“The $290 billion of Russian sovereign assets frozen in the West – two-thirds of which is situated in Europe – would make a huge difference in Ukraine both during and after the war,” researchers Leo Litra and Lesia Ogryzko from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) say.
The funds could provide a stable flow of money as allies find it increasingly difficult to push support through, they add.
“But a confiscation would also hold a larger political value – showing Ukraine that it has the long-term support of its allies and sending a message that governments engaged in aggressive warfare will not be allowed to profit from actions that clearly flout international law.”
The researchers also discuss concerns about a retaliation from Moscow. Reports from Russia suggest that the Kremlin has already written off the possibility of getting its money back. However, Moscow has made it clear that it will challenge the confiscation process legally to prevent the funds from being seized. It has also threatened to retaliate and claims it has identified $288 billion of foreign assets in Russia, compounding the fears of some in the West. But, of these, more than half are located in Cyprus and the Netherlands. Although records of foreign direct investment in Russia are hard to come by, experts expect that much of the money entering Russia via these special tax jurisdictions is likely to be re-invested Russian money. The UN Conference on Trade and Development estimates that 6.5 per cent, or $28.9 billion, of the money invested in Russia from the Netherlands, and the majority of that from Cyprus, is ‘round-tripping’ in this way.
There’s a simple reason the assets haven’t been seized, we have a legal system in Western Europe. There needs to be a legal basis for seizure of assets and a legal process that allows the on-payment to Ukraine.
It is blatantly fair and just that the assets should be handed to Ukraine, but if we don’t carefully follow our legal principals then courts will unfortunately overturn the attempt.
It’s easy to say “Russia has broken international law” it’s a tougher task proving it and working it through the courts then paying those damages to Ukraine. It needs to be done though.
The only alternative to legal judgement and payment via that judgement is for laws mandating the asset seizure to be passed by the governments of the countries where the assets are held.
The problem with that route is many constitutions forbid or severely restrict the ability of a government to seize assets.
Those restrictions are there for a reason, it curbs the ability of nascent dictators (Orban et al) to seize private property on a whim or to punish enemies
TL;DR freezing assets has a clear and well established precedent which thus has been done. Seizing assets however, while ever we have rule of law is rightly constrained