You can download this press release as a PDF in English or Russian.
The Swiss Federal Council’s decision of 20 December 2017 to extend for one year its “freeze on the assets” of President Yanukovych and his “entourage”, and the media release published on this occasion referring to the “freezes on … Ukrainian assets (CHF 70 million)”, does not assert that President Yanukovych had or has any assets in Switzerland.
On the contrary, the Swiss Federal Council’s similar decision and announcement made last year, on 9 December 2016, was later clarified by a letter dated 1 March 2017 from the Swiss authorities confirming that:
We draw attention again to our earlier Press Release dated 3 March 2017 dealing with the 2016 Decision and announcement. Nothing has changed.
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 have officially acknowledged that it does not belong to President Yanukovych.
Indeed, the Swiss Federal Council, in its 20 December 2017 announcement, observes that is has not yet even been determined “whether or not the origins of the frozen assets are illicit”.
ENDS
Notes to editors
Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP is a law firm based in London representing President Yanukovych and Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych:
Enquiries to: Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, Tel.: +44 (0)20 7851 8888
You can download this press release as a PDF in English or Russian.
Reference is made to our earlier Press Releases dated 7 September 2017 and 11 September 2017 to the effect that:
Under Article 8 of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014, which imposed the European Union’s sanctions on President Yanukovych and Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, EU Member States and others were required to inform the European Commission immediately of all and any information that they had regarding funds and economic resources owned or controlled by President Yanukovych and Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych which were frozen in accordance with the Regulation.
Despite the passage of three and a half years since the sanctions were imposed, and the reporting requirement just referred to, the European Commission has now formally confirmed that it has not received under that Article any information on funds or economic resources owned or controlled by President Yanukovych or Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych which were frozen as a result of the EU Sanctions.
In a statement on 12 September 2017, the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Yevgeny Yenin, sought to explain that, despite the European Commission’s express confirmation, there was or might be such information in the hands of the European Commission or EU Member States that was not being disclosed. He sought to explain this in essentially two ways (1) “that in most EU Countries access to this information is restricted and cannot be given to third parties who are not related to the criminal proceedings” and (2) that “the response of the European Commission is worded accordingly”.
Joe Hage, a partner in Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, the law firm acting for President Yanukovych and Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, said:
“The Deputy Prosecutor General’s explanation is wrong for at least three reasons.
First, if any of the EU Member States had information on funds or economic resources owned or controlled by President Yanukovych or Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych which were frozen as a result of the EU Sanctions, they were legally obliged to provide it to the European Commission.
Second, the express wording of the European Commission’s confirmation statement was that: “Under Article 8 of Council Regulation (EU) No. 208/2014 the Commission has not received any information on frozen funds or economic resources” relating to President Yanukovych or Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych.
The European Commission has never asserted that access to information could not be provided to us or our clients because such access was restricted.
Third, the request was made by my firm to the European Commission and not to individual EU Member States. Therefore, whether or not access to this information is restricted in most or any EU Member States is irrelevant: the information, if it existed, would be with the European Commission.
It is very noticeable that the authorities in Ukraine have not stated what specific assets or economic resources of President Yanukovych and Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych are said to have been frozen by the EU sanctions.”
ENDS
Notes to editors
Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP is a law firm based in London representing President Yanukovych and Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych:
Enquiries to: Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, Tel.: +44 (0)20 7851 8888
The European Commission and the EU Member States have not identified any funds or economic resources belonging to Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych frozen by EU Sanctions.
Under Article 8 of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014, which imposed the European Union’s sanctions on Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, EU Member States and others were required to inform the European Commission immediately of all and any information that they had regarding funds and economic resources owned or controlled by him which were frozen in accordance with the Regulation.
Despite the passage of three and a half years since the sanctions were imposed, and the reporting requirement just referred to, the European Commission has now formally confirmed that it has not received under that Article any information on funds or economic resources owned or controlled by Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych which were frozen as a result of the EU Sanctions.
Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych has always contended that he does not own personal accounts, funds or other economic resources in the EU, with the sole exception of his interest in MAKO Holding B.V. and Artvin Holding B.V. in the Netherlands.
As reported in our press release of 6 March 2017, the Swiss authorities confirmed on 1 March 2017 that there are no frozen personal bank accounts or other assets in Switzerland held in the name of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, apart from Mako Trading SA and its assets.
Enquiries to: Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, Tel.: +44 (0)20 7851 8888
You can download this press release as a PDF in English or Russian.
On Friday 30 November 2018 it was reported on the “Ukrainian News” website that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine had issued a statement asserting that President Viktor Yanukovych “is wanted and at the moment he is in the international search for Interpol”.
As we previously stated in our press release of 3 May 2017, a decision was taken by INTERPOL at its session of 27 February to 3 March 2017 to delete the Red Notice issued in July 2015 in respect of President Yanukovych and any other data held about him in its databases.
