FILE PHOTO: Soccer Football - Champions League Final - Manchester City v Chelsea - Estadio do Dragao, Porto, Portugal - May 29, 2021 Chelsea's Cesar Azpilicueta celebrates with the trophy and owner Roman Abramovich after winning the Champions League Pool via REUTERS/Michael Steele/File Photo
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain has indicated that a prosecution or other legal action could be brought over the frozen 2.5 billion pounds ($3.2 billion) from Russian businessman Roman Abramovich's sale of Chelsea soccer club that he had wanted to go to Ukraine war victims.
The UK government sanctioned Abramovich in a crackdown on Russian oligarchs following Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, triggering a rushed sale of the Premier League club in 2022 and freezing of the proceeds under obscure terms.
Three years on, the money is yet to be disbursed during a row over its distribution.
Britain wants the money spent only in Ukraine in line with a wider European push for Moscow to foot the bill for the vast destruction and deaths triggered by its invasion. Abramovich wants more flexibility and for the money to go to all victims.
Asked by Reuters to provide a central document with the Chelsea sale terms, the UK government said it could not because that may interfere with "law enforcement" that could involve "prevention or detection of crime", "apprehension or prosecution of offenders" and "administration of justice".
It was unclear who might be under suspicion or what potential wrongdoing was involved. Abramovich has denied having close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his legal representatives said there were no cases against him in the UK.
Foreign minister David Lammy has also said Britain could bring legal action over the funds, though he gave no further details in comments published in the Financial Times at the weekend and added that his "first instinct" was not litigation.
Chelsea enjoyed the most successful run in the club's history under Abramovich before the club was sold to a consortium led by U.S. investor Todd Boehly and private equity firm Clearlake Capital in May 2022.
Reuters lodged a Freedom of Information request in December to ask the finance ministry for a copy of the licence that enabled the sale and accompanying documents issued by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, which oversees sanctions.
The text of the licence should explain what was agreed about the money's use.
But Britain's finance ministry refused, citing data protection rules and law enforcement, which it said was "an absolute exemption" outweighing public interest.
NO CASES AGAINST ABRAMOVICH
The New York-based law firm Kobre & Kim, which represents Abramovich, said as far as it is aware "there are no law enforcement investigations in the UK involving Mr Abramovich, and to suggest otherwise would be false".
The Treasury and the National Crime Agency, the British police agency which fights corruption, declined to comment. A search of court records for Abramovich and other board members at the time of the sale showed there were no pending cases.
Natalia Kubesch, the legal officer at Redress, a charity that has campaigned for the money's release, said it seemed the government was looking at new ways to break the deadlock, including possibly seizing the money.
"It shows how serious the stalemate is and suggests a complete breakdown in talks," she said.
Kobre & Kim said those comments were incorrect and speculative, and pointed to a recent government statement that said talks were continuing.
The British government, first under the Conservative Party and now Labour, has been reluctant to provide information about the affair.
When Reuters asked for a copy of the Deed of Undertaking between Abramovich and the government last year, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport refused, saying it could "constitute a breach of confidence". There was no mention of "law enforcement" at that time.
One former government official, who worked on the process and asked not to be named, said the deal was not perfect and was done under extreme time pressure to keep Chelsea afloat.
"Ultimately it was not the deal anyone would have ideally designed," the person said. But "it had left some hope that the funds might be used for the right ends and not spent by him."
(Reporting by Andrew MacAskill and Elizabeth Piper; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne)
