Could someone explain the seizures of the Russian elite's properties?

[stephanier.1765]

When countries like Italy say they've seized properties or yachts do they mean forever or will they give them back after sanctions are no longer in effect? Does it vary by country? If they don't give them back, what happens to them? Just curious.

[Carol in Cal.]

As much as I don’t like the idea of oligarchs, this sounds more like piracy than anything else to me.

[TheReader]

Following along; it baffles me.  One of the oligarchs is head of/huge supporter of an international fencing organization (the sport of fencing), and stepped down over this, and the fencing community is watching and waiting to see what happens. And of course the owner of the Chelsea football club, and also several properties in London, and.....the whole thing is just weird. 

It seems strangely Thought Policey to me, like we're/they're seizing property in case these people might decide to use their funds to keep the war going, whether they actually have close ties to do so or not. 

[Danae]

There are two levels of this — freezing and seizing.  When assets (like bank accounts) are frozen they will be released after the sanctions are lifted. If something like a yacht is frozen then the owner still has it but can’t sell trade or transfer it in any market affected by the freeze.  
 

Assets can be seized if they are linked to a crime.  The seizure can be challenged, but “linked” has been interpreted pretty broadly by US courts.  A lot of the property located in Europe and the US owned by Russian oligarchs can probably be linked to money laundering.  

[stephanier.1765]

9 minutes ago, Danae said:

There are two levels of this — freezing and seizing.  When assets (like bank accounts) are frozen they will be released after the sanctions are lifted. If something like a yacht is frozen then the owner still has it but can’t sell trade or transfer it in any market affected by the freeze.  
 

Assets can be seized if they are linked to a crime.  The seizure can be challenged, but “linked” has been interpreted pretty broadly by US courts.  A lot of the property located in Europe and the US owned by Russian oligarchs can probably be linked to money laundering.  

Thank you. I was thrown by the use of the word "seized" in news reports over "frozen" because, like you said, I've always associated seized as something that is done with property linked to crimes.

[stephanier.1765]

24 minutes ago, TheReader said:

Following along; it baffles me.  One of the oligarchs is head of/huge supporter of an international fencing organization (the sport of fencing), and stepped down over this, and the fencing community is watching and waiting to see what happens. And of course the owner of the Chelsea football club, and also several properties in London, and.....the whole thing is just weird. 

It seems strangely Thought Policey to me, like we're/they're seizing property in case these people might decide to use their funds to keep the war going, whether they actually have close ties to do so or not. 

I thought (and truly it is just my thinking and has no basis on anything I know) that they were tying up the assets of oligarchs as a way to put financial pressure on them so they will put political pressure on Putin. There are so many facets to this war on both sides that have me realizing just how little I know about how war and the politics behind them work.

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, stephanier.1765 said:

Thank you. I was thrown by the use of the word "seized" in news reports over "frozen" because, like you said, I've always associated seized as something that is done with property linked to crimes.

I doubt it has to go with something concrete like money laundering. At this point they can probably be found guilty of funding international war crimes. 
 

This is a problem in the US too. Police can seize assets like cash solely because it’s a suspicious amount of cash. Usually the suspects can’t afford to sue so in some jurisdictions they never get things back. Totally unconstitutional but has been allowed in many places. 

[TheReader]

1 minute ago, stephanier.1765 said:

I thought (and truly it is just my thinking and has no basis on anything I know) that they were tying up the assets of oligarchs as a way to put financial pressure on them so they will put political pressure on Putin. There are so many facets to this war on both sides that have me realizing just how little I know about how war and the politics behind them work.

Ah, that might be. 

And, me too (on realizing I know so very little about these things...). 

[Danae]

6 minutes ago, stephanier.1765 said:

I thought (and truly it is just my thinking and has no basis on anything I know) that they were tying up the assets of oligarchs as a way to put financial pressure on them so they will put political pressure on Putin. There are so many facets to this war on both sides that have me realizing just how little I know about how war and the politics behind them work.

