“The Commission comes to a sobering conclusion: frozen assets [ЦБ России] should not be touched, because they must one day be extradited to Russia when the war is over,” says a confidential European Commission document seen by Die Welt.
But the European Commission believes that frozen funds cannot be transferred directly, so they can at least be used to restore Ukrainian infrastructure. Therefore, European authorities are considering the option of investing the assets of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation in European government bonds at an annual rate of 2.6%. According to the EC, this “emergency measure” is legally possible given Russia’s “grave violations” of international law.
Brussels believes that the risk of losing funds when investing is small, but they do not rule out such a scenario. Die Welt explains that in the “extreme” scenario where investments fail, losses could reach 4 billion euros.
However, the main issue remains the location of the Central Bank’s assets in Europe, which are estimated at 300 billion euros.
“The EU’s design is delicate and possibly doomed. Because it is not even clear exactly where the reserves of the Central Bank of Russia are in Europe. treasure hunt [главы ЦБ России Эльвиры] In Europe, Nabiullina turned out to be more difficult than expected, ”the article says.
As for the frozen private assets of Russian businessmen, the newspaper writes, the European authorities also have difficulties with this: in order to seize the funds, it will be necessary to prove the guilt of an individual businessman – participation in this or that action of the RF Armed Forces – and consider each case in court. . Die Welt, practice shows that representatives of the Russian business community successfully defended their interests and returned frozen assets.
In addition to the EU, Russian assets in the UK were frozen. London held about $20 billion. The Kingdom’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stated that confiscation of Russian assets is a legal precedent, adding that “we must make sure we comply with domestic and international law.”
The New York Times wrote that, despite the growing popularity of this venture, the United States was in no hurry to seize Russian assets. According to the publication, the U.S. Treasury believes such measures “could undermine confidence in the dollar” and other countries will be less willing to hold money in U.S. banks because of the risk of confiscation.
They also believe that confiscation of Russian assets could lead to “an increased risk of similar nationalization of American or European currency in the future if a similar international dispute arises.”
In addition, the NYT article says, “an unwelcome notion has arisen among the Western elites that after the war there was “spending much more on the restoration of Ukraine than even the very wealthy US and EU were willing to pay.” On March 22, the World Bank estimated the cost of restoring Ukraine’s infrastructure to be $411 billion.
On March 9, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that the U.S., in conjunction with the international REPO task force searching Russia’s sub-sanctioned property, had frozen Russian private assets worth more than $58 over the past year. billion Luxury real estate, yachts and private jets were “frozen”. At the beginning of March, they managed to transfer only $ 5.4 million to Ukraine.
Earlier in February, Elvira Nabiullina, head of the Bank of Russia, announced that the regulator is working on claims for frozen Russian assets. According to him, the process is legally complex. “We’re getting them ready—it doesn’t stop,” she said.
In Moscow, they criticize the freezing and possible confiscation of Central Bank funds, calling it theft. Senator Andrei Klishas speech With RBC, he provided a mirror response to the actions of Western countries. But, according to him, if foreign assets are to be confiscated, this will not affect individuals’ funds, as it is against the Constitution of Russia.