£25bn Russian assets frozen by UK since start of Ukraine war, Treasury says
A report released by the Treasury on Friday revealed the total, which accounts for all assets that have been sanctioned by the UK since February 2022 when the invasion of Ukraine began.
Some 2,001 individuals and entities have been sanctioned under the regime as of March 2024, according to the Treasury.
The Government department was keen to stress the impact its sanctions, as well as those of the UK's allies, were having on Russia's economy.
Treasury minister Emma Hardy said: 'The UK has frozen £25 billion worth of Russian assets and working with our allies, we have deprived Russian of over 400 billion US dollars, the equivalent to four years of Russia's military spending.
'We will continue to robustly enforce our financial sanctions as part of our wider response to Russia's barbaric invasion of Ukraine.'
The Treasury data comes from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation's (OFSI) latest annual review.
Alongside tallying the total worth of sanctions, OFSI's review said it has taken steps to 'effectively drive compliance of UK financial sanctions' over the past year.
It has also expanded sanctions enforcement in a bid to prevent illicit finances from slipping through the net.
While figures connected to Vladimir Putin's regime have been prevented from accessing their cash and property by the sanctions, the UK and other Western nations are yet take control of assets.
The seizure of assets has long been discussed as a means of paying for military aid to Ukraine, as well as rebuilding the war-torn country once fighting ceases.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump debanking order will have limited impact on crypto, experts say
Last week, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing bank regulators to rescind guidance that could lead to 'politicised or unlawful debanking.' Crypto businesses, and even some prominent conservatives — including the president himself — have alleged they were denied or lost access to bank accounts at the behest of politically-motivated, Biden-era regulators. But last week's executive order, entitled, 'Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,' won't do much for crypto businesses that fear they've been locked out of the traditional financial system, according to experts who spoke to DL News. That's because the order does little to root out 'reputation risk.' The term refers to regulators' ability to dissuade banks from engaging supposedly controversial customers, such as pornographers, firearms manufacturers, payday lenders, and crypto companies. Critics of the practice say that banks should only consider objective criteria, such as a customer's financial risk, when deciding whether to offer someone a checking account. Guidance documents and manuals 'This is going to make people happy who have been asking for it, but it's not clear how much good it's going to do them,' Dru Stevenson, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, told DL News. The executive order directs bank regulators to remove the use of reputation risk 'or equivalent concepts' that could result in 'politicized or unlawful debanking' from their 'guidance documents, manuals, and other materials.' But it isn't clear that examples of debanking were motivated by politics, according to Stevenson. 'It's not clear to me that they couldn't still allow for reputational risk that would apply to, say, an AI company, because that's not exactly a political issue or something that's unlawful,' he said. And reputation risk can have a downstream effect on banks' profits. 'If you have risk averse investors at one of the gigantic pension funds, or mutual funds, and they find out that Wachovia has gone gung ho about crypto, that might be a reason for them to switch to a more conservative bank,' Stevenson said. Moreover, banks were always free to ignore guidance documents and manuals according to Stevenson. As such, removing references to reputation risk from such documents will likely have little practical effect. 'If you're an agency, you can't go into court and say, 'This person violated our guidance document,'' he said. 'You have to show that they violated the statute or that they violated a codified regulation that went through notice and comment rulemaking.' Management reports Julie Hill, the dean of the University of Wyoming's law school, noted that Trump-appointed bank regulators have already said they will stop using reputation risk. While the regulators have new leadership, they are largely staffed by the same people who served under the Biden administration, Hill added. And reputation risk isn't the only tool regulators can use to pressure banks to reject certain customers. Anti-money laundering laws are one reason banks often reject customers, according to Hill. 'The vast, vast majority of suspicious activity reports don't lead to any sort of follow up, let alone any sort of enforcement,' she told DL News. Moreover, banks are not allowed to tell customers that their account was flagged for suspicious activity. 'We have a situation where banks had to file one or more SARs, and they decided it's just not worth it, we should debank, because we don't want our regulators upset with us, and it's getting expensive to file all these SARs.' Another tool at regulators' disposal: management reports. 