There are assets that have known links to crimes that haven’t been seized in the past for diplomatic reasons.  The diplomatic pressures are now reversed, and part of that is the hope that it will put pressure on Putin.  

[Dianthus]

It's a drop in the bucket for billionaires. They could care less. It's just governments trying to pretend they are doing something while not wanting to actually risk anything for Ukraine. History repeats itself. No one wanted to get involved with Germany in WW2 and Germany just kept taking more territory. Why would Russia stop with Ukraine? They will take Ukraine, then all the former USSR, then threaten the rest of Europe. As unpleasant as it is, the time for involvement is now. Real involvement, not seizing yachts.

[vonfirmath]

28 minutes ago, Spirea said:

It's a drop in the bucket for billionaires. They could care less. It's just governments trying to pretend they are doing something while not wanting to actually risk anything for Ukraine. History repeats itself. No one wanted to get involved with Germany in WW2 and Germany just kept taking more territory. Why would Russia stop with Ukraine? They will take Ukraine, then all the former USSR, then threaten the rest of Europe. As unpleasant as it is, the time for involvement is now. Real involvement, not seizing yachts.

What would you have the US do?

I would like us to do more. But I can understand the calculus better after reading a few more articles about the tightrope that is being walked.  I am praying that some of these oligarchs inside Russia will react to the pressure by shutting it down from within because I'm not sure how much more we can do without risking a nuclear war.

Editorial: U.S. must tread carefully as it increases sanctions on Russia for Ukraine invasion (yahoo.com)

NATO Intervention In Ukraine Could Spark Nuclear War. Here's How (thefederalist.com)

[AnotherNewName]

5 hours ago, Spirea said:

It's a drop in the bucket for billionaires. They could care less. It's just governments trying to pretend they are doing something while not wanting to actually risk anything for Ukraine. History repeats itself. No one wanted to get involved with Germany in WW2 and Germany just kept taking more territory. Why would Russia stop with Ukraine? They will take Ukraine, then all the former USSR, then threaten the rest of Europe. As unpleasant as it is, the time for involvement is now. Real involvement, not seizing yachts.

Considering the difficulty Russia is having with Ukraine, I am not certain we can consider their military a threat to most NATO nations.  Continued sanctions will make rearming and upgrading even more difficult for them.

[Farrar]

It's hard for me to get fussed about billionaires who are propping up an authoritarian regime with multiple human rights violations on a daily basis that's invading a sovereign nation not being able to sell their yachts and having tantrums about how it's not fun to own their favorite internationally famous football clubs anymore. Russians, go... well, you know what the signs and graffiti in Ukraine all say. That.

[Sneezyone]

7 hours ago, Danae said:

There are two levels of this — freezing and seizing.  When assets (like bank accounts) are frozen they will be released after the sanctions are lifted. If something like a yacht is frozen then the owner still has it but can’t sell trade or transfer it in any market affected by the freeze.  
 

Assets can be seized if they are linked to a crime.  The seizure can be challenged, but “linked” has been interpreted pretty broadly by US courts.  A lot of the property located in Europe and the US owned by Russian oligarchs can probably be linked to money laundering.  

Indeed. We have something very similar in the US (asset forfeiture laws) for criminal and civil infractions (or, more often, the mere allegation of of such).

 

7 hours ago, Katy said:

Police can seize assets like cash solely because it’s a suspicious amount of cash. Usually the suspects can’t afford to sue so in some jurisdictions they never get things back. Totally unconstitutional but has been allowed in many places. 

Sadly, it's not unconstitutional. SCOTUS hasn't seen fit to find it so.

[madteaparty]

I’m guessing they’re holding them so they can’t be sold/ used. I think even extremely wealthy people borrow money and I imagine the margin calls now that people are on sanctions list are intended to exercise pressure.

but frankly, it feels like a bit of theatre. They closed EU airspace but look, Serbia doubled the flights out of Russia the very next day. I mean, if they want to get to their Paris and London apartments, it’s just a bit of a longer ride. They won’t be lining up at the ATM in Moscow. 

