In December 2025, the British government put an end to a story that began in the spring of 2022. British Prime Minister Keit Starmer announced that Abramovich had been given 90 days to voluntarily transfer £2.5 billion from the sale of Chelsea to humanitarian aid for Ukraine, after which the government would be prepared to go to court to enforce this requirement.
In March-May 2022, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Western sanctions were imposed on a number of Russian businessmen close to the Kremlin and Putin personally. On March 10, 2022, the British government included Abramovich among the seven “richest and most influential oligarchs in Russia” and on the list of individuals subject to sanctions, explaining his inclusion by the fact that he is one of the few oligarchs from the 1990s who retained his status under Putin.
The sanctions blocked ownership and disposal of assets in the UK, and the sale of Chelsea became a way to minimize risks, preserve the asset, and remove direct responsibility for managing the club. At the same time, the UK government set conditions that the sale must be guaranteed and that the sanctioned owner would not benefit from it or be able to use the proceeds for personal gain. It was in this political and legal context that, in 2022, a promise was made to use the “clean” proceeds from the sale for charitable purposes, including to help victims of war.
The promise to transfer the proceeds to Ukraine carries legal and reputational significance. The legal aspect is the mechanism that allowed the government to agree on the terms of the deal and issue the necessary permits and licenses for transactions involving assets subject to sanctions. The reputational aspect is that the public statement served as a way to soften criticism of the Russian oligarch. It was important for British politicians to demonstrate that the proceeds from the sale would not go towards personal enrichment, but would be used to help those affected. For Abramovich himself, it meant an attempt to minimize political damage and show goodwill, but without getting rid of the legal and financial problems associated with corporate obligations.
The diplomatic context in which Abramovich made his statement about directing funds from the sale of Chelsea to help war victims deserves special attention. In the spring of 2022, he effectively acted as an informal mediator and one of the trusted intermediaries in contacts between Moscow and Kyiv, participating in the preparation and support of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in Istanbul. His role, confirmed by the Ukrainian and Israeli sides, was seen as a channel of “quiet diplomacy” aimed at quickly reaching agreements and ending hostilities. In this context, the promise to allocate the proceeds from the sale of the club to humanitarian causes could have been made in anticipation of a relatively quick end to the war and a limited amount of aid over a limited period of time — as a gesture of goodwill and an element of political compromise, rather than as a long-term commitment in the context of a protracted conflict. It is precisely the unfulfilled expectations of a quick peace that largely explain why Abramovich’s initial statement has now become the focus of a fierce political and legal dispute.
Documents and subsequent publications indicate that the structure behind Chelsea (Fordstam and related companies) includes large internal loans and mutual settlements, and part of the funds should formally go towards repaying loans issued in favor of companies associated with Abramovich. According to the analysis of the financial statements, after deducting such liabilities, the actual “net” amount available for transfer will be significantly less than £2.5 billion, and therefore one of Abramovich’s key legal lines of defense today is to challenge the demand to transfer the entire amount without taking into account corporate claims.
The political logic of Starmer and the Cabinet is that the state cannot accept that funds raised in a transaction under British jurisdiction remain unavailable to help those affected by the aggression and at the same time be “dependent” on internal loan tricks that only formally reduce the amount of aid transferred. That is why the government has prepared a license for the Financial Sanctions Implementation Office, a division of the Ministry of Finance responsible for enforcing sanctions, allowing money to be transferred to a new independent humanitarian fund for Ukraine and, at the same time, publicly promised legal enforcement if a voluntary decision is not forthcoming.
What are the most likely scenarios for the further development of the conflict between Abramovich and the British authorities? The first is a voluntary compromise, whereby the parties agree on a mechanism for transferring part of the funds under the control of an independent trust structure, taking into account the repayment of certain loans or their restructuring. This would allow the government to declare that it has fulfilled its promise, and Abramovich to avoid a public and lengthy legal process. The second involves a protracted legal dispute, in which Abramovich will challenge the amount of funds available for transfer, using corporate documentation and foreign jurisdictions. The third option is a partial transfer of funds with the remaining portion still in dispute, which will lead to a lengthy legal battle.
What are the most likely actions Abramovich himself will take? Judging by previous events and the nature of his defense lines, he will strengthen legal support through companies that formally own the rights to the proceeds, attempt to agree on the terms of the fund (for example, expand the geography of recipients or provide for coverage of debt claims), and probably make public statements in defense of his position. If legal proceedings do commence, the dispute will most likely move into the realm of complex accounting and corporate arguments, where the details of contracts, transfer dates, and jurisdiction will play a decisive role.
The conflict over £2.5 billion has become not just a matter of a charitable donation, but a symbolic and practical precedent for how the state, in an era of sanctions and geopolitical pressure, can and will dispose of capital linked to regimes or figures that are internationally condemned. The outcome of this dispute will determine not only the fate of the money, but also the limits of possibilities for similar private settlements in the future: from mechanisms for “freezing” assets to the practice of redirecting them to reconstruction and aid to war victims.