Wife of Russian oligarch asks UK court to jail him over unpaid legal fees
LONDON, June 18 (Reuters) - The wife of a Russian oil tycoon asked a judge at the High Court in London on Wednesday to jail her husband, alleging he had repeatedly failed to pay her legal fees in their multi-million dollar divorce case.
Mikhail Kroupeev, the non-executive chairman of energy company Gulfsands, is accused by his wife Elena Kroupeeva of refusing to comply with numerous courts orders following the collapse of their 36-year marriage.
According to submissions from her legal team to the court, the couple separated in "tempestuous" circumstances after Kroupeeva discovered in 2023 her husband had for most of the last 20 years been living a double life with a secret second family in Russia.
She began proceedings for a financial settlement in July 2024, and in February, Kroupeev was ordered to pay just over 195,000 pounds towards her legal fees.
But her lawyers said he had failed to comply with that and other subsequent orders demanding he reveal the true extent of the wealth from his business empire.
He now owed her more than 837,000 pounds, they said, while a freezing order had also been made covering 38 million pounds ($51 million) of his assets. Her lawyers said the judge should now issue an order for his imprisonment for contempt of court.
"It is suggested that nothing short of a period of imprisonment will be an effective punishment," her lawyers said in their court submission.
Kroupeev's lawyer Michael Glaser said the allegations about their marriage and alleged affairs should not have been made.
"Not only are they not relevant, they are denied," he told the court, saying the contested court order was subject to an appeal.
However, the judge rejected his attempt to have the case adjourned.
The couple, who are both Russian nationals but have British citizenship, moved to Britain in 1993. Kroupeeva's lawyer Justin Warshaw said Kroupeev had made his fortune through his connections with Yuri Shafranik, a former Russian energy minister.
As well as Gulfsands, which Kroupeeva's lawyers said had a contract to export oil from Syria, his business interests included Jupiter Energy, which is involved in oil and gas exports in Kazakhstan, and Waterford Finance which specialises in oil, gas and other energy projects.
"They have been a very wealthy family for a very long time," Justin Warshaw, Kroupeeva's lawyer told the court, saying they lived an "opulent lifestyle".
The couple's assets were extensive, including a 15 million pound house in north London, luxury homes in Portugal and Turkey, and a portfolio of properties in Russia worth 10 million pounds, her lawyers said. The couple also took luxurious holidays that involved flying by private jet, they said.
"A large motivation for travelling privately would be to ensure that the family dogs could go on holiday with the family," her legal team said in their submission.
While Kroupeeva was in court on Wednesday, her husband, who is in Cyprus, attended remotely by videolink. The hearing continues.
($1 = 0.7432 pounds)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Crucial evidence in Post Office scandal found in garage of retired computer expert after 30 years
A damning report into the faulty Post Office IT system that proceeded Horizon has been unearthed after nearly 30 years - and it could help overturn criminal convictions. The document, known about by the Post Office in 1998, is described as "hugely significant" and a "fundamental piece of evidence" and was found in a garage by a retired computer expert. Capture was a piece of accounting software, likely to have caused errors, used in more than 2,000 branches between 1992 and 1999. It came before the infamous faulty Horizon software scandal, which saw hundreds of sub postmasters wrongfully convicted between 1999 and 2015. 1:49 The 'lost long' Capture documents were discovered in a garage by a retired computer expert who came forward after a Sky News report into the case of Patricia Owen, a convicted sub postmistress who used the software. Adrian Montagu was supposed to be a key witness for Pat's defence at her trial in 1998 but her family always believed he had never turned up, despite his computer "just sitting there" in court. Mr Montagu, however, insists he did attend. He describes being in the courtroom and adds that "at some point into the trial" he was stood down by the barrister for Mrs Owen with "no reason" given. Sky News has seen contemporaneous notes proving Mr Montagu did go to Canterbury Crown Court for the first one or two days of the trial in June 1998. "I went to the court and I set up a computer with a big old screen," he says. "I remember being there, I remember the judge introducing everybody very properly…but the barrister in question for the defence, he went along and said 'I am not going to need you so you don't need to be here any more'. "I wasn't asked back." Sky News has reached out to the barrister in Pat Owen's case who said he had no recollection of it. 