[Faith-manor]

42 minutes ago, madteaparty said:

I’m guessing they’re holding them so they can’t be sold/ used. I think even extremely wealthy people borrow money and I imagine the margin calls now that people are on sanctions list are intended to exercise pressure.

but frankly, it feels like a bit of theatre. They closed EU airspace but look, Serbia doubled the flights out of Russia the very next day. I mean, if they want to get to their Paris and London apartments, it’s just a bit of a longer ride. They won’t be lining up at the ATM in Moscow. 

I agree. I don't give a flip about billionaires who support a madman whining about their money and their boats. I have gestures for them that are not polite. But, it is also a lot of theater on NATO's part. If the damn oligarchs were actually going to do something about Putin, they would have done it long before now and put on non-fascist moderate in power so they could happily and peacefully keep amassing wealth. They didn't. Clearly they support his rhetoric enough to not give a damn AND have enough assets in Asia and the Middle East to go on living a life of luxury. Theater, theaters theater....

[KSera]

12 hours ago, AnotherNewName said:

Considering the difficulty Russia is having with Ukraine, I am not certain we can consider their military a threat to most NATO nations.  Continued sanctions will make rearming and upgrading even more difficult for them.

You don’t consider the use of nuclear weapons a bigger threat and one that would be easier for them to carry out? They have so many of them. 

[KrissiK]

18 hours ago, stephanier.1765 said:

I thought (and truly it is just my thinking and has no basis on anything I know) that they were tying up the assets of oligarchs as a way to put financial pressure on them so they will put political pressure on Putin. There are so many facets to this war on both sides that have me realizing just how little I know about how war and the politics behind them work.

I read an article about this and the writer indicated that this was the thinking. Since these are the people in power, they could actually put the reigns on Putin.

[AnotherNewName]

54 minutes ago, KSera said:

You don’t consider the use of nuclear weapons a bigger threat and one that would be easier for them to carry out? They have so many of them. 

It is a defensive threat but not one I worry about as an offensive threat as the outcome for all is assured if that line is crossed.

[KSera]

47 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

It is a defensive threat but not one I worry about as an offensive threat as the outcome for all is assured if that line is crossed.

Putin has made enough statements that I don’t in the least trust him to not go there. He is making a point to state that he considers current actions to be acts of war against Russia and he has said in the past that he sees no point in a world without Russia. The more cornered he is, the more I can see him deciding to burn it all down rather than lose 😥. 

[AnotherNewName]

7 minutes ago, KSera said:

Putin has made enough statements that I don’t in the least trust him to not go there. He is making a point to state that he considers current actions to be acts of war against Russia and he has said in the past that he sees no point in a world without Russia. The more cornered he is, the more I can see him deciding to burn it all down rather than lose 😥. 

Russia, like the US, has multiple layers in between the leader and the actual launch of nuclear weapons.  Why would those around sign the death warrants of themselves and everyone around them because Putin is angry? 

 

[Faith-manor]

6 minutes ago, KSera said:

Putin has made enough statements that I don’t in the least trust him to not go there. He is making a point to state that he considers current actions to be acts of war against Russia and he has said in the past that he sees no point in a world without Russia. The more cornered he is, the more I can see him deciding to burn it all down rather than lose 😥. 

Yes. Mutually assured destruction is only "security" if every single one of the leaders of the nine nations holding ICBM nukes is rational and gives a rat's behind about NOT killing their own people. Putin doesn't care how many Russian corpses he produces in order to "win". I really do not understand why people think this guy is so " restrained". Good grief. 

He is Hitler 2.0, and if Hitler had possessed the bomb, he would have wrecked the world with it or died trying. This kind of fascist ideology is not afraid to die for the cause, and is only too happy to watch the carnage right to the bitter end. He is exponentially worse than Un.

