The case of the house of Arkady Volozh was the “first sign” for Russian billionaires

To freeze the assets of the oligarchs who renounced Russian citizenship and left the country after the start of the SVO was proposed by Senator Andrei Kutepov. The head of the Federation Council committee on economic policy is sure that it is necessary to deal with the escaped billionaires in the same way as unfriendly Western countries deal with the property of sanctioned Russian businessmen.

However, experts in international law warn that the principle of “treating like with like” will not work here, and an attempt to seize the property of big business threatens to collapse financial markets and capital outflows.

The idea of ​​freezing the assets of the oligarchs who left Russia after February 24, condemned the SVO and renounced Russian citizenship, Senator Andrei Kutepov outlined in a letter addressed to Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Grigorenko.

The head of the Federation Council committee on economic policy believes that wealthy defectors should be treated in the image and likeness of Western countries. Since they arrested the assets of our businessmen and imposed sanctions on them, it means that we can do the same with those who gravitate towards Western values ​​and take property away from Russia.

Kutepov proposed a mechanism for distributing frozen assets: part of it should be used to finance a special military operation, the restoration of the Crimean bridge and the utility infrastructure of new Russian regions, and part should be used to cover the losses of state corporations run by runaway business tycoons. In addition, the senator proposes to increase tax rates on transactions with the assets of such oligarchs to 30-50%.

Earlier, banker Oleg Tinkov, founder of Revolut Nikolai Storonsky, head of DST Global funds Yuri Milner, head of Troika Dialog Ruben Vardanyan and founder of Freedom Finance corporation Timur Turlov announced their renunciation of Russian citizenship.

The senator’s proposal was appreciated by international lawyers. Lawyer Igor Trunov concluded that the idea does not comply with the Russian Constitution and current legislation. “In order to put the asset freeze initiative into practice, the Basic Law will have to be changed,” Trunov said.

In addition, the lawyer stressed that the very word “freeze”, which now and then comes from the lips of first Western, and then our politicians, has nothing to do with law.

– The concept of “freezing” is not based on the law, it is a term from the ceiling. This is a skirmish of politicians, but there is little legal basis here. We hear the same thing from the lips of American and European politicians. But the same Americans, having frozen the assets of our businessmen, could not do anything with them. They ran into their own constitution,” says Igor Trunov.

The lawyer recalled that all forms of ownership in Russia are strictly protected by the Constitution. Article 35 states that a person can be deprived of property only on the basis of a court decision. Further, the lawyer turns to the Code of Criminal Procedure: it does not talk about freezing, but about the arrest of property. The grounds for the procedure are clearly spelled out.

– The law says that property can be seized to secure a civil claim in a criminal case, as well as property acquired by criminal means. For arrest there must be a court and a decision. That is, if, say, an oligarch traded in drugs and due to this his business grew, on the basis of a court decision, property can be confiscated,” explains Igor Trunov.

An attempt to seize the property of citizens of unfriendly countries and those who sympathize with them has already been made in Russia.

In April of this year, the Crimean parliament submitted to the State Duma a draft amendment to the Civil Code, which provided for the possibility of forcible seizure of assets of unfriendly foreign states, citizens and legal entities, as well as beneficiaries controlled by these countries, regardless of their real location. Crimean officials even undertook to audit such property on the peninsula. Among other things, there was an interesting object – the apartment of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky in an elite residential complex in Livadia. However, the bill was not approved and has not been adopted to this day.

The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, commenting on the bill, stressed that she sees “nothing normal in the seizure of property when there are no legal grounds for this.”

True, Russia’s civil legislation still has a legal mechanism that makes it possible to impose restrictive measures in response to the sanctions of unfriendly countries. But, firstly, they concern only residents of these countries, and secondly, this mechanism does not imply targeted selective action in relation to specific individuals.

Experts predict serious risks for the domestic economy if a decision is made to freeze the assets of oligarchs who have left the country.

– It is very dangerous to start a sanctions policy inside the country. It will impede the movement of capital. Business from friendly countries can stand up. If we start hitting our own people, the foreigners will immediately run away, because it is not clear how this will end for them, Trunov believes.

Meanwhile, one can understand the zealous desire of the senators to take revenge. A court precedent has already arisen in the EU, clearly indicating that the law for European judges is a drawbar when it comes to the assets of Russian businessmen under sanctions.

The Amsterdam court ruled in the case of the founder of “Yandex” Arkady Volozh. The businessman had previously bought a house in the capital of the Netherlands and started renovating it. After Volozh came under EU sanctions, the dwelling was occupied by squatters. The court not only refused to evict marginalized individuals from the elite square meters of a Russian businessman, but also summed up the rationale for the decision, frankly shocking for most Russian lawyers: squatters can live in the house, because Volozh increases the capitalization of real estate with repairs and thus lays in the future the opportunity to extract additional income, thereby violating the sanctions regime.

Law expert, lawyer Ilya Iksanov explained that in this case, the court of the Netherlands adhered not so much to legal norms as to the traditions of law enforcement during military conflicts.

– In the legal tradition of Western countries, primarily countries with the Anglo-Saxon model, if we are talking about an enemy, then his property can be arrested. The case of Arkady Volozh is the first sign. It is likely to be followed by other similar solutions. Previously, the countries of Europe and the United States rested on the right to property. This is one of the foundations of the rule of law and a natural right that belongs to a person, regardless of the state. In fact, such a decision is a violation of the entire system.