Former Putin-appointed governor guilty of breaching UK sanctions
A former Russian government minister - who was once a governor in illegally annexed Crimea - has been found guilty of breaching UK sanctions in the first case of its kind. Dmitrii Ovsiannikov was accused of deliberately avoiding sanctions by receiving more than £75,000 from his wife Ekaterina Ovsiannikova and a new Mercedes Benz SUV from his brother Alexei Owsjanikow.Ovsiannikov, who has a British passport, was found guilty of six out of seven counts of circumventing sanctions. The jury failed to reach a verdict on the final charge.The case is the first prosecution in the UK regarding a breach of sanctions under the Russia Sanctions Regulations, according to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Two years after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, President Vladimir Putin appointed Ovsiannikov as acting governor of the "strategically significant" city of Sevastopol in Crimea, the jury were told.In 2017, elections were held there for the position of governor and Ovsiannikov won. He resigned from the position in July 2019.As a result of his senior job in illegally annexed Crimea, the EU and UK imposed financial sanctions on him. In August 2022, Ovsiannikov travelled to Turkey from Russia and applied for a British passport.Despite the fact that UK sanctions still applied, the jury heard that he was granted a passport in January 2023, which he was entitled to because his father was born in the UK.Ovsiannikov challenged the EU sanctions and they were lifted just five days after he arrived in the UK.
After arriving in Britain on 1 February 2023, Ovsiannikov moved into his brother's house in Clapham, where his wife and two younger children were already living and attending private school.On 6 February, the former governor applied for a Halifax bank account and over the next two-and-a-half weeks his wife transferred £76,000 into his account - allowing him to put down a deposit on a Mercedes Benz GLC 300 SUV.However, the bank later realised he was on the UK sanctions list and froze the account. His brother Alexei Owsjanikow bought the Mercedes instead, paying more than £54,000, the prosecution said.The prosecution argued that when Ovsiannikov's wife sent him the £76,000 and his brother bought the car they were also in breach of sanctions. While in May 2024, Owsjanikow paid more than £40,000 in school fees for his brother's two youngest children - which the prosecution argued was also in breach of sanctions.
Verdicts send a 'clear message'
Ovsiannikov's wife was cleared of four counts of circumventing sanctions by assisting with payments totalling £76,000 to her husband in February 2023.Owsjanikow was cleared of breaching sanctions by buying the Mercedes-Benz, arranging car insurance for Ovsiannikov, and by making a Barclays bank account available to him.However the jury at Southwark Crown Court found Owsjanikow guilty on two counts of circumventing sanctions by paying school fees of £41,027 for his brother's children.The prosecution argued Ovsiannikov must have known he was subject to UK sanctions, because on 7 February 2023 he was applying for them to be lifted and had included his unique ID number and group ID number from his sanctions listing on the form.In a statement after the verdicts, Julius Capon, unit head prosecutor of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) , said: "The sanctions regime was introduced against key individuals to encourage Russia to cease military action because it was hoped those with power will be hampered in their normal international business dealings."Mr Capon said he hoped the guilty verdicts would send "a clear message" that CPS and National Crime Agency (NCA) investigators would work closely to seek the convictions of "sanctions busters". Ovsiannikov and Owsjanikow will be sentenced at Southwark Crown Court at a later date.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
UK issues unusual 'rising tensions' warning as US orders diplomatic evacuations
The Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a British maritime security agency, has taken measures following Donald Trump's move to issue evacuation orders for non-essential personnel The UK has issued an "unusual warning" to its commercial ships in the Middle East amid "rising tensions". The Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) fears "an escalation of military activity" is on the cards across the region, and believs security may be at risk. It says vessels must use the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz, all of which pass Iran, with caution for the forseeable future. Iran publicly threatened to attack US military bases in the Middle East if they were attacked first. Donald Trump added fuel to the fire yesterday, crassly stating the country will never have a nuclear weapon whether a deal is reached or not. 'UKMTO has been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners. Vessels are advised to transit the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz with caution," the UKMTO said today. The Trump administration has issued evacuation orders for non-essential personnel at the US Embassy in Iraq, and its diplomatic facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also told FOX News there would be voluntary departure for dependents of military personnel serving in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations across the Middle East. This discourse led to the UKMTO advisory today as regional tensions surged. Iranian officials appeared to be responding to calls from hawks in the US to dismantle Iran's nuclear program by force if necessary. But Mr Trump was pessimistic when interviewed earlier this week. The US President said: "I don't know. I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Something happened to them, but I am much less confident of a deal being made." He spoke on the podcast Pod Force One on Monday, which explored in depth the tense situation across the Middle East. Meanwhile, suspected US airstrikes on Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen killed at least three people recently. Yemeni rebels said they shot down a £25m Reaper attack drone during April's onslaught, which indicated a possible US attack on Iran. It happened after the US moved six of its prized B-2 Strategic Stealth bombers to the secretive Indo-Pacific island base of Diego Garcia. Hours after the surprise announcement of the Washington-Tehran talks, Iran's foreign minister said the conversation in Oman would be "indirect" but could be "as much an opportunity as... a test." Mr Trump - who pulled the US out a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers during his first term - said discussions would be at "very high level," as he delivered his warning to Tehran.
