Former Russian minister ‘shocked' to learn he was subject to sanctions in UK
Dmitrii Ovsiannikov, 48, the former mayor of Sevastopol in illegally annexed Crimea, is facing seven counts of circumventing sanctions between February 2023 and January 2024.
He is said to have deliberately avoided sanctions by opening a Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) account on or before February 2023 and having tens of thousands of pounds transferred to it by his wife, Ekaterina Ovsiannikova, 47.
Ovsiannikova is facing four counts of breaching sanctions by assisting with the payments.
Ovsiannikov's brother, Alexei Owsjanikow, 47, has denied circumventing sanctions to buy him a Mercedes Benz worth £54,500, as well as spending £41,027 on fees at the Royal Russell School in Surrey for Ovsiannikov's children.
Body-worn footage played to the jury showed National Crime Agency (NCA) officers arresting Ovsiannikov in a residential street on January 22 2024 on suspicion of breaching UK financial sanctions.
During an interview he answered no comment, before telling officers that he 'hoped no one knew that he had left Russia and he had spent a number of years' making it possible to leave, prosecutor Lyndon Harris summarised at Southwark Crown Court on Tuesday.
The EU designated Ovsiannikov on November 21 2017, restricting him from entering and accessing funds in member states.
It said his work had compromised or threatened the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
EU sanctions ceased to apply in the UK after Brexit and the country created its own regime, the Russia Regulations 2019.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) designated Ovsiannikov under the Russia Regulations in December 2020 and he remains a designated person.
His name was on the UK Sanctions List public website from December 31 that year. At that time he did not have a British passport.
On August 1 2022, Ovsiannikov travelled from Russia to Turkey and three days later applied online for a UK passport.
It was issued in January and he arrived in the UK on February 1 2023.
That month, he was removed from the EU sanctions list following a previous ruling by the the Court of Justice of the European Union.
On February 7, he emailed the FCDO a form to review his sanctions in the UK.
In March, solicitors Peters and Peters LLP wrote to the same Government office on his behalf about his designation.
During the January 2024 NCA interview, which Ovsiannikov elected to do without a Russian translator, he suggested he had thought he was no longer a designated person in the UK.
A transcript was read to jurors, in which Ovsiannikov said: 'I believed one year ago that the decision in the European Union, when you were inside the European Union when I applied, and (the) European Court said that my designation was unlawful since September 2020, when the United Kingdom was the member of the (European) Union (sic).
'And when I came I found out, it was a shock for me, I didn't know'.
He was asked what he gave for the good character requirement on his UK visa application, and responded he was 'not a criminal and was a positive person for the United Kingdom', Mr Harris told jurors.
He declined to give the pin for either of his phones, stating that they contained privileged legal information.
An investigating NCA officer, who gave evidence behind a screen and was given the alias Alex, told jurors that officers worked out the Pin for one device using CCTV to see where Ovsiannikov tapped the screen.
Most of the uncovered messages between him and Ovsiannikova were about their children and 'ordinary household matters'.
There were none before March 8 2023 about Ovsiannikov being subject to an asset freeze or being unable to bank in the UK.
Messages did not mention concerns about whether he could enter the UK or how they would live while he was designated.
Ovsiannikova was questioned voluntarily about her involvement in the alleged offences eight days later.
She described being 'horrified' by the situation and denied knowing her husband was at the time subject to sanctions.
'I was aware my husband had been sanctioned but this had been overturned in the EU, and I had no knowledge that he was subject to an asset freeze in the UK and I don't think he knew either', she said.
Halifax bank notified her in March 2023 that it would close her account, she told officers.
She added that she was able to move some funds but had 'a few thousand pounds remaining' which she withdrew in cash for day-to-day living expenses such as food and clothes.
Ovsiannikova said 'I'm really upset about this situation and the impact on my children', adding that she would never have transferred funds to her husband 'if I wasn't allowed to', the court heard.
