1. The Seduction of Being “Welcome”

For ultra high net worth individuals, the allure of low-tax jurisdictions is clear: move here, invest here, and your wealth is welcome. High value resident (HVR) programmes, golden visas, and glossy marketing can make it seem as if a jurisdiction has made a binding decision to embrace you and your assets. But what happens when the political climate shifts, and yesterday’s welcome turns into today’s scrutiny?

The Jersey courts recently addressed this question in Abramovich v Attorney General. The issue: does a government’s earlier decision to court a high value resident mean the state is barred from treating their wealth as potentially criminal? The answer was a resounding “no”—and the reasoning is essential for anyone relying on government warm words or residency approvals.

2. What Abramovich Argued

In [2024] JRC 190 and [2025] JCA 292, Abramovich’s team claimed abuse of power based on legitimate expectation. Their argument:

• Between 2016 and 2017, Jersey approved HVR applications for Abramovich and close associates, and granted a business licence to a company he ultimately owned.

• Officials knew, or should have known, about the 2012 English judgment discussing “krysha” and alleged corruption around Sibneft.

• By granting these approvals, the government—advised by the Attorney General—sent a clear message: Abramovich and his wealth were welcome, and assets linked to Sibneft would not be treated as criminal property.

• To later open a money laundering investigation based on the same 2012 material, and to obtain a saisie over the assets, was said to be an “affront to justice”.

In short: once you invite someone in with full knowledge of their history, can you years later freeze their assets based on that same history?

3. How the Courts Defined Legitimate Expectation

The courts accepted that HVR approvals and licences are economically significant. But they drew a sharp constitutional line:

• Only prosecutors and investigators can give binding assurances. The Royal Court stressed that these actors are independent of government. Political or economic bodies—such as a Chief Minister or regulator—cannot promise immunity from investigation or prosecution.
  
  

• No clear, specific promise was found. Even if officials knew the details of the 2012 judgment, nothing in the HVR or licence decisions amounted to a specific assurance that no money laundering investigation would ever be opened.
  
  

• Context can change. The 2012 judgment existed long before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and subsequent sanctions. Opening a money laundering investigation in a new geopolitical context did not contradict any earlier, general “welcome”.

On this basis, the courts held that the legitimate expectation ground was unarguable at the permission stage, and the Court of Appeal agreed.

4. Lessons for High Value Residents and Their Advisers

If you are considering, or already hold, a high value residence or golden visa, the Abramovich case offers uncomfortable but vital clarity:

• Residency is not a legal shield. Approval under an HVR or investor programme does not mean your source of wealth will never be questioned—especially if geopolitics or sanctions landscapes shift.

• Assurances must be specific and from the right actor. A newsletter from a ministry or a politician’s speech about being “open for business” does not carry the same legal weight as a clear, written assurance from a prosecutor or law enforcement body.

• Even then, courts are cautious. Case law shows courts are reluctant to treat non-prosecution promises as unbreakable, particularly if new evidence or context emerges.

• Your risk is jurisdiction-wide, not department-specific. The economic development arm of a government may be enthusiastic about your investment, but prosecutors, regulators, and law enforcement may take a very different view when pressure rises.
  
  
  

5. Practical Checklist Before You Move Your Wealth

Before committing to a new jurisdiction or HVR programme, ask your advisers to help you work through:

• What public or semi-public information already exists about the way I acquired my wealth—including old litigation and arbitration awards?

• How might that information be viewed if politics change—such as sanctions being extended or allies becoming adversaries?

• What formal due diligence is the jurisdiction doing on me, and what written record (if any) exists of that analysis?

• If a future investigation is opened, what would my realistic legal options be, and how long could an asset freeze last in practice?

Using a tool like Caira, you can build a clean chronology of your wealth, upload historic judgments or corporate documents, and draft the questions you want your lawyers and tax advisers to answer in writing. It will not create a “get out of jail free” card, but it will help ensure that when you are told you are “welcome”, you understand exactly what that does—and does not—mean.

Key Takeaway:
A “welcome to Jersey” letter, residency approval, or business licence is not a legal guarantee. Only clear, written assurances from prosecutors or law enforcement carry real weight—and even those are subject to change if the facts or context shift. Preparation, clarity, and ongoing risk assessment are essential for anyone moving wealth across borders.