1962 a Soviet and a US sub got in a skirmish off cuba, and the soviet commander authorized the launch of a 10 kiloton nuke. His 2nd in command was able to talk him out of it at the last second. This was with the " rational minds" of Kruschev and Kennedy in charge. Intelligence reports suggest that current Russian army and navy commanders are far less well trained than Soviet ones, and communication is very, very poor. So once at war with Ukraine, economy in a tail spin, and their backs against the wall, just exactly how calm and logical do we expect his conscripted, untrained minions to be? It doesn't have to be on Putin's orders at all. Numbskulls were shelling a nuclear power plant for cripes sake.

[livetoread]

59 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

Russia, like the US, has multiple layers in between the leader and the actual launch of nuclear weapons.  Why would those around sign the death warrants of themselves and everyone around them because Putin is angry? 

 

We have multiple layers? That's not my understanding at all. The President gives the order, it's carried out, done. Now maybe there are a couple of layers in the "carrying out" part, but they would be under orders and I assume would follow them.

[Frances]

3 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

I agree. I don't give a flip about billionaires who support a madman whining about their money and their boats. I have gestures for them that are not polite. But, it is also a lot of theater on NATO's part. If the damn oligarchs were actually going to do something about Putin, they would have done it long before now and put on non-fascist moderate in power so they could happily and peacefully keep amassing wealth. They didn't. Clearly they support his rhetoric enough to not give a damn AND have enough assets in Asia and the Middle East to go on living a life of luxury. Theater, theaters theater....

I disagree. I’m not sure it’s going to ultimately work, but I think pressuring the oligarchs financially might cause them to actually do something. I don’t think it’s necessarily true that they previously had similar motivation.

I admit I don’t know enough about how politics work in Russia to know if the oligarchs could literally have put a non-fascist moderate in power long before this. But things have been working just fine for them with Putin for a long time and they are also aided by laws all over the world, including in the US, that allow true ownership of property and companies to be hidden under layers of shell companies. Plus, would a non-fascist moderate allowed them to get away with all of their shady dealing for so long, as Putin directly benefits financially from it?

I’m reminded of when we’re in the Czech Republic in the late summer/early fall of 2016 and were taking a guided walking tour in Prague. The guide was explaining about how their President was drunk at his inauguration and sharing other unflattering things about him and his lack of fitness for office. One of the Americans in our group looked shocked and asked how could that possibly happen? The guide replied, “how did it happen that you have T as the R nominee for President?” And then the guide scared all of us a bit when he said, “And he will win. The US is not immune from the problems of populism and propaganda that affect so many other countries.” Sadly, he was right.

[Faith-manor]

25 minutes ago, Frances said:

I disagree. I’m not sure it’s going to ultimately work, but I think pressuring the oligarchs financially might cause them to actually do something. I don’t think it’s necessarily true that they previously had similar motivation.

I admit I don’t know enough about how politics work in Russia to know if the oligarchs could literally have put a non-fascist moderate in power long before this. But things have been working just fine for them with Putin for a long time and they are also aided by laws all over the world, including in the US, that allow true ownership of property and companies to be hidden under layers of shell companies. Plus, would a non-fascist moderate allowed them to get away with all of their shady dealing for so long, as Putin directly benefits financially from it?

I’m reminded of when we’re in the Czech Republic in the late summer/early fall of 2016 and were taking a guided walking tour in Prague. The guide was explaining about how their President was drunk at his inauguration and sharing other unflattering things about him and his lack of fitness for office. One of the Americans in our group looked shocked and asked how could that possibly happen? The guide replied, “how did it happen that you have T as the R nominee for President?” And then the guide scared all of us a bit when he said, “And he will win. The US is not immune from the problems of populism and propaganda that affect so many other countries.” Sadly, he was right.

