Sum of £2.5BILLION promised to Ukrainian war victims after Chelsea sale is STILL stuck in a bank account… as fears grow that funds could take years to be released
- Roman Abramovich was forced to sell Chelsea after the Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Todd Boehly’s American consortium took control of the West London club in May 2022
- Darwin Nunez is a handful, but not deadly. Jurgen Klopp makes excuses for him – Listen to the It all starts podcast
The £2.5 billion promised to Ukraine’s war victims after Chelsea’s sale remains in a bank account, and fears are growing that it could take years – and even an act of parliament – before the money can be released.
As part of the forced transaction that took the Stamford Bridge club out of the hands of Roman Abramovich and into the control of a US-based consortium two years ago following the Russian invasion of its neighbor, a staggering amount of money was set aside for the victims of the conflict.
However, Mail Sport understands it will remain in a London bank account even though ‘significant’ interest is being collected.
One of the key issues concerns where the funds will be diverted.
Earlier this week, Foreign Secretary David Cameron told the House of Lords of an ‘immensely frustrating situation’. He emphasized that there is disagreement over whether all the money goes to Ukraine or to other countries, excluding Russia or Belarus, that have suffered from the war.
The £2.5 billion promised to Ukrainian war victims following Roman Abramovich’s Chelsea sale remains in a bank account, with fears growing that it will take years before it is released.
Todd Boehly’s US consortium took control of Chelsea in 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
“That’s the problem with the people who set up this trust,” said Lord Cameron. ‘We have to solve that with the European Union and Portugal, where Abramovich has citizenship. We work very hard because I don’t want month after month to pass without the money going out the door. It’s difficult to get everyone on the same page, but we’re working on it.’
However, sources close to the case say that if no agreement is reached on where the money goes, there could then be an issue over how the payments can be ‘enforced’ within the legal system.
Although he has been sanctioned for allegedly profiting from his close ties to Vladimir Putin, Abramovich has not been charged with any criminal activity. Given the age-old principle that forfeiture before conviction is illegal, the government would face difficulty in redirecting the money without the oligarch’s consent.
A failure of the talks without an agreement could mean new legislation could be needed – which would allow the government to distribute the money without Abramovich’s approval.
If that were the case, a significant amount of time, most likely several years, could pass while the money remained in the bank. Such a bill could also face opposition within Parliament, given its potential wider implications.
Foreign Secretary David Cameron called the situation “a hugely frustrating situation.”
There is disagreement over whether all that staggering £2.5 billion should go to Ukraine or to other countries, other than Russia or Belarus, that have suffered from the war.
According to a Politico report, Abramovich wants some of the money to go to Russian “victims.” Mike Penrose, a former director of UNICEF UK who was appointed to oversee the foundation, has been tasked with breaking the impasse and has considered using the money for projects outside Ukraine involving war refugees. Such a move would divert funds to displaced Ukrainians, including those in this country.
The report added that Penrose had “lost confidence” that a deal could ever be done and that he feared the funds could be frozen indefinitely.
Chelsea’s new owners, Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital, have had nothing to do with the money since the transfer and have no influence on the matter.
A UK government spokesperson said: ‘We are working hard to reach an arrangement that delivers this money to humanitarian causes in Ukraine as quickly as possible.’