Headlines

Oil tycoon Shvidler loses appeal over UK's Russian sanctions

Published by Global Banking & Finance Review

Posted on July 29, 2025

3 min read

· Last updated: January 22, 2026

Add as preferred source on Google
Italian consortium acquiring Esso fuel stations in strategic financial deal - Global Banking & Finance Review
The image depicts the acquisition of Esso's 1,200 fuel stations by an Italian consortium, highlighting the strategic impact on Italy's fuel distribution network.
Global Banking & Finance Awards 2026 — Call for Entries

LONDON (Reuters) -Billionaire oil tycoon Eugene Shvidler on Tuesday lost his latest attempt to overturn British sanctions imposed over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine at the UK's Supreme Court. Shvidler

Eugene Shvidler's Appeal Against UK Sanctions Rejected by Supreme Court

By Sam Tobin

LONDON (Reuters) -Billionaire oil tycoon Eugene Shvidler on Tuesday lost his appeal against British sanctions imposed on him over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine at the UK's Supreme Court, a ruling lawyers said makes it difficult for similar challenges to succeed.

Russian-born Shvidler, who is a British and U.S. citizen, was sanctioned over his association with former Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich, plus his former position as a director of London-listed Russian steel producer Evraz.

Shvidler – whose net worth is estimated by Forbes magazine at $1.6 billion – appealed to the Supreme Court, with his lawyers arguing that others with greater involvement in business of importance to Russia were not sanctioned, citing BP's previous joint venture with Rosneft.

The Supreme Court rejected Shvidler's appeal by a four-to-one majority in a ruling that Shvidler said "brings me back to the USSR". The ruling also maintains Britain's 100% record of defending its Russian sanctions in court.

Shvidler said in a statement that no British companies or business people with ties to Russian state-owned companies have been sanctioned, adding that Britain's sanctions were "more about cheap virtue-signalling for purely political purposes".

"There may be little public sympathy for me, as a wealthy US/UK businessman, but this judgment applies to all who face state power," he added.

Britain's Foreign Office, which has overseen the sanctioning of more than 1,700 individuals or entities since Russia's invasion, welcomed the ruling "and the message it sends about the strength of the UK sanctions regime".

STRIDENT DISSENT

Shvidler had said British sanctions have destroyed his business and disrupted his and his family's lives. His lawyers previously said he has no involvement in or influence over Russian politics and had not even been to Russia since attending the late Russian President Boris Yeltsin's funeral in 2007.

But the majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the sanctions struck a fair balance between Shvidler's rights and the aims of the sanctions regime.

In the majority's judgment, Judges Philip Sales and Vivien Rose said sanctioning Shvidler "sends a clear signal to people in Mr Shvidler's position that they would be wise to distance themselves from Russian business now".

But Judge George Leggatt, in a strident dissenting ruling, said Britain's "flimsy reasons" for sanctioning Shvidler did not justify the "serious invasion of liberty" sanctions entailed.

He noted BP's profitable joint venture with Rosneft, having two members on its board, and said it was irrational to only sanction Shvidler if "sanctioning an individual for working as a director of a company which had invested in the Russian extractives sector was thought likely to contribute to achieving the purposes" of British sanctions. BP declined to comment.

Maia Cohen-Lask, a partner at Corker Binning, said the Supreme Court's ruling was "a huge blow not just for Mr Shvidler but for any person who has been sanctioned despite their lack of any links to the Putin regime".

The Supreme Court also dismissed a separate appeal brought by Russian businessman Sergei Naumenko, whose 44 million euro ($51 million) superyacht was detained in London.

(Reporting by Sam Tobin; editing by Sarah Young, Hugh Lawson and Jan Harvey)

Key Takeaways

  • Eugene Shvidler loses UK Supreme Court appeal against sanctions.
  • Sanctions linked to his ties with Roman Abramovich and Evraz.
  • Court ruling strengthens UK's sanctions regime.
  • Shvidler criticizes sanctions as politically motivated.
  • Supreme Court also dismisses Sergei Naumenko's appeal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the outcome of Eugene Shvidler's appeal?
Eugene Shvidler lost his appeal against British sanctions at the UK's Supreme Court, which upheld the sanctions imposed due to his association with Roman Abramovich.
What reasons did Shvidler give for his appeal?
Shvidler argued that the sanctions were unfair, claiming that they destroyed his business and disrupted his family's life, and pointed out that others with greater ties to Russian state-owned companies were not sanctioned.
How did the Supreme Court justify its ruling?
The Supreme Court ruled by a four-to-one majority that the sanctions struck a fair balance between Shvidler's rights and the aims of the sanctions regime, sending a clear signal to individuals in similar positions.
What was the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court ruling?
Judge George Leggatt dissented, stating that the reasons for sanctioning Shvidler were flimsy and did not justify the serious invasion of liberty that the sanctions entailed.
How many individuals or entities have been sanctioned by the UK since the invasion of Ukraine?
Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the UK's Foreign Office has overseen the sanctioning of more than 1,700 individuals or entities.

Tags

Related Articles

More from Headlines

Explore more articles in the Headlines category