Government threatens to sue Roman Abramovich over money from Chelsea sale
The Government has threatened legal action against former Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich to release £2.5 billion of funds from the sale of the London football club to help victims of the Ukraine war.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Foreign Secretary David Lammy said they were 'frustrated' by the failure to reach agreement with Mr Abramovich on the frozen proceeds of the sale.
The Stamford Bridge club was sold in May 2022 after Mr Abramovich was among the high-profile Russian oligarchs sanctioned following Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Rachel Reeves and David Lammy said they wanted to 'ensure people suffering in Ukraine can benefit from these proceeds as soon as possible.' / Credit:
The funds were frozen, with a plan for them to be used to alleviate the suffering caused by the war in Ukraine.
But an agreement has yet to be reached with Mr Abramovich over the use of the money, which is held in a UK bank account.
The money cannot be moved without a licence from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation.
Reeves and Lammy said: 'The Government is determined to see the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia's illegal full-scale invasion.
'We are deeply frustrated that it has not been possible to reach agreement on this with Mr Abramovich so far.
'While the door for negotiations will remain open, we are fully prepared to pursue this through the courts if required, to ensure people suffering in Ukraine can benefit from these proceeds as soon as possible.'
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Pensions report cuts Reeves' planned growth funds from £160bn to £11bn
Plans to invest £160bn of surplus funds from final salary pension schemes to boost the UK economy over the next 10 years have been dealt a blow by a Whitehall assessment that found there was likely to be little more than £11bn available to spend. In a knock to Rachel Reeves's growth agenda, a report by civil servants at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) found that the expected surpluses in occupational schemes would be used by businesses to offload their pension liabilities to insurance companies. It could mean that as little as £8.4bn would be available for companies to invest in new equipment or technology, but the figure was likely to be nearer £11bn, the DWP said on Friday. 'It is estimated that an additional £11.2bn surplus will be extracted as a result of the preferred option to legislate over a 10-year period,' the report said. Pension surpluses were a significant pillar of the chancellor's plans to use private sector funds to grow the economy during a period when state funds are likely to be severely restricted. Reeves is expected to lay out her growth plans on Wednesday in the spending review, which will set out the government priorities for the next year. Earlier this year she said about 75% of final salary schemes, also known as defined benefit schemes, were in surplus, worth £160bn, but restrictions have meant businesses have struggled to invest them. In her Mansion House speech in November, Reeves also outlined proposals for pension megafunds to be created from individual defined contribution schemes and a merger of local authority pension schemes to make the pensions industry more cost-effective. A pensions bill going through parliament will allow pension fund trustees to unlock trapped surplus funds that Reeves said would increase investment in British businesses and lift economic growth. Hundreds of final salary schemes, which spent decades in deficit, meaning the value of their obligations to members outweighed their assets, have moved into surplus in recent years after an increase in interest rates. 'Although fewer than 700,000 people are actively saving into a private sector defined benefit scheme, the sector remains a significant market within the UK economic landscape,' the report said. 'Across around 5,000 schemes, around nine million members are being supported with assets of around £1.2tn.' An impact assessment by DWP officials said legislation was needed to overhaul the pension system and give trustees the power to access surplus funds. It said a failure to act would also mean 'an opportunity to benefit members, businesses and to drive economic growth would be missed. Therefore 'do nothing' is not considered a desirable option.' However, a combination of factors means the expected surplus for investment is reduced to no more than £12bn over 10 years, in part because the legislation does not force trustees of defined benefit funds to use surpluses for investment, and that most occupational final salary schemes have reached a level where a buyout is possible. In a note for the Pension Insurance Corporation, an independent expert, John Ralfe, said: 'Forget about £160bn of pension surpluses just waiting, as Rachel Reeves said, to be paid out to 'drive growth and boost working people's pension pots'. 'The DWP figures estimate just a fraction of this – under £12bn – will be paid out over the next 10 years, mainly because most companies want a full buyout with an insurance company. 'And the bill contains no details of how pensions will be protected if cash is withdrawn. Member security must be a priority with strict rules on repaying amounts if funding deteriorates,' he added. Many pension fund trustees are known to be concerned that allowing company boards access to surplus funds could leave their schemes vulnerable after a panic in financial markets. Without strong safeguards, giving businesses access to surplus pension funds could also make them more attractive targets for foreign takeovers. It is understood the new regime will allow trustees to block moves to access surplus funds if they believe it will undermine the safety of the fund. The pensions minister Torsten Bell said: 'I have read the impact assessment, and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options.' The Treasury and the DWP were contacted for comment.
