1. Where the Jersey Litigation Currently Stands

By mid-2025, Roman Abramovich had exhausted the principal avenues of challenge in Jersey. The Royal Court refused leave for judicial review of the Attorney General’s decision to investigate suspected money laundering and rejected his and his daughter’s application to discharge a saisie judiciaire over assets exceeding US$7bn. The Court of Appeal ([2025] JCA 292–294) dismissed his appeals and refused leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, applying the established test of “general public importance” (see Re Privy Council Appeals [2002] UKPC 1).

The saisie remains in force, and the underlying investigation continues. No criminal charges have been brought in Jersey as of the date of publication. This context raises a critical question: what legal and practical options remain for someone in Abramovich’s position after such a sequence of defeats?

This article does not speculate on Abramovich’s personal strategy or offer him advice. Instead, it sets out, in technical terms, the types of legal and practical options that may exist after a sequence of losses like this, and what they mean for others facing similar circumstances.

Timeline of Key Legal Events in the Roman Abramovich Jersey Litigation

Of course! Here’s a detailed timeline table you can add to your article, summarising the key events, legal actions, and outcomes in the Abramovich Jersey litigation. This format is suitable for professional readers and can be easily adapted for your blog.

2. Legal Avenues: What Has Been Closed and What Remains Open?

2.1 Domestic Appeals

The refusal of leave to appeal to the Privy Council by the Court of Appeal is a significant procedural endpoint. While it is theoretically possible to renew an application directly to the Privy Council under its rules, the threshold is extremely high. The Court of Appeal will only grant leave where the case raises a point of law of general public importance or there are exceptional circumstances (Re Privy Council Appeals [2002] UKPC 1). In Abramovich’s case, the Court of Appeal found the proposed grounds did not meet this test.

Once both the Royal Court and Court of Appeal have rejected an abuse-of-power challenge and upheld a saisie, further appeals on those issues are, in practice, almost foreclosed. The Privy Council is not a general court of further appeal for all Jersey matters; its jurisdiction is reserved for exceptional cases, as confirmed in Larsen v Comptroller of Taxes [2015] JRC 104.

2.2 Human Rights Routes

After exhausting domestic remedies, an individual may seek to bring a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Potential arguments could include:

• Article 6 (Right to a Fair Hearing): If it is alleged that the process for challenging the investigation or saisie was fundamentally unfair, for example, due to lack of effective judicial scrutiny or procedural irregularity. The ECHR has held in R (Das) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2014] 1 WLR 3538 that the right to a fair hearing is engaged where asset restraint has a significant impact on private life.
  
  
  

• Article 8 (Respect for Private and Family Life): In relation to the ongoing impact of asset freezes, publication of judgments, or reputational harm. The ECHR in Khuja v Times Newspapers [2019] AC 161 confirmed that Article 8 rights must be balanced against the public interest in open justice.

However, the ECHR is not a fourth-instance appellate court. It will only consider systemic violations of Convention rights, not mere errors of domestic law. Applications must satisfy strict admissibility criteria, including exhaustion of all effective domestic remedies and compliance with time limits. The process is lengthy and the success rate is low, especially where domestic courts have given reasoned judgments addressing the Convention issues.

2.3 Ongoing Domestic Process

Even after the main appellate routes are closed, Jersey law provides for further domestic steps that may be available to a respondent under a saisie judiciaire:

• Applications to Vary or Discharge the Saisie: Under Article 16(6) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999, any person affected by a saisie may apply to the Bailiff to discharge or vary the order. The court has discretion to allow reasonable living expenses, legal costs, or specific transactions, provided these do not undermine the purpose of the restraint. The Royal Court in AG v Bacon [2016] JRC 181 confirmed that the threshold for discharge is high, especially where the underlying investigation is ongoing and the risk of dissipation remains.
  
  

• Further Data Protection or Disclosure Litigation: Jersey’s data protection regime, modelled on the EU GDPR, allows for challenges to the handling of personal data by authorities. In Larsen v Attorney General [2019] (2) JLR 273, the Royal Court considered the scope of disclosure obligations in the context of criminal investigations and asset restraint, emphasising the need for proportionality and fairness.
  