And that is the point. Putin benefits the oligarchy and that has not changed just because "sanctions". Had they wanted a more decent human on principle, they would have had one before now. They didn't. They aren't stupid either,  knew this was a strong possibility, and did what? Nothing. 

They have a ton of money in Asia that isn't going to be touched or sanctioned, plenty of oil, precious minerals, and other stuff to sell to players besides NATO. It would take the entire world sanctioning them, shutting down banking, and refusing to do business for this to work. China, the Pacific Rim, the Middle East, Africa, Brazil (Bolsonaro loves him) will continue to do business with those oligarchs. And ya. This nation fell for it too. So with these kinds of despots gaining support from extremists around the world, I do not understand why people think " mutually assured destruction" is safety.

[Frances]

But would a more decent human allowed them to reach the level of power and wealth they have? Why would they have acted before now and risked getting someone who might have tried to clean things up and actually wanted what was best for the country and not just themself and the elites?

I don’t disagree it might not be enough financial pressure unless the rest of the world is involved. As I said, I’m not convinced it will eventually work. But I don’t think it’s all theatre. And maybe it will ultimately lead to some positive fundamental change to bring about ownership transparency, at least in many of the leading democratic countries in the world.

[Corraleno]

44 minutes ago, livetoread said:

We have multiple layers? That's not my understanding at all. The President gives the order, it's carried out, done. Now maybe there are a couple of layers in the "carrying out" part, but they would be under orders and I assume would follow them.

The President has the sole authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons, and the military must carry it out — BUT the order must be legal and the President must be "competent." There was considerable discussion about this after the election last fall. From the Congressional Research Service in November:

"The President, however, does not need the concurrence of either his military advisors or the U.S. Congress to order the launch of nuclear weapons. Neither the military nor Congress can overrule these orders. As former STRATCOM Commander General Robert Kehler has noted, members of the military are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice “to follow orders provided they are legal and have come from competent authority.” But questions about the legality of the order—whether it is consistent with the requirements, under the laws of armed conflict (LOAC), for necessity, proportionality, and distinction—are more likely to lead to consultations and changes in the President’s order than to a refusal by the military to execute the order."

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF10521.pdf

[KSera]

2 hours ago, AnotherNewName said:

Russia, like the US, has multiple layers in between the leader and the actual launch of nuclear weapons.  Why would those around sign the death warrants of themselves and everyone around them because Putin is angry? 

 

Well, this is what I tell myself when I’m trying to sleep at night, and it brings me a little comfort. I don’t think it’s all that many layers though, and I can see them going along with a “smaller” nuclear weapon, at which point all bets are off what happens next. Ugh. 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, livetoread said:

We have multiple layers? That's not my understanding at all. The President gives the order, it's carried out, done. Now maybe there are a couple of layers in the "carrying out" part, but they would be under orders and I assume would follow them.

Neurenberg.

Just carrying out orders does not absolve *anyone* in the chain of command from responsibility for illegal acts committed during war. Everyone in the nuclear chain of responsibility/custody, is responsible for how and whether they are used. Any individual can say no and all have an obligation to say no to using nukes offensively in contravention of the laws of war.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Sneezyone

[livetoread]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Neurenberg.

Just carrying out orders does not absolve *anyone* in the chain of command from responsibility for illegal acts committed during war. Everyone in the nuclear chain of responsibility/custody, is responsible for how and whether they are used. Any individual can say no and all have an obligation to say no to using nukes offensively in contravention of the laws of war.

Agreed, but I would also think that those in the chain of command might not have the full picture and know that, so they follow the order assuming they don't have all the information to decide if it is an illegal act or not. For example, if tomorrow Biden gives the order to bomb Russia with nuclear weapons, is everyone down the chain of command going to have all the info about why he is ordering it and whether he is correct in ordering it? Or are they going to assume there is info they aren't aware of and follow orders? We're talking very short amounts of time if Russia launches first. Is everyone going to know Russia launched first, or will it just be assumed even if they didn't?