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history
Peter Watson begins his survey of the history of ideas in Britain with the assertion that the national mindset (which at that time was the English mindset) changed significantly after the accession of Elizabeth I. His book – a guide to the nature of British intellectual curiosity since the mid-16th century – begins there, just as England had undergone a liberation from a dominant European authority: the shaking off of the influence of the Roman Catholic church and the advent of the Reformation, and the new opportunities that offered for the people. He describes how a culture based largely on poetry and on the court of Elizabeth then redirected the prevailing intellectual forces of the time. This affected not just literature (Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson) but also helped develop an interest in science that grew remarkably throughout the next few centuries. The 'imagination' of Watson's title is not merely the creative artistic imagination, but also that of scientists and inventors and, indeed, of people adept at both. The book is, according to its footnotes, based on secondary sources, so those well read in the history of the intellect in Britain since the Reformation will find much that is familiar. There is the odd surprise, such as one that stems from the book's occasional focus on the British empire and the need felt today to discuss its iniquities. Watson writes that the portion of the British economy based on the slave trade (which must not be conflated with empire) was between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. He also writes that for much of the era of slavery the British had a non-racial view of it, since their main experience of the odious trade was of white people being captured by Barbary pirates and held to ransom. While this cannot excuse the barbarism endured by Africans shipped by British (and other) slavers across the Atlantic, it lends some perspective to a question in serious danger of losing any vestige of one. Watson does not come down on one side or the other in the empire debate, eschewing the 'balance sheet' approach taken by historians such as Nigel Biggar and Niall Ferguson; but he devotes too much of the last section of his book to the question, when other intellectual currents in the opening decades of the 21st century might have been more profitably explored, not least the continuing viability of democracy. Earlier on, he gives much space to an analysis of Edward Said, and questions such as whether Jane Austen expressed her antipathy to slavery sufficiently clearly in the novel Mansfield Park. But then some of Watson's own analyses of writers and thinkers are not always easily supported. He is better on the 18th century – dealing well with the Scottish enlightenment (giving a perfectly nuanced account of Adam Smith) and writers such as Burke and Gibbon – than he appears to be on the 19th. He gives Carlyle his due, but cites an article in a learned American journal from 40 years ago to justify his claim that Carlyle's 'reputation took a knock' in 1849 with the publication of his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Watson says readers were offended by the use of the term 'Quashee' to describe a black man. They may well, if so, have been unsettled by the still less palatable title that the Discourse was subsequently given, which was The Nigger Question: it appeared thus in a 1853 pamphlet and in the Centenary Edition of Carlyle's works in 1899. That indicates the Discourse did Carlyle's reputation no lasting harm at the time, whatever it may have done since. In seeking to pack so much into fewer than 500 pages of text, Watson does skate over a few crucial figures. Some of his musings on empire might have been sacrificed to make more space for George Orwell, for example. A chapter in whose title his name appears features just one brief paragraph on him, about Homage to Catalonia, and later there is a page or so on Animal Farm, which says nothing new. Of Orwell's extensive and mould-breaking journalism there is nothing – somewhat surprising in a book about the British imagination when dealing with one of its leading exponents of the past century. Watson emphasises scientific discovery and innovation, and the effect on national life and ideas caused by the Industrial Revolution. These are all essential consequences of our intellectual curiosity, and he is right to conclude that the historic significance of Britain in these fields is immense. He includes league tables of Nobel prizewinners by nation in which Britain shows remarkably well. But these prizes are not the only means by which the contribution to civilisation and progress by a people are measured. There are notable omissions. Although Watson talks about the elitist nature of 'high culture' – such as Eliot and The Waste Land – he does not discuss how far the British imagination, and the British contribution to world civilisation, might have advanced had we taken the education of the masses more seriously earlier. We were, until the Butler Education Act of 1944, appalling at developing our human resources, and have not been much better since. It is surprising that there is no discussion of British music, one of the greatest fruits of the imagination of the past 150 years. And there is no analysis of the role of architecture, which, given its impact and its centrality to many people's idea of themselves as British, surely merited examination. The book shows extensive and intelligent reading, but trying to cram so much information and commentary into one volume has not been a complete success, or resulted in something entirely coherent.
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Has deporting illegals become illegal?
