1. “This Investigation is Political” – Why That Argument Rarely Wins

When a state investigates a politically exposed billionaire, the instinctive response is often: this is politics, not law. In the media, lawyers and spokespeople may claim prosecutors are bowing to headlines or foreign pressure. But in court, the evidential standard is far higher. The Abramovich v Attorney General case in Jersey is a textbook example: Abramovich’s team argued that the 2022 money laundering investigation and the saisie judiciaire over US$7bn were driven by improper political motives linked to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Both the Royal Court and Court of Appeal rejected this argument, offering a cautionary lesson for anyone considering an “abuse of power” challenge on political grounds.

2. The Political Backdrop in the Jersey Judgments

The Royal Court in [2024] JRC 190 acknowledged that politics were part of the wider context. The judgment noted:

• Changing attitudes to Russian-linked wealth after events like the Salisbury attacks in 2018.

• Internal government emails showing the “risk profile” for Russian HVRs had shifted.

• Public statements and taskforces after the Ukraine invasion, with Jersey pledging to identify and freeze relevant Russian assets.

Abramovich was sanctioned and the saisie was obtained in this climate. On its face, the timing looked political: assets once welcomed were now under scrutiny.

3. Ground 2 – Political Motives and Why It Failed

Abramovich’s judicial review application alleged that the Attorney General’s decision to investigate was adopted for “extraneous” reasons—namely, to bolster Jersey’s reputation after the invasion and justify the saisie. The court was asked to find “ulterior motive, predilection and prejudice.”

The Royal Court accepted that prosecutors must not act for improper political purposes and cited English and Jersey case law on abuse of process. But it refused leave to apply for judicial review on this ground, for reasons endorsed by the Court of Appeal:

• No direct evidence showed the Attorney General was politically motivated; the court would not infer bad faith from public statements alone.

• There was a credible law enforcement explanation: once sanctions were imposed and the source-of-funds pointed to Sibneft and the 2012 judgment, a money laundering investigation was “all but inevitable.”

• Failings in transparency or candour did not, on the evidence, amount to proof of improper political purpose.

In short, the courts recognised the political context but refused to equate it with political abuse.

4. The Wider Case Law on Political Motivation

The Jersey judgments align with UK and Privy Council authorities (Corner House, Bermingham, Soma Oil & Gas). Common themes:

• Courts recognise political pressure in high-profile cases but presume prosecutors act in good faith unless clear evidence shows otherwise.

• To prove improper motive, it’s not enough to point to speeches or diplomatic considerations; there must be convincing material that the actual decision-maker was driven by an illegitimate purpose.

• Even strong criticism of an investigation’s conduct (delays, disclosure issues, poor communication) does not automatically make it abusive.
  
  
  

5. What This Means for People Under Sanctions or Intense Scrutiny

If you, your family, or your business are caught up in sanctions or regulatory action, the message from Abramovich v AG is clear:

• Use “political” arguments with caution. They may work in the media, but courts require clear, direct evidence of improper motive.
  
  

• Expect courts to seek a rational law-enforcement explanation. If prosecutors can point to credible grounds—historic judgments, source-of-funds, suspicious transactions—that will usually defeat an allegation of political abuse.
  
  

• Focus on concrete procedural failings. Challenges are more likely to succeed if you can show specific breaches (lack of candour, unlawful data handling, failure to consider relevant factors) rather than broad accusations about reputation management.
  
  

• Document everything. Keep a detailed record of communications, decisions, and procedural steps. This can be critical if a challenge is needed.
  
  

Tools like Caira can help you and your advisers build a precise timeline of emails, meetings, public statements, and legal steps—helping you separate narrative from evidence. That, in turn, will help you decide whether an abuse-of-power challenge is realistically worth running, or whether your energy is better spent on managing the investigation, preparing for potential prosecution, or negotiating a resolution.

Key Takeaway:
Courts distinguish between political context and actual political abuse. Only clear, convincing evidence of improper motive by the decision-maker will succeed. Focus on procedural fairness and documentation, not just political arguments.