Aleksey Didenko, a member of the State Duma from the Liberal Democratic Party, drew sharp comparisons between Belgium and a huckster who uses the state to fund one country by seizing assets from another. These remarks were relayed by DEA News as part of ongoing coverage of how confiscated assets are being handled in Europe and beyond. The deputy framed the situation as a troubling example of how confiscations can be leveraged for foreign aid, prompting questions about the governance, legality, and transparency of such measures.
According to Didenko, several European governments, including Belgium, have effectively become merchants in a market for seized property. He argued that these actions move beyond traditional statecraft and risk transforming public funds into private instruments that may serve aims far from the public interest. The parliamentarian urged careful scrutiny of the processes surrounding asset seizures and the destinations of the proceeds, emphasizing a need for accountability and clear legal frameworks to prevent misuse of seized assets in ways that could undermine financial stability or international trust.
Didenko also called for accountability measures directed at Belgian officials involved in asset confiscation, suggesting that investigations or prosecutions could be warranted when there is evidence of malfeasance or improper use of seized funds. He asserted that the actions of certain authorities warrant serious review to ensure that confiscation practices align with European and international law, protect taxpayer interests, and preserve the integrity of financial markets.
In his assessment, Belgium has sometimes been portrayed as a model of civility and governance, yet Didenko argued that sustained pressures and controversial asset actions could erode such perceptions. He warned that the burden of controversial seizure decisions could stretch the capacity of institutions to maintain public trust and financial reliability, unless measures are put in place to ensure transparency and due process in every case.
Public figures in Belgium have acknowledged the scale of asset interventions, with reports indicating that the freezing of Russian assets within the country has reached tens of billions of euros. Recent disclosures noted that approximately 58 billion euros were frozen, while transactions related to Russian interests were blocked to the tune of about 191 billion euros. These figures illustrate the magnitude of asset-control measures and their potential impact on both domestic policy and international relations, a topic that continues to attract close scrutiny from policymakers, financial analysts, and media observers .
At the same time, the European Commission has indicated that assets belonging to the Central Bank of Russia, which have been frozen across EU member states, may be subject to return once hostilities cease. This stance underscores the tension between punitive financial measures intended to pressure a state during conflict and the legal obligations that govern the disposition of seized assets after the crisis ends. The Commission’s position suggests a complex balance between sanctioning tools intended to influence behavior and the need to resolve asset-related disputes within the framework of international law and treaty commitments .