cost of £50m.' Iceland chairman, Richard Walker, said earlier this year the National Insurance raid had 'added greatly to the cost of business', ranking the Labour government a 'six out of 10' for its performance in office. It followed earlier efforts to downplay the hit. Last year, after Rachel Reeves's Budget, Mr Walker said companies should stop 'wallowing' and 'complaining' about the tax raid. Mr Walker, who had been a donor to the Tory party before switching allegiance to Labour, said last December: 'The Government isn't going to change its mind. It was a tough Budget, but we adapt.' The expected profit crunch comes after Iceland's chief executive, Tarsem Dhaliwal, in April said the company was bracing for surging food costs. Speaking to industry publication. The Grocer, Mr Dhaliwal said his biggest concern was rising prices being imposed by its suppliers. He said: 'The reality is that we have to be conscious of the fact our suppliers are going to pass the costs onto us, literally straight away. We can't absorb all that, I don't think any retailer can, so there's going to be food inflation.' At the time, Mr Dhaliwal said that Iceland would be battling to 'remain competitive', adding: 'Consumers might end up with less items in their basket, still spending £10 but on less items.' Already, food inflation is running at around 4pc, according to figures from the British Retail Consortium, with increases in the price of staples such as meat and tea fuelling the higher level.
The Independent
42 minutes ago
- The Independent
I'm a bouncer – policing what people say in pubs is a step too far
'The death of the Great British pub,' screamed a recent headline. The story underneath was referring to the idea of so-called 'banter bouncers': card-carrying heavies who go from table to table in licensed venues, ensuring all spoken language is kept strictly PG. As an actual bouncer (or an SIA level 2 licensed door supervisor, to use my official job title), this smells like clickbait. In a time where six pubs and three clubs are going under every week in the UK, the notion of hiring an extra set of size elevens to prowl the carpet and make sure no one's talking out of line seems like blue-sky thinking. Yet the government's Employment Rights Bill, back on the table when MPs return from recess next month, includes provisions to require employers to 'take all reasonable steps' to prevent harassment at work by third parties. A TUC poll found that three in five women have experienced sexual harassment, bullying or verbal abuse at work. The TUC also clarified that shopworkers, NHS workers and many other public-facing staff experience abuse from customers. Yet this clause leaves employers to interpret it for themselves. Harsh language isn't something I particularly look out for in the job – not unless it's causing someone serious upset. I'm more focused on hands hovering over the top of women's drinks, or underage kids eyeing up barrels in the loading bay. Two of my security colleagues, who guard a residential venue, recently had their hands full trying to get a towel around a naked sleepwalker. Then there's the question of what actually constitutes 'banter.' Everyone's got the right to let off verbal steam when they're out, provided that they're not scalding the next customer's right to do the same. Door staff soon learn the difference between government guidelines, the venue's policy and what counts as unreasonable. Trying to police what people are saying once they've had their first few gulps of loose juice seems not just completely unreasonable, but more like commercial death. Eighteen to 34-year-olds make up the largest single age group of pub clientele (28 per cent), and apparently a quarter of them prefer messaging to voices. Surely serious banter bouncing should be done digitally? Something best left to the billionaires and the algorithms, if you ask me. I can see the small print on the next software update now: 'Any detection of flagged language will result in the darkest secrets from your camera roll being automatically sent to your nan and/or your mother-in-law.' The idea of refereeing private conversations face-to-face seems so far-fetched that I suspect there's a hidden agenda behind the banter bouncer headlines: to wind people up. This year, opposing voices on the political spectrum have been decrying that everything is broken, the elites are taking over, and the only way to feel like you still count is to gang up on the streets and start kicking bins over. As someone who has to keep an eye on the streets and stands the bins back up again, I'm yet to see the threats to my way of life that I'm being warned about. But I have seen those in power taking notes: the prime minister is pledging a 'strengthened crackdown' on potential rioters. Anyone facing a spell inside could also find themselves being shot by the new tasers being issued to prison staff. Hopefully, us door crew won't be made to carry extra tools if we're put on language patrol. I got into the job to stop trouble – not to ignite it. High prices and lagging wages can leave a lot of people just one rude word or indiscretion away from blowing up. If you want to know whether your own choice of banter counts as one of those trigger words, I advise going to an expert: Countdown 's lexicographer, Susie Dent. She recently shared the term 'lalochezia': 'the use of swearing to relieve stress, anger, pain or frustration.' Before that, she dropped 'circumlocutionist': 'one who consistently speaks in a roundabout way'. Lalochezia is okay – but don't be a circumlocutionist. And if that last one's too much of a mouthful? Swap it for a more versatile C-word with fewer syllables.
