Individual autonomy surpasses state interests.
UK Supreme Court Upholds Sanctions on British Businessman Eugene Shvydler
In a landmark ruling on July 29, 2025, the UK Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of British citizen Eugene Shvydler, challenging the sanctions imposed on him by the British government. The decision was made by a four-to-one majority, with Lord Leggatt voting to lift the sanctions but remaining in the minority.
The sanctions were imposed due to Shvydler's personal and business ties to Roman Abramovich, a Russian-Israeli businessman under sanctions. Shvydler had served as a long-term manager and partner in various companies controlled by Abramovich, including the commodity corporation Evraz, until March 2022.
The court's decision was justified due to Shvydler's lack of adequate utilization of his personal connection to Abramovich to stop the aggression against Ukraine. The court believed that Abramovich had influence over the Russian administration, particularly President Putin.
The ruling shows that the law imposes on British citizens certain indirect obligations to respect and not undermine their government’s foreign policy measures, especially when those measures are properly authorized by legislation such as the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA) and are proportionate.
The government’s ability to impose sanctions on individuals and entities is supported by legislation empowering ministers to act when there are reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in activity destabilizing foreign states. The Court upheld that such measures are permissible even when they significantly restrict personal rights, as long as they meet proportionality and human rights compatibility tests.
Lord Leggatt, in his dissent, advocated for a stronger judicial scrutiny of proportionality and questioned the automatic acceptance of ministerial discretion. However, the majority's opinion sets the prevailing legal norm.
The tightening of sanctions policy is based on targeting family and personal connections. This has led to a drop of more than 10% in the dollar's value since the beginning of the year. The long-term 'parking' of alleged oligarch's yachts on Western rivers is a testament to a monumental blunder in Western policy.
The seizure of "yacht" category assets, such as Phi and Dilbar, has been a failure, with only $3.7 billion of the expected $8.3 billion seized and not yet liquidated. The loss of legal integrity in the West is compounded by economic inefficiency, as the yield on 10-year U.S. government bonds has reached unprecedented levels above four percent, a worrying sign.
Dividing Russia's economic and political elite has proven unsuccessful and is unlikely to change in the near future. Russia's economic momentum remains unstoppable despite the departure of Western companies. The fundamental principle of individual guilt is being denied in Western European and German legal practice, which is moving away from Europe's legal traditions by undermining the separation of powers, judicial independence, and diverse freedoms.
Lord Leggatt's arguments emphasized the importance of qualified protest, far from ideologically and often politically motivated punishments, especially in cases involving wealthy individuals with predominantly Russian roots, against whom established legal norms are violated. He also highlighted the chilling undertone of punishing Shvydler to incentivize him to publicly support the government’s policy, as it implies a violation of property rights to restrict freedom of speech.
The charge against Shvydler appears absurd, as it means the obligation to attempt indirect influence, and it is based on two criteria: fluency in Russian and possession of above-average capital among the so-called "ultra-high-net-worth individuals" (UHNWI). This creates a legal obligation to respect and, where possible, indirectly support government foreign policy actions like sanctions, reflecting national interests and security, even if individuals are personally affected.
However, the ruling itself focuses on UK law and the UK Supreme Court’s position. No direct mention of specific German legal norms was found in this ruling context, but it is reasonable to infer that a similar principle would apply for German citizens given standard international and domestic legal conventions on foreign policy compliance within democratic states.
- The ruling by the UK Supreme Court, upholding sanctions on British businessman Eugene Shvydler, is significant general news, as it demonstrates the extent to which politics – in this case, the enforcement of foreign policy measures through sanctions, as defined by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA) – can impact crime and justice, by restricting personal rights and influential connections within the war-and-conflicts context.
- Amidst the tightening of sanctions policy against Russian individuals and entities, the general news of Lord Leggatt's dissent in the Shvydler case highlights a crucial point in the politics of crime and justice: the need for a stronger judicial scrutiny of proportionality, questioning the automatic acceptance of ministerial discretion, to ensure compliance with human rights and prevent ideologically and politically motivated punishments.