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Government makes driveway law change set to affect millions
No more planning applications are needed for EV charging point installations as the government cuts red tape. Future of Roads Minister, Lilian Greenwood, announced drivers and businesses will no longer need to submit a planning application to install public or private EV sockets. EV owners will be able to unlock savings of up to £1,100 a year compared to running a petrol or diesel car. 🇬🇧 Great to visit @astonmartin yesterday — where British engineering meets world-class innovation. 🚗 Took the DBX707 for a spin 🌍 UK trade deals with 🇺🇸 🇪🇺 🇮🇳 to safeguard 150,000 jobs in auto & steel 🔋 £2.3bn Govt boost to power the switch to EVs The planning changes also apply to workplace and public chargepoints, meaning businesses will be able to install new sockets faster and for less money, increasing the number of public chargepoints. Ms Greenwood said: "We're cutting down on paperwork to power up the EV revolution, so that drivers, businesses and those looking to make the switch will have more chargepoints to power from, and less red tape to deal with." Vicky Edmonds, chief executive of EVA England, said: "Making it easier to install both public and private charging infrastructure is essential to helping more drivers switch to electric." She warned "further action is needed" as "drivers without driveways still face barriers to affordable, convenient charging". Recommended reading: She added: "We urge the Government to increase its support of the rollout of cross-pavement charging and extend legal rights to tenants and leaseholders, so all drivers can access and benefit from cheaper and more convenient charging." Jack Cousens, head of roads policy for The AA, believes "removing the planning rules" will help "accelerate installations". He further added: "The crucial element is ensuring grid connection in a timely manner. This is especially important in rural locations and areas where there is no dedicated off-street parking." Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at consumer group Which? said it is "an important step in the right direction".
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The closing of a local hair salon tells you why Britain is going bust
On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will stand up in the House and announce her latest plans for saving the country from bankruptcy. Somehow, she will have to produce plausible remedies for a crisis that seems insoluble: how to deal with catastrophic levels of government debt when there are endless demands for more public spending including a brand new commitment to provide more funding for defence. Having ruled out tax rises that clearly impinge directly on what they call 'working people' – income tax, VAT and employee National Insurance contributions – Labour has made this situation more complicated. But, perversely, they have chosen to make it even worse by pushing many of the most productive contributors to the economy out of business. The Labour Government, by putting supposed ideological solidarity over economic reality, has created the perfect formula for the failure of precisely the business sector which contributes most to national vitality and growth. Let me offer an illustration in the hope that it might prove instructive to the present and any future Chancellor. A hairdressing salon that I know in a prosperous North London neighbourhood closed for good several weeks ago. It had been at its current location for over thirty years and was so popular that it often took days to get an appointment. After lockdown it recovered well with its loyal customers delighted to return. The emergence of the four day working week meant that Fridays became as busy as Saturdays and the salon was humming. So what went wrong? The owner was hit simultaneously by the increases in the minimum wage and employer NICS. Added to ever-increasing energy costs (exacerbated by green levies), this burden finally broke them. Even though they were a well-run thriving business, they could not survive. Sadly all of the junior staff and trainees were laid off. Given the economic climate now, they will struggle to find similar jobs anywhere else so they will not be paying any tax for the indefinite future and will almost certainly have to claim unemployment benefit: a double loss for the Treasury. The salon as a company has gone so it will no longer be paying corporation tax. The senior stylists who have carried on working privately are now self-employed which means they can, perfectly legitimately, claim all their work expenses against tax – so they will pay less income tax than they did under PAYE when they were employees. You get the picture. The net effect of the Government's measures has been to reduce the tax take for their own coffers and increase unemployment among people starting out in their working lives whose chances are further damaged by the ridiculous stipulation that they must have full rights to secure employment from the day they are hired. What happened to one hair salon might not seem all that significant to the nation's future. But this pattern is being repeated in small businesses – particularly the ones that provide employment to young people starting out in working life – in countless numbers. Retail shops, building services and hospitality outlets are cutting staff and failing to hire new recruits because the cost of employing them is back breaking. As a result, they are not expanding and developing their businesses as they might have – and so not contributing to the growth of the economy in the significant way that small businesses, with their inherent dynamism and industriousness, once did. Labour, in its supposed determination to support 'working people' has created a doom loop in which fewer people will be joining the workforce and the consequent reduction in tax revenue will make the government even less able to meet the limitless demands of the welfare system as well as pay off its debts. Needless to say, there have been some obvious winners in the Labour dynamic: public sector employees have had their mouths stuffed with gold not only because Labour is historically inclined to favour the unions which represent them but because they can threaten disruption on a scale that reduces any complaining chorus from the small business sector to an inconsequential squeak. But there is more to it than that, in ideological terms: business generally, and small business in particular, are seen as inherently self-interested enterprises. Because they have been created, developed and run by private individuals in the hope of making a profit, they must be morally suspect and less worthy of support than the services that the state funds and operates for the general good of society. Carry this to its logical conclusion and it becomes admirable to penalise people who want to profit from other people's need for their services in order to pay for the provision of services dispensed 'fairly' (and without profit) by the government. You know where this ends, don't you? The most innovative, resourceful, determined individuals who might have developed new ways of creating real wealth and employing more people in experimental ways have impossible demands put on them which threaten their survival or, at the very least, make their continued existence as difficult as possible. They are encumbered with inflexible employment conditions which might possibly be appropriate for huge public sector organisations but are death to experimental emerging enterprises. Their tax arrangements are made so horrendously complicated and difficult to master that expensive accountancy advice becomes essential. I know self-employed sole traders in the creative industries who would like to enlarge their practice but are terrified of crossing the income threshold that would require VAT registration which now involves coping with Making Tax Digital – a peculiarly sadistic form of monitoring which, as HMRC has just discovered in its attempt to introduce it in self-employed income tax, can be susceptible to cyber hacking. Yes indeed, create a business on your own and try to make it a success – just try. The Government, and its agents in HMRC who can't even be bothered to answer the phone, will make your life as difficult as possible. And the more obstacles they put in the way to prevent you from flourishing and expanding, the more virtuous they will feel even though you and the real wealth that you create are the only things that might have saved them.