'An accident waiting to happen' The report, commissioned by the defence and written by Adrian Montagu and his colleague, describes Capture as "an accident waiting to happen", and "totally discredited". It concludes that "reasonable doubt exists as to whether any criminal offence has taken place". It also states that the software "is quite capable of producing absurd gibberish", and describes "several insidious faults…which would not be necessarily apparent to the user". All of which produced "arithmetical or accounting errors". Sky News has also seen documents suggesting the jury in Pat Owen's case may never have seen the report. What is clear is that they did not hear evidence from its author including his planned "demonstration" of how Capture could produce accounting errors. Pat Owen was convicted of stealing from her Post Office branch in 1998 and given a suspended prison sentence. Her family describe how it "wrecked" her life, contributing towards her ill health, and she died in 2003 before the wider Post Office scandal came to light. Her daughter Juliet said her mother fought with "everything she could". "To know that in the background there was Adrian with this (report) that would have changed everything, not just for mum but for every Capture victim after that, I think is shocking and really upsetting - really, really upsetting." The report itself was served on the Post Office lawyers - who continued to prosecute sub postmasters in the months and years after Pat Owen's trial. 'My blood is boiling' 3:09 Steve Marston, who used the Capture software in his branch, was one of them - he was convicted of stealing nearly £80,000 in September 1998. His prosecution took place four months after the Capture report had been served on the Post Office. Steve says he was persuaded to plead guilty with the "threat of jail" hanging over him and received a suspended sentence. He describes the discovery of the report as "incredible" and says his "blood is boiling" and he feels "betrayed". "So they knew that the software was faulty?," he says. "It's in black and white isn't it? And yet they still pressed on doing what they did. "They used Capture evidence … as the evidence to get me to plead guilty to avoid jail. "They kept telling us it was safe…They knew the software should never have been used in 1998, didn't they?" Steve says his family's lives were destroyed and the knowledge of this report could have "changed everything". He says he would have fought the case "instead of giving in". "How dare they. And no doubt I certainly wasn't the last one…And yet they knew they were convicting people with faulty software, faulty computers." The report is now with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the body investigating potential miscarriages of justice, which is currently looking into 28 Capture cases. A fundamental piece of evidence Neil Hudgell, the lawyer representing more than 100 victims, describes the report as "hugely significant", "seismic" and a "fundamental piece of evidence". "I'm as confident as I can be that this is a good day for families like Steve Marston and Mrs Owen's family," he says. "I think (the documents) could be very pivotal in delivering the exoneration that they very badly deserve." He also added that "there's absolutely no doubt" that the "entire contents" of the "damning" report "was under the noses of the Post Office at a very early stage". He describes it as a "massive missed opportunity" and "early red flag" for the Post Office which went on to prosecute hundreds who used Horizon in the years that followed. "It is a continuation of a theme that obviously has rolled out over the subsequent 20 plus years in relation to Horizon," he says. "...if this had seen the light of day in its proper sense, and poor Mrs Owen had not been convicted, the domino effect of what followed may not have happened." What the Post Office said Sky News approached the former Chief Executive of the Post Office during the Capture years, John Roberts, who said: "I can't recall any discussion at my level, or that of the board, about Capture at any time while I was CEO." A statement from the Post Office said: "We have been very concerned about the reported problems relating to the use of the Capture software and are sincerely sorry for past failings that have caused suffering to postmasters. "We are determined that past wrongs are put right and are continuing to support the government's work and fully co-operating with the Criminal Cases Review Commission as it investigates several cases which may be Capture related." A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson said: "Postmasters including Patricia Owen endured immeasurable suffering, and we continue to listen to those who have been sharing their stories on the Capture system. "Government officials met with postmasters recently as part of our commitment to develop an effective and fair redress process for those affected by Capture, and we will continue to keep them updated."