The trial continues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Pentagon must heed Ukraine — cheap drones are the future of warfare
The battlefield in Ukraine must teach the Pentagon a valuable lesson: Small drones are the future of warfare. Yet the US military has been pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into systems, from improved radar to laser weapons and missiles, that would be little use against the latest generation of attack drones appearing in Ukraine's skies. There may be a better way. Advertisement Critics complain the US Army is far behind the drone-warfare curve. Just last month a new manual of tactics for tank platoon commanders suggested using the tank's main gun to bring down incoming drones — and that in the event of a drone attack, a tank commander should sit out of the turret hatch and warn other tanks via hand signals. These are laughable instructions in the face of the Ukraine war's signature weapon, the first-person-view drone. Advertisement FPV drones are racing quadcopters converted into miniature guided missiles. These drones are agile and fly at high speeds. Even if it's spotted in time, hitting one with a tank gun would be like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. FPVs can destroy a tank in multiple hits, often giving the crew time to escape — but sitting outside the armor would be suicidal. FPVs, costing just a few hundred dollars each, have flooded Ukraine's battlefield, and their ability to hit targets 12 or more miles away from their operators has been a major contributor to the current stalemate. Advertisement Scout drones flown by both Ukraine and the invading Russians spot any moving vehicle, and FPVs attack it before it can advance. Supply vehicles are a favorite target; according to a recent estimate, two-thirds of FPV strikes are now on the roads rather than the front lines. Both sides now lie low and dig deep, hiding in trench systems protected by anti-drone netting. Kyiv aims to build 4 million drones this year — enough to target individual foot soldiers. Advertisement And now they can do it from ambush. Battery-powered FPVs can only fly for about 20 minutes. Operators 'perch and stare' to save juice, landing their drone on a building or on the ground where they can watch a road or track used by the enemy. When a target appears, the FPV lifts off and attacks. A compilation video from one Ukrainian drone unit shows a series of ambushes, all in the same location: Each time a Russian patrol comes past, an FPV takes off from behind them from no more than 10 yards away. The soldiers react, turning and raising their Kalashnikovs . . . too late. Other videos show the target's point of view. In one, Ukrainians are driving down a track at high speed in a buggy when a Russian FPV lifts off ahead of them. A desperate chase follows, with the Ukrainians shooting the drone out of the air before it can hit them. Many troops now carry shotguns to counter FPVs. Advertisement Small drones keep evolving. Some are now fitted with the sort of miniature solar panels backpackers use to keep their phones charged. These power the drone's camera and communications without draining the battery. The solar-powered drone can lurk in ambush for as long as the sun is up, and start again the next day. In a sense these drones are just the latest version of mine warfare — but these are mines that can find their way anywhere, relocate themselves and attack from a distance. The current generation must be controlled by a human operator, but we're already seeing AI-powered autonomous FPVs in Ukraine. Advertisement In another year the battlefield may be infested with smart, solar-powered killer drones. Where is the US military in this futuristic world of drone warfare? On July 10, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed an order to 'unleash US military drone dominance' and make procurement quicker and easier. Yet the US Army is only buying around 6,000 FPV-type drones in the current budget year. Ukraine uses that many every day, and Russia is catching up to that mark. Advertisement American plans to bring down attacking drones with missiles or lasers look impractical when ambushers can appear at such close range. The Ukrainians are already developing their solution: They're sending small bombers ahead of vehicles or troops to find waiting ambush drones and drop grenades on them. Soon to come is an AI-powered drone that can automatically detect ambushers on the ground. Sweeps by automated drones could keep the roads clear. Advertisement More important, though, Ukraine is leading by example, keeping up with drone warfare's rapid evolution as each development demands a countermeasure. The Pentagon has traditionally relied on big-money, high-tech solutions developed by American companies. But a willingness to embrace cheap technologies developed rapidly by friends and allies might save a lot of lives when US troops are featured in some future round of drone videos. David Hambling is the author of 'Swarm Troopers: How Small Drones Will Conquer the World.'
