JERSEY should impose EU sanctions against Russian oligarchs in addition to UK measures, an assistant minister has said.
Deputy Kirsten Morel argued the Island should change its current approach ‘to ensure we are doing all we can’ to support Ukraine in the conflict.
Jersey acts in ‘lockstep’ with the UK government when it comes to sanctions, meaning all new UK penalties ‘immediately and automatically’ come into force in the Island, according to External Relations Minister Ian Gorst.
As well as Deputy Morel’s comments, a court notice issued to the JEP has confirmed that a formal freezing order for $7 billion-worth of assets suspected to be linked to Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich will not be made public, as it includes the ‘private affairs of individuals’.
Deputy Morel said: ‘I do not believe Jersey is doing all it can to help Ukraine. The reason for that is our law explicitly allows for us to adopt EU sanctions. Currently the government has chosen not to adopt EU sanctions.’
He added: ‘It means someone sanctioned by the EU could have assets in Jersey at the moment and they would not be under any asset-freezing orders.’
Deputy Morel recently lodged a written States question on the matter, to which Senator Gorst responded that UK sanctions were co-ordinated ‘at the highest level’ with the EU and USA.
He added: ‘Ultimately, it is the UK which is responsible for the Island’s foreign relations as a matter of international law and Jersey has always been aligned with the UK on sanctions. Jersey is not best placed to make decisions about sanctions outside the UK framework.
‘Wherever there are differences in sanctions restrictions applied by jurisdictions there is the possibility that an individual or entity sanctioned in one jurisdiction is able to carry out actions or transactions that would be prohibited in another. This is why it is important that jurisdictions work together to continue to align as closely as possible with each other on the sanctions they implement.’
Deputy Morel also highlighted the example of the Caribbean island of Antigua, which said last month that it would be enforcing all EU, UK and US sanctions. He said ‘ideally’ Jersey would also adopt US sanctions but believed this would not be easy under the current sanctions law.
As well as asset freezes, Senator Gorst said in a letter to the JEP last week that Jersey was ‘one of the few places in the world’ to obtain a court order to seize financial assets linked to the Russian Federation.
The formal freezing order, known as a saisie judiciaire, froze assets believed to be connected to Mr Abramovich – the former owner of Chelsea Football Club – last week.
It was imposed on assets either located in Jersey or owned by Jersey-incorporated entities that are suspected to be linked to Mr Abramovich. The States police recently carried out a raid at Jersey premises suspected to be connected to the business activities of the Russian oligarch.
Following inquiries by this newspaper, a notice issued by the Judicial Greffe stated that there was ‘no basis’ for making the information in the formal freezing order public. This could change, however, if the granting of the order was challenged before the court.
The notice stated: ‘A saisie judiciare is an interim preserving order designed to freeze assets where, amongst other things, the Attorney General has commenced a criminal investigation.
‘It is generally obtained ex parte from a judge of the Royal Court and is akin to an application for an interim freezing order obtained ex parte in civil proceedings.
‘Such applications are accordingly for the most part made and granted in chambers and possibly on the papers alone (that is without an oral application or hearing).
‘There is no basis to release what is accordingly confidential information touching on the private affairs of individuals on which the application for the saisie is made nor to release the Act of Court which is in effect a freezing order which also will potentially make reference to details relating to persons or entities that are entitled at this point to privacy. That situation may change were the grant of the saisie to be challenged before the court.’
