1. Why This Case Should Be on Every Trustee’s Radar

Abramovich v Attorney General is not just a geopolitical headline—it’s a live demonstration of how swiftly large trust structures can be overtaken by sanctions and criminal law tools. In Jersey, around US$7bn in assets connected with two trusts were brought under a saisie judiciaire, vesting them in the Viscount while money laundering and sanctions investigations continue.

This article focuses on the structural lessons for those charged with safeguarding wealth: what a saisie does to a trust, how beneficiary status and standing played out, and the practical risk management steps trustees should be considering now.

2. The Basic Structure in the Jersey Judgments

The judgments, anonymised for privacy, show:

• Two trusts held significant assets, largely derived from the sale of shares in Sibneft, as discussed in the 2012 English judgment.

• Assets were moved to Jersey in two main tranches—one in 2017, another in 2021—and administered by a professional trust company.

• After sanctions were imposed in March 2022, the Jersey Attorney General obtained a saisie judiciaire in April 2022 under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999, vesting those trust assets in the Viscount.

• Abramovich argued he had been irrevocably excluded as a beneficiary of at least one trust, with his children now the beneficiaries. His daughter was joined as an applicant in the proceedings.

The trusts, companies, and beneficiaries are anonymised in the public judgments (e.g., “G Limited”, “H Limited”, “A Limited”, “XY”). The structure will be familiar to many trust professionals: long-standing holding vehicles, multiple beneficiaries, and a mix of tax planning and asset protection motives.

3. What a Saisie Judiciaire Means for Trustees

Once a saisie is granted under Article 16 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999:

• Trustees lose effective control over the specified assets; distributions or restructuring require court and Viscount involvement.

• Assets are “parked” while a criminal investigation runs its course, which can last years.

• Trustees retain fiduciary duties to keep beneficiaries informed (subject to legal constraints) and to protect the assets as far as possible, including monitoring how the Viscount administers them.

In Abramovich’s case, attempts to discharge the saisie failed. The Royal Court treated the challenge to the freeze as rising or falling with the broader judicial review grounds: since there was no realistic basis to stop the investigation, the court was not persuaded to unwind the saisie.

4. Beneficiary Status, Standing and Trust Changes

A key feature was the argument about whether Abramovich had standing to challenge the saisie after being excluded as a beneficiary, with his children taking his place. The Royal Court noted:

• Questions of locus standi (who has standing) can be complex, especially where settlors or former beneficiaries seek to challenge orders over assets they say they no longer own.

• In this case, Abramovich’s daughter—a current beneficiary—was joined to the proceedings, so disputes over standing fell away.

For trustees, this highlights:

• Post-sanctions restructurings that change beneficiary classes or control can come under scrutiny, especially if they appear designed to shield assets from enforcement.

• Even if a settlor is removed as a beneficiary, courts may expect new beneficiaries (often close family) to front any challenge to a freeze or confiscation order.
  
  
  

5. Practical Risk Lessons for Trustees and Family Offices

Stepping back, Abramovich v AG suggests several practical steps:

• Map historic risk factors. Do not treat old civil judgments, allegations of corruption, or political exposure as irrelevant. They can trigger modern AML and sanctions action.
  
  
  

• Scenario-plan for enforcement events. Ask: what would happen if a saisie were granted tomorrow over this trust’s assets? Who would have standing to act? How would you communicate with beneficiaries?
  
  
  

• Document your decision-making. If asked to restructure, exclude beneficiaries, or move assets in response to sanctions or political events, record the rationale and advice in detail. Courts and regulators may later scrutinise those steps.
  
  
  

• Engage early with regulators and law officers. In high-risk situations, waiting passively for enforcement action is rarely wise. Proactive engagement—carefully planned with counsel—can sometimes shape the scope and management of freezes.
  
  
  

• Maintain a compliance file. Keep legal opinions, board minutes, and correspondence relating to any restructuring or exclusion decisions.

Tools like Caira can help you and your legal team build structured timelines of trust changes, board minutes, and correspondence, making it easier to respond quickly if authorities ask for explanations or if beneficiaries challenge your decisions.

Key Takeaway:
In a sanctions-driven world, trustees who can prove they understood and managed risk thoughtfully are far better placed than those who simply assumed that yesterday’s approvals would last forever. Regular risk reviews, scenario planning, and detailed documentation are essential for protecting both assets and reputation.