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Nearly two million more casualties': The numbers that show Russia is years from victory
Donald Trump's message – or rather, the message he transmitted from Vladimir Putin – to Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington on Monday was stark: accept the deal Russia is offering, because otherwise you'll lose the war. But if Moscow appears strong now, Ukraine and its European allies believe, it's partly because Trump's choices have made it stronger – namely, his decisions to curtail US military aid, interrupt intelligence sharing and, above all, accept Putin's insistence on a peace deal before a ceasefire. And in fact, Russia is far from battlefield supremacy. Just hours before the Oval Office discussions, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) declared it would take 4.4 years of fighting at current rates of advance for Russia to capture the remainder of territory it has 'annexed'. It would also, according to the MoD calculations based on Ukrainian estimates of Russian casualties, cost Russia an additional 1.93m killed and wounded to achieve Putin's goals. That would be on top of the more than one million casualties it has already sustained. In other words, Russia could be headed for breaking points of its own. How long can Russia last? All of which raises the question, if Trump chose to throw his weight behind Ukraine, could he change the tide? Should the US president be asking not how much Ukraine must surrender, but how long Russia can last? Sam Greene, professor of Russian politics at King's College London, points to two potential Russian breaking points: the military and the economic. Predictions about when either will come has become something of a mug's game, he cautions. Nor should we underestimate Russia's capacity to keep going. 'But eventually they do reach a pinch point: there are strains on the economy. There are strains on the military. A breaking point will come,' he says. 'Because Trump is in a hurry, Putin has the ability to sort of shift that sense of emergency, so that, all of a sudden, it feels like this sort of political breaking point for the West – whereas, if there was a little bit more strategic patience and consistency from the White House, the opposite would actually be true.' The British Defence Intelligence assessment about the Russian rate of advance is meant for public consumption rather than real strategic analysis. Applying the same crude logic to British military performance in the First World War, one might have said in early 1918 that the Allies were decades from victory. By the end of that year, Germany had suffered a devastating defeat, and arguing about rates of advance and attrition in the previous four years were not much use to German negotiators at armistice talks. 'The problem is, wars are not linear,' points out Rob Lee, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and an expert in the Russian and Ukrainian militaries. Nor are they boxing matches to be decided on points. Nonetheless, Russia's advance is indeed painfully slow. Even a recent 10-mile infiltration near Dobropillia, while initially alarming for Ukraine, failed to achieve an operational breakthrough. It ended instead with hundreds of Russians being captured or killed. 'Limitless manpower is a myth' In the Oval Office, the US president led Zelensky over to an easel holding a large map of Ukraine showing the current line of control. The implication: to stop the conflict, the map will have to be redrawn. There was little progress on Monday, however, partly because Zelensky and his allies see that map in a very different way. Speaking after the talks Emmanuel Macron said that in the past 1,000 days of war Russian forces 'took less than one per cent' of Ukrainian territory. 'Those who are saying… 'The Ukrainians are lost. They will lose'. It's total fake news,' the French president said. As the Institute for the Study of War has pointed out, Russian forces are currently struggling to complete the encirclement or envelopment of Kupyansk despite 22 months of offensive operations. It took them 14 months to cover the 6.4 miles from the eastern to western outskirts of Toretsk, and 26 months to advance 6.8 miles from western Bakhmut to the western edge of Chasiv Yar. And yes, says Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment and veteran watcher of the Russian military, it is true to say that Russia faces increasing risk as the war goes on. 'The question is not how much territory is Russia gaining per day. The only question that's actually being tested in the fighting in 2024 and 2025 is which proposition is more likely to be true: is Russia able to sustain its offensive effort and eventually put Ukraine in an untenable position? Or is Ukrainian defence more viable and more likely to exhaust Russian offensive potential, if not this year then next?' he says. 