‘Not Legally Possible’ for US to Transfer Seized Russian Assets to Ukraine - Int’l Lawyer
18:02 GMT 07.09.2023 (Updated: 18:11 GMT 07.09.2023)
© Sputnik / Pavel Bednyakov
/ Subscribe
While the United States might be aiming to undermine Russian prestige by seizing its assets abroad and transferring them to Ukraine, it is in fact harming its own reputation by engaging in lawless behavior that violates the sanctity of private property underpinning the capitalist system, an international legal expert told Sputnik.
The US said it would transfer the seized assets of Russian businessmen to veterans of the Ukrainian Armed Forces on Thursday. The announcement was made by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken during a press conference with his Ukrainian counterpart, Dmytro Kuleba, in Kiev, who indicated the amount transferred would be $5.4 million. Blinken, however, did not elaborate on the precise sum, from which accounts the money would be taken or when exactly the transfer would occur.
Since the launch of Russia’s special operation in Ukraine in February 2022, Western powers have initiated several rounds of seizures of property and freezing of assets belonging to both Russian nationals and state institutions located in the West. The US has long asserted it would seek to transfer these assets to Ukrainian control, but has so far not attempted to do so.
Christopher C. Black, an international criminal lawyer with 20 years of experience in war crimes and international relations told Sputnik it was “not legally possible” to do what Blinken declared the US was doing.
“It seems to me that the statements declaring their intentions to use seized assets to fund the Ukraine regime are more for propaganda purposes than for real economic effect. They make these announcements from time to time to try to humiliate Russia and show Russia who's boss, or so they think,” Black told Sputnik, adding that such moves were aimed at harming Russian prestige.
“But the opposite occurs. It is their [US] reputation and prestige that is undermined, their claimed adherence to the rule of law, to the right to property, to justice. They reveal themselves for what they are and the consequence is that citizens and national governments will be reluctant to have any type of assets placed in those nations if they can be seized on any pretext. So it ends up harming their own economies and the world economic system.”
“The issue of the use of illegally seized assets, whether cash or property or financial securities such as stocks, bonds is important to expose the nature of the governments involved,” Black said. “They continually talk about their ‘values’ and we see with this that one of their values is to raise theft and piracy to a standard practice.”
“It is not legally possible to use such assets to provide Ukraine with funds to carry on the war against Russia,” Black asserted.
“The Canadian government has stated that they will sell the Russian aircraft that they illegally seized to give the money from the sale to Ukraine. The US and EU countries have promised to use other seized assets for the same purpose. But again, all of this is illegal, since the assets were simply ordered to be seized by government fiat, by-passing proper legal procedures and without any means for the owners to object,” the legal expert explained.
“Assets can only be seized normally if a debt is owed and the creditor goes to court to get compensation and a court orders certain assets to be handed over to satisfy the debt, but no debts were involved. The NATO governments have just stolen these assets ignoring all legalities,” he said.
“Once they have taken that step they have crossed the line of legality and morality and will use the assets as they see fit.”
Black explained that they would first have to sell the assets to someone else willing to pay for them - a considerable problem, since “potential buyers will be reluctant to acquire those assets when the title to them is doubtful, or there remains a question as to who the real owner is.” Doing so could make them parties to the theft as well.
“[T]hey cannot be sure that they will really own anything at the end of the process,” he explained. “Others may have claims to the assets as well. For example monies seized from Russian oligarchs or businessmen from banks located in NATO countries may be involved in other disputes with others, or the banks themselves may be reluctant to hand over the funds when they make interest on them so long as they remain in their accounts.”
22 July 2023, 13:02 GMT
“The EU statement that they cannot seize Russian assets is nothing more than a recognition of the law and the right to property that is sacrosanct to the capitalist system. They recognize, however, reluctantly, that to engage in the seizure of property of citizens of another country for political reasons destroys or undermines the entire basis of the economic system which depends on the right to property, the expectation that nations and courts will abide by the laws governing property and legal contract and procedures,” Black asserted.
“Lastly, even if those assets can be liquified into cash, there remains the problem of transferring those funds to Ukraine. If the USA, for example, uses the normal banking system the banks involved can be accused of money laundering which is both illegal and if known to the public will harm their reputation and business.”
He noted that the US’ actions leave open the possibility for Moscow to retaliate in kind, and seize and sell US assets.
Black further pointed out that the owners of the seized assets might be able to file lawsuits attempting to stop the illegal use of their property and to have it returned, but noted this was “unrealistic” since the governments engaged in seizure will use legal fictions to declare their actions as allowable.
