UK government ready to take Abramovich to court over Chelsea sale proceeds for Ukraine
Three years after Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich was forced to sell Premier League club Chelsea, the British government said on Tuesday it was prepared to go to court to ensure the proceeds reached war victims in Ukraine.
Abramovich was sanctioned in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and sold two-time Champions League winner Chelsea to a consortium fronted by Americans Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital for 2.5 billion pounds ($3.2 billion) in May of that year.
Advertisement
Abramovich said before the sale that net proceeds would go to a charitable foundation 'for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine.'
But the money remained frozen in a bank and the British government said it was still to make its way to those in need.
A joint statement by Treasury chief Rachel Reeves and Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the government was ready to mount legal action.
'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," they said. '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.'
Advertisement
Abramovich was sanctioned when the British government targeted what then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss described as 'oligarchs and kleptocrats' with close links to Russian President Vladimir Putin and 'complicit in his aggression.'
The funds from the sale, however, still belong to Abramovich even though they are frozen.
They cannot be used or moved without the issue of a licence from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation.
The government insists they must be used for humanitarian purposes in Ukraine.
___
James Robson is at https://twitter.com/jamesalanrobson
___
AP soccer: https://apnews.com/hub/soccer
James Robson, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Meghan Markle's new As Ever product launch fueled by a need for ‘fame and fortune': experts
Meghan Markle is restocking her sold-out As Ever products on Friday, and several royal experts believe it's all part of her plan to be recognized as a royal entrepreneur with a reigning business empire. 'Of course, her royal title and Sussex name are boosting her brand,' British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard told Fox News Digital. 'She will cling to this as it will help bring her [more] fame and fortune, which is imperative to her life. She will keep her fingers in many pies and her name in lights with the hope that one or more of her ideas will bring in the much-needed hard cash.' 'However, she is not likely to amass her fortune from the sales of basic As Ever treats, however delicious they may be,' Chard claimed. A post on As Ever's Instagram teased that its bringing back its products and 'some delicious surprises.' The brand is known for raspberry spreads, teas, limited-edition wildflower honey and edible flowers, or 'flower sprinkles.' Chard made her comments shortly after quotes from royal expert Valentine Low's 2023 book, 'Courtiers,' surfaced online. At the time of the book's publication, the author claimed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex left royal life because they wanted the 'freedom to make money and dip their toes into politics.' He also claimed the 'Suits' alum was eager to 'earn money for herself,' which reportedly influenced the couple's decision to make their royal exit. 6 Meghan Markle promoted her new launch early Friday morning on Instagram with a photo of her swinging captioned 'No more sleeps!' @aseverofficial/Instagram The Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped back as senior royals in 2020 and moved to the wealthy, coastal city of Montecito in California. At the time, they cited the unbearable intrusions of the British press and a lack of support from the palace as their reasons for the move. That same year, the couple signed a five-year contract with Netflix reportedly worth $100 million. Their Spotify deal was said to be worth between $15 million to $18 million. Low claimed in his book that before the couple left for California, they suggested the idea of 'having a month [to a year] to do their own thing,' as quoted by the U.K.'s Daily Mail. According to the outlet, Low also said the pair considered 'spending most of their time privately but doing a select number of royal activities.' 'Some suspected that in the end [Meghan] wanted to make money,' Low wrote, as quoted by the outlet. 'And the only way she was going to do that was by leaving her royal life behind and going back to America.' 6 Products from Markle's As Ever brand will be restocked and available to purchase on Friday. @aseverofficial/Instagram Low noted that if the couple agreed to continue with royal duties, they wouldn't have been allowed to 'act or take decisions in order to gain financially.' People magazine previously reported that when Meghan and Harry announced their exit, the couple specified they would 'no longer receive funding through the Sovereign Grant,' making them 'members of the Royal Family with financial independence.' Their announcement said, 'Their Royal Highnesses prefer to release this financial tie.' 'They value the ability to earn a professional income, which in the current structure they are prohibited from doing,' they wrote, adding that financial freedom is 'something they look forward to.' At the time of Low's book launch, Archewell, which handles the offices for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and Buckingham Palace didn't immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace previously told Fox News Digital it doesn't comment 'on such books.' 6 As Ever's first product launch sold out quickly. Tamara Beckwith/NY Post British royals expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital she agreed with Low's reporting. 'What I do know is that during those negotiations [with Harry and Meghan], Queen Elizabeth II was observed to be 'visibly cringing' when the topics of both politics and money were pressed by Prince Harry,' Fordwich claimed. 'It represented the antithesis of everything the queen and the monarchy stand for.' 'I don't know who raised it, but the consensus was, 'You're all about the money. We, the monarchy is about service and dedication to duty,' Fordwich claimed. 'One of the very many reasons Princess Catherine is so immensely popular and will be a tremendous future queen is that she doesn't care about the former (money) but is dedicated to the latter (duty/service)!' 6 Prince Harry and his wife stepped down as senior royals in January 2020. Archewell Foundation via Getty Images Low claimed in his book the couple's desire to be financially independent raised many eyebrows behind palace doors. 'There was no way for the two sides to reach an agreement on that point,' he wrote, as quoted by the outlet. 