'This is what both parties are looking at to try to inform their decision on the questions of how much time they have and whether they can hope to attain a better and different outcome.' At the moment, Kofman says, time seems to favour Russia. Ukraine is not facing either imminent defeat or a collapse of the front line that would force it to sign a humiliating surrender, but the Russians are accelerating. Year-on-year, their pace of advance has picked up in 2025 compared to 2024. And while Ukraine has serious problems with manpower, Russia still has a steady supply of men to replace battlefield losses, which, according to Britain's Defence Intelligence, currently stand at 1,060,000, including 250,000 killed or missing presumed dead. The recent Russian infiltration at Dobropillia shows that Ukraine's drone units, despite their remarkable effectiveness, cannot stabilise the front alone in the absence of sufficient infantry. For now, however, the Russians are struggling to translate their dominance in infantry into decisive advantage. 'Russia's vulnerability is simply that they are far too slow and they don't have the force quality, nor do they employ the tactics, to achieve a major breakthrough. So their overall approach is deeply inefficient and costly in terms of manpower,' says Kofman. 'The political leadership doesn't care about this, but Russia does not have limitless manpower either – that's a myth. It also does not have limitless time. That's another myth.' Russia 'on the verge of recession' There are other constraints on Russia too, Kofman argues. 'The reality is that the war is a significant strain on the Russian economy. Despite outwardly projecting the ability and willingness to keep fighting for many more years, if the war enters 2026 and Russia doesn't appear to be winning decisively on the battlefield, it is eminently unclear that they, too, will not run into significant sustainability problems that could force them to a much weaker negotiating position,' he says. That explains why Putin may be keen to seal a deal now: he feels comparatively strong, but knows the moment of apparent dominance may not last. For two years, Russia's economy appeared to defy gravity, turning massive military spending into rapid GDP growth despite Western sanctions. But the sugar high appears to be over. And the signs of the comedown are everywhere. In June, Maxim Reznikov, the minister of economic development of the Russian Federation, warned the St Petersburg economic forum that the country was 'on the verge of recession'. The following month, the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, the country's second largest steel producer, reported a 21.1 per cent collapse in profits and a sharp drop in output that it attributed to high interest rates and a general slowdown in the Russian economy. Indeed, at the end of July, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cut its 2025 growth estimate for Russia to 0.9 per cent, down from an initial 1.5 per cent forecast it made in April. Even that was a dramatic drop from the 4.3 per cent growth the IMF estimated in 2024. And inflation has prompted the ministries of agriculture and of trade and industry to draft a law for price caps on vegetables, poultry and dairy products, according to a report in Kommersant, a Russian business daily, earlier this month. 'The economy is an interesting thing because there's an objective standpoint to it, which is, frankly, that they do have considerable fiscal and monetary headroom, and they remain very good at managing the economy, albeit at increasing cost,' says Greene. 'But eventually they do reach a pinch point.' 'If you remember back to January, the very last thing the Biden administration did was to impose some new sanctions, somewhat unexpectedly, on the Russians. And that sent Russian markets into a tailspin for two or three weeks. If the West were interested in manufacturing those sorts of moments of unpredictability, then it would bring some very real risks, including near-term risks, for the Russian economy.' 'They're playing with fire' None of these factors mean Russia is facing imminent collapse, says Ian Bond, deputy director for the London-based Centre for European Reform. There is no sign that the casualty rate or the economic strains of the war have created any kind of serious domestic political challenge to Putin so far. 'But Russia is strong until it's not. It looks mighty, and then mental fatigue sets in, and things fall apart quite quickly,' he says. 'Is that going to happen this time? We simply don't know,' Bond adds. But, he argues, it is a reason for Europe and Ukraine to resist acquiescing to a bad deal – like surrendering Donbas – that would leave them much more vulnerable. These are the considerations that Russian, Ukrainian and European leaders will be weighing up as Trump shepherds them into more negotiations in the coming weeks. In the final analysis, 'war is very much an uncertain business, and even though some things may be in Russia's favour, there's a great deal of uncertainty', says Kofman. 'And keep in mind the external factors: at the end of the day, much for Russia depends on things, like the price of oil, that they can neither predict nor control. The longer things go on, the more they're playing with fire.' Solve the daily Crossword