[Sneezyone]

43 minutes ago, livetoread said:

Agreed, but I would also think that those in the chain of command might not have the full picture and know that, so they follow the order assuming they don't have all the information to decide if it is an illegal act or not. For example, if tomorrow Biden gives the order to bomb Russia with nuclear weapons, is everyone down the chain of command going to have all the info about why he is ordering it and whether he is correct in ordering it? Or are they going to assume there is info they aren't aware of and follow orders? We're talking very short amounts of time if Russia launches first. Is everyone going to know Russia launched first, or will it just be assumed even if they didn't?

At the very bottom, maybe not. At the mid-level/top, hell yes. They are well aware of the stakes. This is something even junior nuke officers are trained on and certainly senior enlisted personnel. For a general, all purpose overview, this is good. There are lots of details, and different kinds of scenarios of course, but in all cases, the military and its members are tasked with carrying out lawful orders. LAWFUL. RESPONDING to an attack is not the same as launching one which is what many here keep calling for. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ReferenceSheet_NuclearCommandAndControl.pdf

Edited March 6, 2022 by Sneezyone

[madteaparty]

6 hours ago, Frances said:

I disagree. I’m not sure it’s going to ultimately work, but I think pressuring the oligarchs financially might cause them to actually do something. I don’t think it’s necessarily true that they previously had similar motivation.

I admit I don’t know enough about how politics work in Russia to know if the oligarchs could literally have put a non-fascist moderate in power long before this. But things have been working just fine for them with Putin for a long time and they are also aided by laws all over the world, including in the US, that allow true ownership of property and companies to be hidden under layers of shell companies. Plus, would a non-fascist moderate allowed them to get away with all of their shady dealing for so long, as Putin directly benefits financially from it?

I’m reminded of when we’re in the Czech Republic in the late summer/early fall of 2016 and were taking a guided walking tour in Prague. The guide was explaining about how their President was drunk at his inauguration and sharing other unflattering things about him and his lack of fitness for office. One of the Americans in our group looked shocked and asked how could that possibly happen? The guide replied, “how did it happen that you have T as the R nominee for President?” And then the guide scared all of us a bit when he said, “And he will win. The US is not immune from the problems of populism and propaganda that affect so many other countries.” Sadly, he was right.

There is no actual pressure. Instead of a direct flight, there’s now a connection.  Their children and families are already in the west, anyway. 

[Sneezyone]

11 minutes ago, madteaparty said:

There is no actual pressure. Instead of a direct flight, there’s now a connection.  Their children and families are already in the west, anyway. 

Having limited resources and being a pariah for people who have only known life on easy street is pressure. It's not one that would trouble me, personally, but it is deeply affecting to them and their children. I don't know that it would/could affect regime change but it's a move in the right direction. As @Pam in CTsays, better is better.

Edited March 7, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Farrar]

My understanding is that many of the oligarchs are unhappy. Whether these ultimately minor to them inconveniences are going to be enough to make them do anything, I'm dubious. But they are annoyed. And maybe that's the best we can do. Like, I'm not going to support not bothering to annoy them just because we can't do anything better.

[Corraleno]

I think the seizures of yachts and villas are just a very visible warning shot, which is likely to be followed by more significant efforts to untangle shell corporations and expose money laundering operations; those will ultimately have much more impact. Western countries have turned a blind eye for too long, because banks, real estate developers, and other wealthy people (including politicians) have benefited from the influx of Russian money. But now, for example, the NY state legislature is introducing a bill to require all property purchases in NY to declare the actual beneficial owner — no more hiding behind shell corporations, which is how most Russian (and Saudi, Chinese, etc) billionaires stash their money abroad. Having your yacht or your villa seized may not be a big deal, but if you end up with criminal charges for money laundering in the US and most European countries, that is going to put a dent in your lifestyle. A lot of these guys, and their families, really don't want to live in Russia.