  

• Criminal Proceedings: If the Attorney General ultimately brings charges, the accused can revisit abuse-of-process arguments at trial, particularly in light of the Crown’s duty of disclosure. The Royal Court in Warren v Attorney General of Jersey [2011] JLR 424 reaffirmed that the criminal process provides further procedural safeguards, including the right to challenge the lawfulness of the investigation and the restraint order.

Each of these steps would raise distinct legal and evidential questions and could generate new, focused judgments. The court’s approach will be guided by principles of proportionality, the need to protect the integrity of the investigation, and the rights of affected parties.

3. Beyond the Courtroom: Negotiation and Risk Management

Parallel to formal legal routes, broader strategic considerations often arise for individuals subject to long-running asset restraint:

• Negotiation with Authorities: It is not uncommon for subjects of protracted investigations to seek negotiated outcomes, such as agreed confiscation of a portion of assets or undertakings about future conduct, in exchange for discontinuance of proceedings. The feasibility of such negotiations depends on the facts, the prosecuting authority’s policy, and the public interest. The Royal Court in Re Esteem Settlement[2002] JLR 53 recognised the value of negotiated settlements in complex trust and asset restraint cases, provided they are transparent and do not undermine the objectives of the Proceeds of Crime Law.
  
  
  

• Restructuring Personal and Business Affairs: Individuals facing sustained sanctions and enforcement action often need to redesign their financial and personal structures. This may involve relocating, diversifying asset jurisdictions, and planning for the needs of family members in an environment where significant assets may remain frozen for years. The Jersey courts have scrutinised post-sanctions restructurings, especially where they appear designed to frustrate enforcement (see AG v Q [2016] JRC 194).

• Managing Reputational and Banking Risk: Prolonged investigations and asset freezes can severely impact access to banking, investment, and professional services. Proactive engagement with counterparties, clear documentation of the legal position, and ongoing compliance reviews are essential to preserve what access remains and to mitigate reputational fallout. The Royal Court has acknowledged in Larsen v Comptroller of Taxes [2015] JRC 104 that reputational harm is a real and material consequence of asset restraint, but it does not, by itself, justify discharge of a saisie.
  
  

4. Lessons for Others Facing (or Fearing) Similar Action

For those not in Abramovich’s position but concerned about potential enforcement against their wealth or structures, several lessons emerge from Jersey’s approach and wider case law:

• Assume a Long Time Horizon: Asset restraint and investigations of this scale are rarely resolved quickly. The Jersey courts have repeatedly emphasised that the duration of a saisie is not, in itself, a ground for discharge unless it results in clear injustice (AG v Bacon[2016] JRC 181). The saga from initial sanctions to the 2025 Court of Appeal judgments has already spanned several years, with no clear end in sight.
  
  

• Think in Stages: Different legal arguments are appropriate at different stages. The threshold for permission to bring judicial review is high and focused on arguability (Sharma v Brown-Antoine [2007] 1 WLR 780); the scope for argument expands at trial, especially if criminal charges are brought and full disclosure is required. Abuse-of-process arguments are more likely to succeed in the context of a criminal trial than at the investigation stage (Warren v Attorney General of Jersey [2011] JLR 424).
  
  

• Plan for Legal and Non-Legal Consequences: Asset freezes affect all aspects of life, from school fees to refinancing. Building realistic budgets, liquidity plans, and robust governance structures is as important as any single court application. The Royal Court in Re McMahon[1993] JLR 35 highlighted the importance of trustees and family offices maintaining contingency plans for enforcement events.
  
  

• Maintain Rigorous Records: Using tools like Caira, you can create clear chronologies of events, track court orders and deadlines, and draft letters or position statements for your advisers. This makes you a more effective client and ensures that, whatever route you choose—further litigation, negotiation, or restructuring—is based on a forensic understanding of your position. Courts have consistently favoured parties who can demonstrate transparent, well-documented decision-making (Acturus Properties Limited v Attorney General [2001] JLR 43).
  
  
  

Key Takeaway:
The real “next steps” lesson from Abramovich v AG is not about what one billionaire may choose to do, but about how anyone facing sustained state scrutiny can organise their information, advisers, and expectations for the long haul. In a world of protracted investigations and asset restraint, technical preparation, strategic flexibility, and robust risk management are essential. The Jersey courts have set a high bar for discharge and challenge, but they also expect parties to engage proactively, document their actions, and plan for every eventualit