Boston Globe
40 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
NATO defense chiefs hold ‘candid discussion' on security guarantees for Ukraine
Assurances that it won't be invaded again in the future are one of the keys for getting Ukraine to sign up for a peace deal with Russia. It wants Western help for its military, including weapons and training, to shore up its defenses, and Western officials are scrambling to figure out what commitments they might offer. Russia's top diplomat said Wednesday that the country would insist on being a part of any future security guarantees for Ukraine, a condition that European and Ukrainian officials widely see as absurd. Advertisement It was the clearest sign yet that enormous gaps remain in the negotiations over a possible end to Russia's invasion. And it added to the uncertainty over how a European effort to rally a 'coalition of the willing' to protect a postwar Ukraine, possibly with Western soldiers stationed inside the country, would fit into President Trump's plans for a peace deal with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. Advertisement 'Seriously discussing issues of ensuring security without the Russian Federation is a utopia, a road to nowhere,' Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters in Moscow after a meeting with his Jordanian counterpart. US General Alexus Grynkewich, NATO's supreme allied commander Europe, took part in the virtual talks, Dragone said. US General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was also due to participate, a US defense official said. Caine also met with European military chiefs Tuesday evening in Washington to assess the best military options for political leaders, according to the defense official, who wasn't authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. Trump met last Friday with Putin in Alaska and on Monday hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and prominent European leaders at the White House. Neither meeting delivered concrete progress. Trump is trying to steer Putin and Zelensky toward a settlement more than three years after Russia invaded its neighbor, but there are major obstacles. They include Ukraine's demands for Western-backed military assurances to ensure Russia won't mount another invasion in the coming years. 'We need strong security guarantees to ensure a truly secure and lasting peace,' Zelensky said in a Telegram post Wednesday after Russian missile and drone strikes hit six regions of Ukraine overnight. Kyiv's European allies are looking to set up a force that could backstop any peace agreement, and a coalition of 30 countries, including European nations, Japan, and Australia, has signed up to support the initiative. Military chiefs are figuring out how that security force might work. The role that the US might play is unclear. Trump on Tuesday ruled out sending US troops to help defend Ukraine against Russia. Advertisement Russia has repeatedly said that it would not accept NATO troops in Ukraine. Attacks on civilian areas in Sumy and Odesa overnight into Wednesday injured 15 people, including a family with three small children, Ukrainian authorities said. Russian strikes also targeted ports and fuel and energy infrastructure, officials said. Zelensky said the strikes 'only confirm the need for pressure on Moscow, the need to introduce new sanctions and tariffs until diplomacy works to its full potential.' Switzerland could host a Putin-Zelensky summit Trump said Monday he has Lavrov, in his Moscow press conference, said Russia is prepared to continue negotiations with Ukraine in any format. He said Putin proposed to Trump raising the level of representation in delegations that recently took part in largely fruitless direct talks in Istanbul. He added that 'a separate block [of talks] should be devoted to examining the political aspects of the settlement, along with the military and humanitarian ones.' Ukraine and Western leaders have accused Putin of dragging out peace negotiations in the hope of capturing more land before any settlement. French President Emmanuel Macron has said the summit could happen in Europe and proposed the Swiss city of Geneva. Switzerland has expressed its willingness to act as host. Putin's ability to travel abroad Advertisement Switzerland intends to ask the ICC to exempt it from sanctions in order to allow Putin in for a summit, according to a senior official in The Hague with direct knowledge of the request. The official was not authorized to speak about the proceedings and spoke on condition of anonymity.
