Top barrister blamed for ‘legal loopholes’ that hinder sanctions
ONE of Britain’s leading QCS has been accused of introducing “loopholes” into British sanctions law after working for a Putin-linked oligarch.
Lord Pannick proposed amendments to legislation in 2017 which allows the Government to act against oligarchs after representing Arkady Rotenberg, a close friend of Vladimir Putin and one of Russia’s richest men.
The Government has blamed the “cumbersome” amendments to the Act, passed in 2018, for slowing its sanction response to the invasion of Ukraine.
Concerns over such cases have led to calls for greater transparency of interests in Parliament, where barristers are required to disclose their earnings but not necessarily the names of those they represent.
Lord Pannick said that he did not “legislate for loopholes”, but ensured the Government followed the rule of law, and he did not 0believe the amendments were responsible for delays.
Almost 100 oligarchs who have been sanctioned by the EU or US have not been penalised in Britain, which has only targeted 13 of Mr Putin’s allies since the invasion began.
A Bill to make it easier to impose tougher sanctions passed the Commons on Monday and is expected to become law later this month. But as its makes its way to the upper house, Matt Hancock, the former Cabinet minister, raised the fact that “many of the problems that we face today are due to amendments” made in the Lords to the 2018 Bill.
“It’s come to light that many of those amendments were by those who are acting for oligarchs and then legislating for loopholes,” he told Parliament.
Mr Hancock did not name Lord Pannick but quoted the QC, who in a 2017 debate asked why “sanctions should be imposed on a person simply because they are connected to a specified country”. Mr Hancock described the comments as “extremely unwise” and said that the reason the UK’S response was slow was “because the Sanctions and Anti-money Laundering Act 2018 was riddled with holes” in the Lords.
He added: “I am surprised to discover that some of those who spoke so powerfully for putting loopholes in place, and who made the case for confusion and delay in law, are also those who stand to benefit from confusion and delay in law, and they do not declare this conflict.”
Lord Pannick last night insisted: “I did not put forward amendments to ‘legislate for loopholes’. I put forward amendments … to ensure that the Sanctions Act complied with basic requirements of the rule of law.”
He pointed out that the amendments were accepted by the Government.
Lord Pannick represented Mr Rotenberg in 2014 and 2015 in his legal battle against sanctions imposed on him by the EU over the annexation of Crimea.
The billionaire tycoon’s construction company was given a state contract to build a bridge between Russia and Crimea which the UK Government said “further undermines the territorial integrity of Ukraine”. The case in the bloc’s General Court was “the first case in which someone has challenged the EU’S Russia sanctions regime”, lawyers working alongside Lord Pannick noted.
Lord Pannick also represented Mr Rotenberg “on a sanctions point” in the Court of Appeal during a bitter divorce from his wife at around the same time.
The 70-year-old, who made most of his fortune through lucrative statesponsored contracts for construction and oil pipelines, was also sanctioned in the UK and the US in 2014.
Lord Pannick said the amendments “do not explain the fact the Government has so far sanctioned so few Russians”, adding: “My understanding is that the reason why the UK has sanctioned so few individuals is because too few people are working on the details of imposing sanctions in the Foreign Office and in other government departments.”
He added that he had not acted for Mr Rotenberg since mid-2015 and it was the only sanction matter in which he had acted in at least the past 10 years.