"promoting the payment of compensation by Russia for damage, loss or injury suffered by Ukraine."
“… make funds available directly or indirectly to a designated person if P knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that P is making the funds so available.”
“7(1) A person who is not an individual (“C”) is “owned or controlled directly or indirectly” by another person (“P”) if either of the following two conditions is met (or both are met): (2) The first condition is that P (a) holds directly or indirectly more than 50% of the shares in C, (b) holds directly or indirectly more than 50% of the voting rights in C, or (c) holds the rights directly or indirectly to appoint or remove a majority of the board of directors of C. (3) Schedule 1 contains provisions applying for the purpose of interpreting paragraph (2). (4) The second condition is that it is reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances, to expect that P would (if P chose to) be able, in most cases or in significant respects, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly, to achieve the result that the affairs of C are conducted in accordance with P’s wishes.”
“the absurd consequences arise not from giving the Regulation its clear and wide meaning but from the subsequent designation by the Government of Mr Putin, without having thought through the consequences that … Mr Putin is at the apex of a command economy. In those circumstances consistent with the concession I mentioned in para 63, in a very real sense (and certainly in the sense of Regulation 7(4)), Mr Putin could be deemed to control everything in Russia.”
"that it is reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances, to expect that P would (if P chose to) be able, in most cases or in significant respects, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly, to achieve the result …" (Emphasis added.)
"seek to avoid a construction of a statutory provision that produces an absurd result, since this is unlikely to have been intended" by the legislator"
"Mints was a case in which NBT was 97.9% (or 99.9%) owned and controlled by a Russian public body, the Central Bank of Russia. The governor of the Central Bank of Russia is appointed by the Duma on the recommendation of the President of Russia, and board members are appointed on the basis of a proposal to the Duma with the agreement of the President of Russia. It was the Mints parties’ evidence that the Central Bank of Rusia “is an organ of the Russian state” over which President Putin exercised de facto control, and that “in practice it serves as an arm of the executive”. Against that background, it is perhaps not surprising that it was conceded in that case that NBT was subject to the control of President Putin."
"the Defendants in this case did not point to any similar evidence said to show (or arguably show) that Litasco was presently under the de facto control of President Putin. Lukoil is not a state-owned body and there is no suggestion that it functions as an organ of the Russian state."
“There is no presumption on the part of the UK government that a private entity is subject to the control of a designated public official simply because that entity is based or incorporated in a jurisdiction in which that official has a leading role in economic policy or decision making. Further evidence is required to demonstrate that the relevant official exercises control over that entity under UK sanctions regulations. For example, if a designated individual was a high-ranking public official, private entity X would not be considered by the UK government to be controlled within the meaning of Regulation 7(4) just because it was based in or incorporated in the same country. If there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the designated public official exercises control in Regulation 7(4) terms over private entity X specifically, then the relevant legal test under UK sanctions regulations can be met. Specifically, for the purposes of Regulation 7(4) of [the Regulations] the UK government does not consider that President Putin exercises indirect or de facto control over all entities in the Russian economy merely by virtue of his occupation of the Russian Presidency. A person should only be considered to exercise control over certain private entities where this can be supported by sufficient evidence on a case-by-case basis.”
“15. What measure (if any) should competent authorities adopt in respect of listed shareholders with qualifying holdings in an EU bank? Is the freezing of voting rights appropriate/required? In that case, should a proportionality approach be applied, e.g. by starting with increased monitoring of governance? Shares qualify as funds and therefore must be frozen if belonging to, owned, held or controlled by a listed person. Accordingly, this means that it is prohibited for the listed person to exercise any voting rights which could lead to any change in relation to these shares (e.g. in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination etc.). Either way, since they can be used to obtain funds, goods or services, voting rights as such can be considered an intangible economic resource. This means they should be frozen, i.e. prevented from being used to obtain funds, goods or services in any way. Therefore under no circumstance nor for any purpose may listed shareholders exercise directly or indirectly their voting rights in a company or fund. Voting rights must be fully frozen.”
"bankruptcy is a court -controlled process in relation to which the court has wide powers, exercisable for the purpose of the insolvency process as a whole, which are not limited to those conferred expressly by the relevant legislation."
“The section itself is intended to allow “General control of trustee by the court”, but that must be in relation to matters within the bankruptcy itself and cannot be taken to allow the court to modify the rights of others who have acquired those rights entirely independently of the bankruptcy. Thus if a trustee commits an act of trespass, whether in relation to land or goods, for which he is liable in damages, section 303(2) would not empower the trustee to apply for an order exonerating him from paying damages. As trustee he is subject to the general law, and section 303 does not empower to the court to disapply it. Its essential purpose is principally to allow those interested in the bankruptcy (including the trustee) to bring bankruptcy related matters before the court so that the court can make appropriate orders to take the bankruptcy forward. ….”
"it would in my view as a general rule be contrary to public policy, and as such an abuse of the process of the court, to permit a person seeking to establish that a decision of a public authority infringed rights to which he was entitled to protection under public law to proceed by way of an ordinary action and by this means to evade the provisions of Order 53 for the protection of such authorities,"
"since 1951 [I think this may be a typographical error and that 1981 may be meant] it has become well established that there is jurisdiction for a civil court to make such a declaration… But the exceptional nature of such a declaration by a civil court has on a number of occasions been emphasised."