The circus around Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia – whose full name the New York Times likes to trot out as if citing an old-school English aristocrat – speaks volumes about the immigration battle roiling the US. Our friend Kilmar is what we fuddy-duddies insist on calling an illegal immigrant. The Salvadoran crossed clandestinely into the US in 2012. As for what he's done since, that depends on whom you ask. According to his GoFundMe page, Kilmar is a 'husband, union worker and father of a disabled five-year-old'. Left-wing media portray 'the Maryland man' – a tag akin to Axel Rudakubana's 'a Welshman' – as an industrious metalworker devoted to his family. His wife has rowed back on the temporary protective order she once requested, claiming she'd been over-cautious. Yet according to the Trump administration, Kilmar is a member of the notoriously violent street gang MS-13 who's derived his primary source of income from smuggling hundreds of illegals over the southern border for several years. Choose A or B. In 2019, Kilmar was arrested for loitering along with three other men, one a suspected MS-13 member. He was carrying marijuana, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. From his clothing, tattoos and, more persuasively, a 'past proven and reliable' confidential source who verified he was an active gang member using the moniker 'Chele', police adjudged that Kilmar was a gangbanger, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. He was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement – whose acronym, ICE, reinforces its rep as cold-hearted – which moved to deport him. Kilmar (of course) contested his removal. The immigration judge hearing Kilmar's case concurred that the defendant was indeed a gang member and deportable; the Salvadoran (of course) appealed the decision, which nevertheless was upheld. Kilmar (of course) then filed for asylum, as well as for a 'withholding of removal'. A subsequent immigration judge stayed his deportation to his home country, where his wellbeing might be endangered by local gangs. Now, you might suppose that putting yourself in the way of other famously rivalrous gangs would come with the territory when you join one yourself. Like, inter-gang violence seems a natural hazard of this line of work. But it's not only British immigration judges who are soft touches. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the millions of gate-crashers Kilmar (of course) remained in the US. In 2022, he was pulled over for speeding while driving eight other Hispanic men of uncertain immigration status in an SUV altered to add a third row of seats for extra passengers. The officers suspected human-trafficking; Kilmar's driving licence had expired; a run of his number plate through the database turned up a federal note on likely membership of MS-13. Yet when the patrolmen contacted the feds, ICE (of course) declined to pick him up. So Kilmar was (of course) released without charge. Even so, his claim that he was merely transporting construction workers between jobs did not, under investigation, hold up. Fast-forward to 2025 and why this otherwise obscure Salvadoran who is or is not a thug merits such a detailed lowdown. Meaning (of course) that this case has to do with Donald Trump – whose evil minions in March flew more than 230 purported criminals to a Salvadoran prison, including none other than Kilmar, whom ICE did finally pick up (no 'of course' there). The flights' timing was judicially dodgy. The planes did or didn't take off after a federal judge ruled that the flights could not proceed until the deportees were given the opportunity to challenge their removal. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which directed Trump to 'facilitate' Kilmar's return to the US. Because, remember, there was only one country to which he could not be deported because of that credulous 2019 decision: his own. Hence the Justice Department's acceptance that Kilmar's deportation was an 'administrative error'. During this proxy war with Trump, Democrats have pretended to hair-tear over poor Kilmar, mouldering away in a nasty foreign prison and deprived of due process. But the story I just laid out has due process, not to mention leniency or even dereliction on the part of the authorities, up the wazoo. Meanwhile, after slyly getting their jurisprudential ducks in a row, last week Trump and co finally got Kilmar flown back to the US, only to arrest him immediately for human-trafficking – with every intention of convicting the guy and then deporting him right back to El Salvador. What do we make of this farce? The American commentariat has focused on a potential showdown between Trump and the judiciary, claiming to fear a flat-out executive refusal to follow court orders but secretly rather hoping that Trump does defy the courts and thus reveals himself as an unconstitutional tyrant. I view this absurd tale through a different lens. All these trials and flights for a lone illegal alien are expensive. The amount of 'due process' the American justice system affords every single illegal makes deportation at any scale impossible. There isn't enough time and money and there aren't nearly enough judges to make any but a token gesture toward the mass deportation of illegals that Trump has promised. That amounts to a victory not just for Democrats but also for disorder. I'd assess the odds that Kilmar is a thug at about 90 per cent. But proving membership of unofficial allegiances in court is a bastard. If every individual deportation case must be adjudicated according to exacting evidentiary rules and appeal procedures, America's drastic, undemocratic demographic change will proceed inexorably. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the staggering ten million gate-crashers during the Biden administration alone. What are the chances of that? In New York at the weekend, ICE raids were impeded by LA-style crowds of righteously indignant protestors screaming: 'Let them go! Let them go!' The officers just doing their jobs looked beleaguered, tired, numb and pre-defeated. After all the ICE agents' thankless labours, what proportion of their detainees will still get to stay in the country in the end? I'll take another stab at 90 per cent.
