Lord Hermer accused of blocking Russian asset seizures for Ukraine

[Social Media]

 

A growing dispute within the UK government has surfaced over plans to utilize frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s defense. Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, is facing criticism for cautioning ministers against seizing Russian funds that have remained frozen since President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Some government figures accuse him of impeding efforts to redirect these assets toward Ukraine’s military needs.  

 

Currently, officials are engaged in ongoing discussions about how to use Russian financial assets, especially in light of the halt in US military assistance to Ukraine. Over the weekend, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer explored the possibility of tapping into approximately £230 billion in frozen Russian assets across Europe. While some European countries, including France, previously resisted such measures, there are indications that their stance may be shifting.  

 

However, legal challenges remain a significant obstacle. Starmer has described the situation as “fiendishly complicated,” and Hermer has reportedly warned that the UK could breach international law if it proceeded with outright asset seizures. There are concerns about violating property rights agreements, Russia’s sovereign immunity, and the necessity of adhering to legal due process when reallocating frozen assets. Allies of Hermer insist he is not obstructing progress but is instead working with ministers to find a legally sound approach.  

 

Beyond legal considerations, officials are also weighing the potential consequences for London’s reputation as a global financial hub. Some ministers fear that seizing Russian funds could deter investment from Middle Eastern nations and other global financial players, who may perceive such actions as a precedent for future asset confiscations. Foreign Secretary David Lammy has reportedly expressed strong support for proceeding with asset seizures, and some within the government believe Hermer has been overly cautious. “If there’s any chance a policy might be illegal, he thinks it’s his job to advise against it,” said one government source. “What a less-risk-averse lawyer would do is try to find arguments why it might be legal.”

 

Another official suggested that Hermer’s legal concerns had delayed action that the Foreign Office had been eager to implement. Lammy has reportedly told colleagues he remains determined to push forward with asset confiscation. The government has already allocated £2.26 billion to Ukraine’s military, funded by interest accrued on frozen Russian assets. Starmer acknowledged in Parliament that further steps should be explored, stating, “We need to look at whether we can go further,” but emphasized the necessity of acting in coordination with allies. “It is complicated, and we have to act with others. I will see what progress we can make.”  

 

Government sources maintain that all legal avenues are being pursued to ensure Russia bears financial responsibility for the destruction caused by its invasion. Joe Powell, a Labour MP and chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for anti-corruption and responsible tax, expressed optimism that international consensus on using frozen Russian funds would soon emerge. “For very obvious reasons, that is because if you don’t have clarity on ongoing US support and the alternative is tax rises across Europe to pay for defense and uncertainty for Ukraine on funding their own defense, this is the best option on the table by far,” he said.  

 

Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak urged the government to “push for co-ordinated action to seize those frozen Russian state assets, give that money to the Ukrainians so that they can defend their country.” He argued that now is the right moment to take decisive action, stating, “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates the principle of sovereign equality, providing a basis in international law for this. And by acting in concert with our allies, we can ensure that there are no risks to financial stability.”  

 

Chancellor Rachel Reeves acknowledged the difficulty of the process, admitting, “It is incredibly complicated to do that in line with international law.” However, she reassured that “we keep all options on the table, because, as he is absolutely right to say, Russia should pay for the damage that Russia has caused.”  

 

Legal experts, however, remain skeptical about the feasibility of such a move. Nigel Kushner, chief executive of W Legal, noted, “The UK currently lacks the legal grounds for confiscation. I have little doubt that ultimately legal grounds could be created. We need only look at sanctions developments in the last three years. There will certainly be a challenge in numerous forums. The big question is the extent to which seizure will undermine trust in reserve currencies, and question the western coalition’s commitment to a law-based order — prioritising political power over legal principles.”  

 

As ministers debate the legal and financial ramifications, the future of frozen Russian assets remains uncertain. While there is growing political momentum to seize and repurpose these funds, the legal complexities and broader geopolitical consequences continue to shape the government’s approach.

 

Based on a report by The Times  2025-03-08

 

 

 

 

[JimHuaHin]

Another Russian asset?

[WDSmart]

Sounds like a great idea to me. I wish my home country, the USA, would do the same. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

Allies of Hermer insist he is not obstructing progress but is instead working with ministers to find a legally sound approach.  

Seems entirely reasonable.

 

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

Beyond legal considerations, officials are also weighing the potential consequences for London’s reputation as a global financial hub. Some ministers fear that seizing Russian funds could deter investment from Middle Eastern nations and other global financial players, who may perceive such actions as a precedent for future asset confiscations.

Oh in that case this will be on hold.....

[Rimmer]

Off topic post and reply has been removed

[jippytum]

This was the best idea ever. Using Putins siezed assets to help fund Ugrain's fight against Russian aggresion. 

[Watawattana]

I ask this as I'm unsure.  

 

The assets are frozen.  Fine, I understand that.  

 

Is there a timescale on this "freeze" order, or is it permanent?  Or is will it time out when relations with Russia get normalised again?

 

If it's the latter and those assets have been liquidated and spent, won't there be a legal case that means the UK Government gets sued as although the assets were frozen, they were still owned by a Russian?

 

If an asset is the fruit of an illegal act, then of course sell but I thought that needs a court order.

[BusyB]

20 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

I ask this as I'm unsure.  

 

The assets are frozen.  Fine, I understand that.  

 

Is there a timescale on this "freeze" order, or is it permanent?  Or is will it time out when relations with Russia get normalised again?

 

If it's the latter and those assets have been liquidated and spent, won't there be a legal case that means the UK Government gets sued as although the assets were frozen, they were still owned by a Russian?

 

If an asset is the fruit of an illegal act, then of course sell but I thought that needs a court order.

 

I'm sure these are only some of the questions the AG is cogitating. Real life is indeed complex.

[Purdey]

Seizure legally is surely the way forward. 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Purdey said:

Seizure legally is surely the way forward. 

How long do you think it will take? Yes must ensure all is above board. In the meantime Russia carries on its illegal invasion. 

[black tabby12345]

21st Century Lord Haw-Haw

 

Lord Haw-Haw - Wikipedia

[JonnyF]

Looks like Rachel from accounts won't be getting that money (she sent to Ukraine to fund prolonging the war) back after all.

 

"It's just a loan" 😆