Roman Abramovich fights to keep £2.5bn from Chelsea sale, insisting the money still belongs to him and blaming the UK government for delays in releasing the funds to aid victims of the Ukrainian war.
His legal team claims that the proceeds from the 2022 sale of Chelsea Football Club remain fully under his control through his company, Fordstam Ltd, and that any donation would be made voluntarily once legal complexities are resolved.
Abramovich’s lawyers have pushed back against government attempts to confiscate the funds, asserting that ministers have exacerbated the delay rather than facilitating the transfer of money for humanitarian purposes.
The dispute escalates as the UK government, led by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, presses for the release of the £2.5bn to support Ukrainians affected by the ongoing conflict with Russia. Legal letters obtained by newsmen reveal that Abramovich’s representatives, including the law firm Kobre and Kim, hold the government responsible for the funds remaining frozen.
The lawyers argue that Abramovich has consistently sought to comply with the donation framework agreed upon at the time of the Chelsea sale, formalized in a Deed of Undertaking approved by UK authorities.
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has responded angrily to Abramovich’s stance, emphasizing that the money was pledged to Ukraine more than three years ago and that it is time for the oligarch to follow through.
“This money was promised over three years ago. It is time Roman Abramovich does the right thing, but if he won’t we will act,” Cooper told newsmen.
The UK government recently issued a licence to allow the transfer of the funds, citing the need to compensate Ukrainians affected by Russia’s war, which remains one of the largest humanitarian crises in Europe in recent years.
The legal battle traces back to March 2022, when Abramovich sold Chelsea, one of England’s most prominent football clubs. Although the sale generated billions, the proceeds were immediately frozen due to sanctions imposed on Russian oligarchs with ties to Vladimir Putin.
Abramovich’s lawyers contend that the funds have always been intended for charitable purposes, including supporting victims of the war in Ukraine, and that any suggestion otherwise misrepresents his intentions.
Senior government figures, including Chancellor Rachel Reeves, have criticized the delay, describing it as unacceptable that billions owed to the Ukrainian people remain trapped in UK bank accounts.
Ministers argue that prompt action is essential, not only to support Ukraine but also to ensure that Russia-linked assets are appropriately managed and utilized for their intended humanitarian purposes.
“It is unacceptable that more than £2.5bn of money owed to the Ukrainian people can be allowed to remain frozen in a UK bank account,” Reeves said during parliamentary proceedings.
Abramovich’s legal representatives have claimed that an ongoing investigation in Jersey has complicated the release of the funds. In April 2022, the Royal Court of Jersey imposed a freezing order on $7 billion worth of assets connected to Abramovich, citing questions over the origin of his wealth.
The Attorney General of Jersey named Abramovich as a suspect in a criminal investigation relating to allegations of corruption in Russia during the 1990s and early 2000s.
Abramovich’s team argues that these legal entanglements prevent him from unfreezing assets and proceeding with donations, despite his stated intention to contribute to Ukraine relief.
The former Chelsea owner has consistently maintained that his wealth and the proceeds from Chelsea were scrutinized extensively over time. Abramovich obtained residency in Jersey in 2016, which added layers of oversight regarding his financial affairs.
Despite these complexities, his legal team asserts that the money in question remains the property of Fordstam Ltd and that any donation would be a voluntary act in line with Abramovich’s prior commitment.
UK ministers have indicated that they are prepared to take formal legal action to secure the funds if Abramovich does not comply voluntarily.
A deadline of 17 March 2026 has been set for Abramovich to respond to demands for the transfer, following warnings from Starmer that legal proceedings could be initiated to enforce the release of the money.
The government views this action as part of a broader effort to recover assets from Russian oligarchs linked to Putin, both to punish wrongdoing and to assist Ukraine financially.
Abramovich, who once served as governor of Chukotka in Russia’s Far East and built his fortune under Putin’s presidency, has argued that his wealth has been fully scrutinized under multiple jurisdictions.
Nevertheless, government officials remain concerned that delays in releasing billions promised to Ukraine are prolonging the suffering of civilians affected by the war.
Legal documents show that the government has repeatedly attempted to engage with Abramovich, offering licenses and frameworks to facilitate the donation, only to encounter resistance and counterclaims of procedural obstacles.
The exchange between Abramovich and UK authorities reflects a wider challenge in balancing the enforcement of sanctions against Russian oligarchs with the delivery of humanitarian aid.
The UK government has emphasized that public statements alone are insufficient, and that tangible action must follow the promises made by wealthy individuals whose assets have been frozen.
Cooper and other ministers have argued that Abramovich’s pledge was voluntary, but the extraordinary scale of the donation and the delay in execution has created intense scrutiny and political pressure.
This dispute also underscores the complexities of international finance and the legal frameworks surrounding asset freezing, particularly when multiple jurisdictions are involved. Jersey’s investigation into Abramovich’s wealth, the Deed of Undertaking governing the Chelsea sale, and UK financial sanctions intersect to create a legal quagmire.
Abramovich’s lawyers insist that these complexities should not be used as a reason to publicly pressure him, arguing instead that resolution should occur through formal channels.
While Abramovich has publicly maintained that he intends to honor his pledge, the UK government has made clear that it will not tolerate further delays. Ministers have stated that the funds are critical for rebuilding the lives of those affected by Putin’s war and that any voluntary donation should be expedited.
With the 17 March deadline approaching, both sides are preparing for a potential confrontation in court if a resolution is not reached.
In addition to legal and political ramifications, the dispute has drawn significant media attention, highlighting the ethical responsibility of billionaires in times of international crisis.
Public opinion has largely sided with the UK government, emphasizing that financial promises to aid victims of war should be upheld promptly. Abramovich’s lawyers maintain that he has consistently acted in accordance with the law and that the government’s public statements mischaracterize his position, but the debate continues to fuel political tension.
Observers note that the outcome of this legal standoff could set a precedent for how the UK and other countries handle frozen assets of sanctioned individuals. If the government successfully compels Abramovich to transfer the funds, it may signal a more assertive approach to enforcing sanctions and recovering money for humanitarian purposes.
Conversely, a legal victory for Abramovich could reinforce the limits of government authority in compelling voluntary donations from private individuals under complex international legal frameworks.
Read also: Sunderland AFC manager prioritises Granit Xhaka fitness ahead of Brighton & Hove Albion Premier League clash
As the March deadline nears, the focus remains on whether Abramovich will voluntarily release the £2.5bn to support Ukrainian victims, or whether the UK government will escalate matters through formal confiscation proceedings.
Both sides have made their positions clear, and the coming weeks are expected to reveal whether diplomacy, legal maneuvering, or political pressure will ultimately determine the fate of the frozen funds.
Regardless of the outcome, the case underscores the challenges governments face when attempting to secure financial restitution from wealthy individuals with international holdings, particularly amid ongoing geopolitical conflict.
About The Author