'Crucially, it was the queen who took the view that unless they were prepared to abide by the restrictions that applied to working members of the royal family, they could not be allowed to carry out official duties.' 'Prince Harry always felt second best to his brother Prince William,' Chard claimed. 'Meghan was the excuse Prince Harry needed to jump ship. And Meghan wants fame and fortune. Although she received the royal title, she felt her wings were clipped.' 'They both ran off into the sunset to make their fame and fortune,' Chard added. 'It is now all about them. They can … build their Sussex court and empire. However, there are consequences for their decisions. They can't have their cake and eat it too.' Whispers of Meghan eyeing a role in politics have been persistent since the couple's move. 6 As Ever's first drop was in early April. As Ever 'I've heard from some very reliable sources that she is writing to people to try and secure political positions,' True Royalty TV co-founder Nick Bullen told Fox News Digital in 2023. 'I think that is absolutely an ambition for her. 'And I think you'll see [the Duke and Duchess of Sussex] working much more separately,' he said at the time. 'I think you'll see them concentrating on their individual brands to try and reclaim some of the ground.' Bullen is an award-winning documentarian who has been producing programs about the British royal family for 20 years. He has also worked closely with King Charles III. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters In 2019, True Royalty TV premiered 'Meghan for President?' It was a documentary that explored how the mother of two had always wanted to speak out on a global platform, long before she pursued acting in Hollywood. Anything is possible, Bullen insisted. Even a humanitarian ambassador's role looks promising. 'It's a very plausible argument,' Bullen said. 'I think it would be fascinating. Imagine a world in which she does make it to the White House. [Prince] Harry is the first husband. There's a state visit, and what happens then if Meghan is hosting [the British royal family] at the White House? You're going to want a front-row seat for that, aren't you?' A spokesperson for the duchess, 43, didn't immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment at the time. 6 As Ever teased there will be 'some delicious surprises' in Friday's drop. As Ever Vanity Fair's royal correspondent, Katie Nicholl, reported in 2019 that Kensington Palace sources dismissed any speculation that Meghan, who retained her U.S. citizenship, would ever run for president. Traditionally, members of the British royal family are expected to be apolitical in public, which means they cannot vote or openly express political views. In addition, such a major move would require Harry, 40, to give up his royal title. In 2024, People magazine reported that the couple's Archewell Foundation is a founding partner of the Women's Wellness (Spa)ce, a trauma-informed wellness center for women in north Philadelphia. It was created by Ashley Biden, the daughter of former President Joe Biden and wife Jill Biden. For now, Meghan seems to have her eyes on launching jam. Her lifestyle products were featured in her Netflix lifestyle series, 'With Love, Meghan,' which premiered in March. New episodes are expected to drop in the fall. Fordwich claimed Meghan still has a long way to go before the public can crown her as an authentic, relatable businesswoman. 'Either way, this relaunch means Meghan Markle will face heightened scrutiny,' Fordwich claimed. 'Her products, while marketed as accessible, remain luxury non-essentials which don't resonate with a mass market audience, especially in our current tough economic times.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
How Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' stacks up against his 2017 tax bill
As Senate Republicans deliberate modifications to the reconciliation budget bill that the House of Representatives passed on May 22, one thing looks increasingly clear. Namely, the all-encompassing bill that President Trump favors will likely be enacted in July, despite protests from some Republican senators on various elements of the package. In that case, it would become the signature legislation of Donald Trump's second term, just as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was in his first term. So, how do the two bills compare? One of the major accomplishments of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was to make the U.S. corporate tax code competitive with the rest of the world by lowering the marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. According to economists Kevin Brady and Douglas Holz-Eakin, it did so by making the corporate rate cuts permanent, which proved to be highly successful. They point out that economic growth and business capital spending accelerated after the bill was enacted, and the U.S. did not lose a single multinational headquarters following a decade of large exoduses. The legislation currently being considered, by comparison, is focused on extending cuts in personal tax rates that are set to expire at the end of this year. Proponents claim that if the personal tax rates expire, most Americans will face tax increases that could weaken the economy. Democrats, however, argue that the tax cuts in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act primarily benefit the very wealthy rather than middle-class or lower-income families, and they favor boosting taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Jeff Stein of the Washington Post observes that to counter this, Trump pivoted during the 2024 campaign by proposing new tax cuts that were easier to sell to specific groups of voters. The proposals included an end to taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security, as well as a tax deduction on borrowing costs to buy American-made cars. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said the Republicans in his chamber expect to deliver on these campaign promises, according to Bloomberg. Stein points out that, in the process, there has been a significant change in the way the Republican leadership views tax policy since Trump's first term. Most of the policies in the 2017 law were developed over the course of many years by think tanks in Washington, with former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and former Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) serving as the principal architects. Their overriding goal was to simplify the code and lessen distortions without adding to budget deficits. In comparison, the current Republican approach to tax policy is more populist-oriented and designed to provide tax relief to select groups of voters. Politico reports that Republicans are piling on new tax breaks in hopes of boosting tax refunds ahead of next year's midterm elections. The provisions include a larger child tax credit, a larger state and local tax deduction and others that would be made retroactively. One challenge is that the extension of the 2017 tax cuts and the new initiatives are estimated to cost the federal government about $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Accordingly, there is little chance that the budget deficit will be brought under control, with spending cuts of only $1.5 trillion below current projections contemplated over that period. Another concern is that the tax cuts in the bill passed by the House are less oriented to promote long-term growth than the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was. The Tax Foundation estimates that it would increase long-term GDP by only 0.8 percent (not annualized). It states that, 'by introducing narrowly targeted new provisions and sunsetting pro-growth provisions like bonus depreciation and [research and development] expensing, it leaves economic growth on the table.' Senate Republicans are trying to address this by including more permanent business tax cuts and full expensing for equipment and research and development in their version of the bill. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board argues that one of the most constructive changes in the 2017 bill was letting businesses immediately deduct the full cost of capital outlays rather than spread them out. It boosted capital spending until full expensing was phased out in 2022. Another critique relates to fairness. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities contends that the House bill is skewed to the wealthy, costs more than extending the 2017 tax law and fails to deliver for families. It concludes that instead of changing course and prioritizing people with low and moderate incomes, the tax bill only offers more of the same. When the impact of proposed Medicaid cuts is factored into the equation, the Republican bill is unpopular with the public at large. For example, recent polls undertaken by Quinnipiac, the Washington Post-Ipsos and KFF all show that a plurality of voters oppose the House bill, with many citing the attempt to pare back Medicaid funding. Finally, my take is that Trump is making the same mistake Joe Biden did by believing that all-encompassing legislation is better than more targeted bills that spell out clear policy objectives. The principal difference is that Trump favors a grab-bag of tax cuts and spending cuts, whereas Biden was enamored with massive spending bills. In my book about Trump's economic policies in his first term, my assessment was that investors would respond enthusiastically to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which they did as the stock market rose steadily leading up to its passage. In comparison, the market's response this time is more ambiguous amid confusion about the objectives of the 'big, beautiful bill' and uncertainty about the global trade conflict. Nicholas Sargen, Ph.D., is an economic consultant for Fort Washington Investment Advisors and is affiliated with the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business. He has written three books, including 'Investing in the Trump Era: How Economic Policies Impact Financial Markets.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hundreds of jobs at risk as River Island takes axe to store base
Hundreds more high street jobs are being put at risk as part of a sweeping overhaul of the family-owned fashion retailer River Island. Sky News has learnt that the clothing chain, which trades from about 230 stores, is proposing to close 33 shops in a restructuring plan which will be put to creditors in August. The fate of a further 70 stores is dependent upon agreements being reached with landlords to slash rent payments. Money latest: Confirmation of the plans comes less than a month after Sky News revealed that the company, which was founded in 1948 by Bernard Lewis, was working with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) on a restructuring plan. In a statement issued on Friday, Ben Lewis, River Island's chief executive, said: "River Island is a much-loved retailer, with a decades-long history on the British high street. "However, the well-documented migration of shoppers from the high street to online has left the business with a large portfolio of stores that is no longer aligned to our customers' needs. "The sharp rise in the cost of doing business over the last few years has only added to the financial burden. "We have a clear strategy to transform the business to ensure its long-term viability. "Recent improvements in our fashion offer and in-store shopping experience are already showing very positive results, but it is only with a restructuring plan that we will be able to see this strategy through and secure River Island's future as a profitable retail business. "We regret any job losses as a result of store closures, and we will try to keep these to a minimum." The company declined to comment on how many jobs would be put at risk by the initial 33 shop closures, or on the scale of the rent cuts being sought during talks with landlords. In total, it is understood to employ about 5,500 people. Sources said that new funding will be injected into River Island if the restructuring plan is approved in August. Previously named Lewis and Chelsea Girl, the business, it adopting its current brand during the 1980s. Accounts for River Island Clothing Co for the 52 weeks ended 30 December 2023 show the company made a £33.2m pre-tax loss. Turnover during the year fell by more than 19% to £578.1m. A restructuring plan is a court-supervised process which enables companies facing financial difficulties to compromise creditors such as landlords in order to avoid insolvency proceedings. An identical process is being used to close scores of Poundland shops and slash rents at hundreds more. In its latest accounts at Companies House, River Island Holdings Limited warned of a multitude of financial and operational risks to its business. "The market for retailing of fashion clothing is fast changing with customer preferences for more diverse, convenient and speedier shopping journeys and with increasing competition especially in the digital space," it said. Read more from Sky News:Sir Alan Bates backs Post Office Capture victims'Inflation and customer cutbacks' blamed for dive in retail salesGovt considers industrial energy cost aid "The key business risks for the group are the pressures of a highly competitive and changing retail environment combined with increased economic uncertainty. "A number of geopolitical events have resulted in continuing supply chain disruption as well as energy, labour and food price increases, driving inflation and interest rates higher and resulting in weaker disposable income and lower consumer confidence." Retailers have complained bitterly about the impact of tax changes announced by Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, in last autumn's Budget. Since then, a cluster of well-known chains, including Lakeland and The Original Factory Shop, have been forced to seek new owners.