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
The Senedd passes a ban on plastic wet wipes
From December 18, 2026, it will be an offence in Wales to supply – or offer to supply – wet wipes containing plastic after the Senedd unanimously agreed regulations. Huw Irranca-Davies, deputy first minister of Wales, said: 'There should be no place for wet wipes amongst the pebbles and the sand and the seaweed on our beautiful Welsh coastline. Mr Irranca-Davies, whose responsibilities include the environment, said a survey found 22 per cent of people admitted to having flushed wet wipes into the sewerage system. He warned a large volume of wet wipes – which often contain harmful plastic – enter the natural environment due to inappropriate disposal. He stressed an exemption will be in place if they are designed or manufactured for care and treatment because some people rely on medical-grade wet wipes that contain plastic. He explained that the regulations, which were passed by Senedd members on June 17, add plastic wet wipes to a 2023 law prohibiting a list of single-use plastic products. Mr Irranca-Davies said: 'This pollution, as we all know, is visible, its impact is tangible, and it's long-lasting. Taking decisive action will encourage manufacturers, retailers and consumers of the need to continue our shift towards reusable and non-plastic products.' He told Senedd members the ban will not extend to business-to-business supply, only covering supply to consumers as with other single-use plastics. 'Wet wipes for specific industrial use, where plastic-free alternatives are unsuitable or do not exist, are not included,' he said. 'But we will encourage these sectors to innovate.' The UK-turned-Welsh minister told the Senedd banning single use products is part of an ongoing drive to reduce the damage caused by microplastic pollution. The Conservatives' Janet Finch-Saunders said: 'It's not often that I say this but thank you very, very much… for bringing forward your statement today and indeed this ban.' Mr Irranca-Davies said the 18-month transition period will allow manufacturers time to adapt their business as he welcomed the cross-party support for the ban.
South Wales Argus
2 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
The Senedd passes a ban on plastic wet wipes
From December 18, 2026, it will be an offence in Wales to supply – or offer to supply – wet wipes containing plastic after the Senedd unanimously agreed regulations. Huw Irranca-Davies, deputy first minister of Wales, said: 'There should be no place for wet wipes amongst the pebbles and the sand and the seaweed on our beautiful Welsh coastline. Mr Irranca-Davies, whose responsibilities include the environment, said a survey found 22 per cent of people admitted to having flushed wet wipes into the sewerage system. He warned a large volume of wet wipes – which often contain harmful plastic – enter the natural environment due to inappropriate disposal. He stressed an exemption will be in place if they are designed or manufactured for care and treatment because some people rely on medical-grade wet wipes that contain plastic. He explained that the regulations, which were passed by Senedd members on June 17, add plastic wet wipes to a 2023 law prohibiting a list of single-use plastic products. Mr Irranca-Davies said: 'This pollution, as we all know, is visible, its impact is tangible, and it's long-lasting. Taking decisive action will encourage manufacturers, retailers and consumers of the need to continue our shift towards reusable and non-plastic products.' He told Senedd members the ban will not extend to business-to-business supply, only covering supply to consumers as with other single-use plastics. 'Wet wipes for specific industrial use, where plastic-free alternatives are unsuitable or do not exist, are not included,' he said. 'But we will encourage these sectors to innovate.' The UK-turned-Welsh minister told the Senedd banning single use products is part of an ongoing drive to reduce the damage caused by microplastic pollution. The Conservatives' Janet Finch-Saunders said: 'It's not often that I say this but thank you very, very much… for bringing forward your statement today and indeed this ban.' Mr Irranca-Davies said the 18-month transition period will allow manufacturers time to adapt their business as he welcomed the cross-party support for the ban.
