There are no frozen personal bank accounts or other assets in Switzerland in the name of Viktor Yanukovych
You can download this press release as a PDF in English or Russian. The Swiss Federal Councils Decision of 13 December 2019 to extend for one year its freeze on the assets of President Yanukovych and his entourage, and the press release it has published on this occasion does not assert that President Yanukovych had or has any assets in Switzerland. On the contrary, as previously clarified in a letter dated 1 March 2017 (issued in respect of the Swiss Federal Councils similar decision and an announcement made in 2016), the Swiss authorities confirmed that:
there are no bank accounts or other assets in Switzerland held in the name of President Yanukovych that they have frozen (as President Yanukovych himself has always contended); and
the asset freezes imposed by Switzerland concern other persons (i.e. not President Yanukovych) listed in the Appendix to the Ordinance on the Freezing of Assets in Connection with Ukraine.
We draw attention again to our earlier Press Releases dated 3 March 2017 and 22 December 2017 dealing, respectively, with the 2016 Decision and announcement and 2017 Decision. The Swiss Federal Council still do not clearly state who the CHF 70 million referred to in their announcements belongs to, but, that said, the Swiss Federal Council has previously, in its 1 March 2017 letter, officially acknowledged that it does not belong to President Yanukovych. Indeed, the Swiss Federal Council, in its 13 December 2019 announcement, observes that Court rulings on the illicit origin of the assets have yet to be rendered in Ukraine. In the most recent proceedings before the General Court of the European Union, previously imposed sanctions against President Yanukovych, in place from March 2016-March 2019, were annulled. ENDS Notes to editors Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP is a law firm based in London representing President Yanukovych and Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych: www.jha.com Enquiries to Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, Tel.: +44 (0)20 7851 8888.
The DBKAG & K (CJEU) decision: an opportunity for investment funds?
On 17 June 2021, the European Court decided the joint cases K (C-58/20) and DBKAG (C-59/20) regarding whether the supply of certain services constituted the “management of special investment funds”, benefiting from the VAT exemption enshrined in Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC.
Raising the bar: UK Supreme Court clarifies the requirements for HMRC to issue Follower Notices
On 2 July 2021, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in R (on the application of Haworth) v HMRC  UKSC 25, finding unanimously in favour of the taxpayer and upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the follower notice issued to him.
The Danish Supreme Court decides the Fidelity case
The Fidelity case concerned claims brough by three undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) for the repayment of Danish withholding tax on dividends received from companies resident in Denmark between 2000 and 2009. The Supreme Court rejected the claims on the grounds that the Fidelity UCITS did not fulfil the conditions for the exemption provided by Danish law.
A yellow card for footballers and their agents……let’s bring in another match official
There has been long running tension between HMRC and the way that footballers and their agents are remunerated. As the Professional Footballers’ Association wade into the debate, Helen McGhee discusses the problems arising from agents’ fees and image rights.