British sanctions against Roman Abramovich have restricted rent payments to the Crown Estate, which manages properties for the Queen.
The British government last week froze Mr Abramovich’s assets as part of its sanctions response to the Ukraine war.
He and other wealthy Russians were sanctioned to put pressure on President Vladimir Putin.
The sanctions prevent them from making transactions related to property and businesses they own in the UK.
Among Mr Abramovich’s frozen assets are Chelsea FC, which was allowed to continue operating under a special license granted by the UK government.
The 55-year-old Russian billionaire, who denies close ties to President Putin, has also been linked to owning property in the UK.
These include a 15-bedroom mansion on Kensington Palace Gardens, an exclusive street in west London known as ‘Billionaires Row’.
Land registers indicate that companies managing assets for Mr. Abramovich are registered tenants of the property.
That means the companies own the house, but the land on which it’s built is owned by the Crown Estate – a company set up by Parliament to oversee a portfolio of the British monarch’s properties.
The terms of the lease see the companies pay the Crown Estate “£10,000 to £160,000” over a 125-year term, a land register document shows.
- RAbramovich sanctioned by Britain
- Chelsea owners disqualified as club director
- Who are the mega-rich Russians facing sanctions?
When asked about the impact of the sanctions on Mr. Abramovich, a Crown Estate spokesman said he would not comment on the specifics of each lease.
But the spokesman condemned the invasion of Ukraine, saying: “We are doing everything we can to quickly fulfill the introduction of sanctions.”
The BBC has reached out to a spokesman for Mr Abramovich for comment.
The restrictions on rent payments were first reported by the Wall Street Journal newspaper, which said Mr Abramovich bought the house in 2011 for $140million (£107million).
Built in the mid-18th century, the Grade I listed building housed a Soviet diplomatic mission in 1972 and is opposite Kensington Palace.
Last week, the UK government imposed travel bans and a full asset freeze on “seven of Russia’s wealthiest and most influential oligarchs,” including Mr Abramovich.
These measures prohibit anyone in the UK from trading in frozen assets owned, held or controlled by a sanctioned person.
Legal experts said Mr Abramovich would need to apply for licenses to conduct transactions related to his properties – from security and utility bills to maintenance and gardening.
A license is a written authorization from the Department of Treasury permitting an action that would otherwise violate financial penalties. One example is the special license for Chelsea FC.
A Treasury Department spokesman said the department could not comment on specific properties.
In general, a sanctioned person who is subject to an asset freeze can continue to live in their home but cannot rent or sell it, the spokesman said.
The spokesman said they could “apply for a license on a ‘basic needs’ basis, which can cover things like paying insurance, property management, rent or mortgage payments, utilities.”
“The license would allow their bank to unblock those specific payments without violating the freeze.”
Joshua Ray, a lawyer for Rahman Ravelli, told the BBC license applications “can often take at least several weeks, if not longer”.
“In relation to Chelsea-related licences, the government has signaled its willingness to make fast-track requests, but that does not appear to apply to its other UK assets,” said Mr Ray, who advises international companies on sanctions.
According to Treasury Department guidelines, attorneys advising a sanctioned person without a license “cannot receive payment” for the service.
Mr Ray said Mr Abramovich “would likely hire an attorney who is in a jurisdiction where he is not already sanctioned”.
On Sunday, Housing Secretary Michael Gove told the BBC’s Sunday morning program that the government was considering using the British-sanctioned properties of Russian oligarchs for “humanitarian purposes”.
But he said it was “a pretty high legal line to cross and we’re not talking about a permanent seizure,” adding: “If we can use it to help others, let’s do that”.
Add Comment