'If a regulator suggests to a bank, 'We think this is risky, maybe you want to stop doing it' [but] it's not really that risky, banks might do it anyway,' Hill said, 'because their management rating will get downgraded and then that impacts all sorts of things, including their capital requirements.' Those ratings are also secret, according to Hill. 'Anytime you see a really broad authority with very little limit, and then also a lot of secrecy or lack of transparency about how regulators or banks implement that, you're likely to set up claims for debanking,' she said. Banks' responsibility The executive order also directs the regulators to identify financial institutions that had any 'past or current, formal or informal, policies or practices that require, encourage, or otherwise influence … politicized or unlawful debanking.' Finding examples of politically-motivated debanking could be straightforward if the orders came from federal regulators, according to Hill. 'It's a much harder thing if what you think happened is the banks, for whatever reason, just decided to debank people for political reasons, unconnected with risk or profit or whatever,' she said. 'There's a real question about how we think regulators are going to figure that out and whether we think there's any duty on the bank to voluntarily disclose it.' Whatever the effect of the executive order, both professors agreed that a new administration could reinstate the use of reputation risk unilaterally. 'It kind of highlights how unsticky changes made by the executive branch are when it comes to discretionary enforcement,' Hill said. 'This is one of those things that can change from administration to administration.' Stevenson agreed. 'If we ever get to have other presidents, the next president can just do another executive order and put it all back, like, overnight,' Stevenson said. Aleks Gilbert is DL News' New York-based DeFi correspondent. You can contact him at aleks@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Bloomberg
11 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Finding Global Common Ground on AI
Lead Edge Capital Managing Partner Mitchell Green says US and Chinese leaders know they have to work together, and the implementation of AI is going to be a global effort. He speaks with Caroline Hyde and Ed Ludlow on 'Bloomberg Tech.' (Source: Bloomberg)
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘Highly unlikely' Ukraine would recover all occupied territory in Russia deal: Ben Rhodes
Former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes on Wednesday said he's doubtful that Ukraine will recover all of its territory occupied by Russia amid ongoing peace talks brokered by President Trump. 'Part of what the Ukrainians don't have is a kind of sense of hope, a sense that they have enduring support from the United States, that they have a plan from their allies to support them in the long run,' Rhodes, who was an advisor to former President Obama, said during an appearance on MSNBC's 'Chris Jansing Report.' 'And look, the reality is, I would acknowledge that it is incredibly unlikely that Ukraine would recover certainly all the territory that Russia occupies, certainly Crimea, for instance,' he added. Trump, who's slated to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, has already signaled that a ' land swap ' may be necessary to end the war. Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February of 2022, its military has captured swaths of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the eastern Donbas. Early in the war, Russia illegally moved to officially annex the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzya and Kherson regions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said this week that any effort to cede Ukrainian territory would violate Ukraine's constitution, and that Kyiv would not remove its forces from the Donbas in exchange for peace. 'If today we leave Donbas, from our fortifications, from our reliefs, from the heights that we control, we will clearly open a bridgehead for preparing an offensive by the Russians. In a few years, Putin will have an open path to both the Zaporizhzhia and Dnipro regions. And not only that. Also to Kharkiv,' Zelensky told reporters on Tuesday, according to PoliticoEU. Rhodes said ending the war will not only pose questions about land ownership, but also the people living on either side of the dividing line. 'What happens to the Ukrainian children that have been taken into Russia, essentially kidnapped? What happens to the Ukrainians are living on the other side of that front line? Do they choose whether they want to live in Ukraine?' Rhodes said. 'And it really importantly, what happens to the future of Ukraine if they are going to lose territory as a part of some kind of quote, unquote deal here. Do they get security guarantees? Can they join NATO? Can they join the European Union? If they can't join NATO itself?' Rhodes said Trump doesn't seem to be considering these broader questions ahead of his discussion with Putin. 'These are all the kind of complex questions that Trump is not engaging with here, and I think that is why this feels somewhat haphazard here, because there's a whole set of issues here beyond just a real estate deal, which is how Trump has literally talked about this, that get at the survival of Ukraine,' he told MSNBC.
