Abramovich ally loses Supreme Court battle over Russian sanctions

Telegraph

3 days ago

A Russian oil tycoon has accused the UK Government of 'virtue signalling' after he failed to overturn sanctions in the Supreme Court.
Eugene Shvidler, a billionaire businessman with close ties to Roman Abramovich, the former Chelsea FC owner, has lashed out at policymakers over claims he was punished for 'purely political purposes'.
His criticism related to a ruling handed down by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, which upheld sanctions imposed following Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine three years ago.
Mr Shvidler, who previously served on the board of companies owned by the former Chelsea owner, claimed he was hit with sanctions purely because of his 'Russian heritage'.
He singled out Grant Shapps for criticism, as he said the former defence secretary grounded his private jet to 'save face' and wrongly accused him of being one of 'Putin's cronies'.
The Moscow-born oil tycoon, who now lives in the US but remains a British citizen, said: 'The Government's decision-making on who to sanction is often not about targeting those who really have supported and benefited from the Russian state, but more about cheap virtue-signalling for purely political purposes.'
'Orwellian approach'
His comments come after the Supreme Court rejected Mr Shvidler's bid to repeal the sanctions on Sunday.
In taking his case to Britain's highest court, Mr Schvidler claimed the sanctions imposed on him were disproportionate considering he had never had any involvement in Russian politics and had left the country in 1989.
He also argued that the sanctions breached his rights under the European Convention of Human Rights, partly on the basis that he had little influence over Mr Putin's decision-making.
However, the Supreme Court found against Mr Schvidler after ruling that the sanctions were justified in trying to stop the war in Ukraine.
In particular, it said they could send a signal to the 'Russian elite'.
The top court added that while there is 'no doubt that the measures have had a severe, open-ended and drastic effect on Mr Shvidler and his family', such harsh sanctions are needed to be effective.
Yet not all of the five Supreme Court judges agreed.
In a dissenting judgment, Lord Leggatt said ministers had taken an 'Orwellian approach' by freezing Mr Shvidler's assets in the hope that he would 'speak out in support of government policy'.
Lord Leggatt also criticised a series of social media posts sent out by Mr Shapps in which he described Mr Schvidler as a Putin ally.
'These aspersions were all baseless,' he said.