The decision to delete the data followed an application in 2015 to INTERPOL by Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP seeking the removal of President Yanukovych’s name from INTERPOL’s list of wanted persons on the basis that the allegations against him were politically motivated, lacked an evidentiary basis, and lacked due process. The decision confirmed that the retention of the data held in respect of President Yanukovych was contrary to, and that all international police cooperation via INTERPOL’s channels in this case would not be in conformity with, INTERPOL’s Constitution and Rules.
President Yanukovych is not listed as a “wanted person” on INTERPOL’s website (http://www.interpol.int/notice/search/wanted) and there is no basis whatsoever for the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s statement of 30 November 2018.
ENDS
Notes to editors
Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP is a law firm based in London:
Enquiries to: Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, Tel.: +44 (0)20 7851 8888
Originally published on CCH Daily on 13 June 2017.
Ray McCann, partner at Joseph Hage Aaronson, and CIOT vice president, comments on plans for Making Tax Digital.
Plans to start quarterly reporting under Making Tax Digital could come up against stiff opposition under the new Conservative minority government, as the reshuffle sees top jobs at the Treasury changing hands and a hollowing out of expertise on the intricacies of HMRC’s tax digitisation plans, reports Sara White, Editor, Accountancy and CCH Daily.
There are also serious reservations about the rushed timetable for the introduction of Making Tax Digital – unincorporated businesses, landlords and the self-employed registered for VAT will have to start reporting quarterly from 1 April 2018.
The timing issue is one of the biggest worries for business and advisers, while any uncertainty brought about by the minority government will only make the situation more uncertain.
Ray McCann CTA, said:
‘I think that the direction of Making Tax Digital will not itself be affected but I would not be surprised if the timing goes out of the window.
‘There is significant cost and the proposed revenue savings are likely to be looked on with some extra scepticism as to whether in the end Making Tax Digital is self-financing, which I do not think it will be.
‘David Gauke’s departure together with Jane Ellison losing her seat mean almost a complete change, both were generally seen as bringing a positive approach to their relationship with the profession.’
Continue reading on CCH Daily.
A recent Treasury Committee report contained its recommendations on both the anti-money laundering (AML) and sanctions regime. This almost year-long enquiry, the first part of a two part review of economic crime in the UK, proposes that the Government should undertake a far-reaching overhaul of the legislation and systems currently in place.
This is not unexpected; the UK is due to be leaving the EU imminently and there is a high-level of business uncertainty. Additionally, there is mounting international criticism of limited partnerships (LPs) and Scottish liability partnerships (SLPs) as vehicles of fraud worldwide, and the reputation of British Oversees Territories and Crown Dependencies as offshore havens used by corrupt individuals continues. Taken together, this means there is increasing pressure on the UK Government to safeguard the country’s reputation as an attractive place to do business, particularly in the post-Brexit world.
The Committee’s recommendations aim to keep London as a dominant financial centre by ensuring that it remains at the vanguard of the fight against economic crime. Its recommendations are the most fundamental yet regarding changes to current regulation and processes and the overall message is clear: the government must do more in the fight against economic crime. In particular the report:
While the report is a lengthy document, some questions are not addressed, such as the risks of parallel enforcement regimes given existing regulatory requirements imposed on the financial sector aimed at preventing financial crimes like money-laundering. Given Brexit continues to dominate the political agenda, it may prove challenging for the Government to implement the recommendations in the timeframes envisaged, but the message from the Committee is nevertheless clear: the fight against economic crime and the evolution of the UK’s AML regime must remain a priority.
Friday 8 March is International Women’s Day, which celebrates women’s achievements around the world. This year the theme is #BalanceForBetter in recognition of the on-going global push for professional and social equality. Described as a ‘business issue’, the aim of the theme is to encourage gender balance in boardrooms and the media as a way for economies to benefit. At JHA more than one third of our lawyers are female and gender equality and inclusion are core firm values. We took this opportunity to hear two women in different positions within our firm on their experience of the legal workforce and their thoughts on future progression.
Economically and politically there will be uncertainty in 2019. Brexit, the Trump Administration’s trade disputes with China and others, and the World Bank’s forecast that growth will slow in all major advanced economies causing impending recession, are signed all major causes of that concern. Companies and high-net worth individuals worldwide should be considering how these events may play out and impact them from a legal perspective.
History shows that economic turmoil brings a rise in commercial disputes, regulatory litigation and investigations. When the economy is strong parties are inclined to settle, or even overlook, disputes. A quick, commercial solution can be pragmatic, particularly where there is an on-going relationship or if litigation would affect profitable work flows or be a distraction. When the economy is down, survival is threatened and businesses can take an embattled position, often in a Darwinian fight for survival. The 2007 to 2009 financial crisis resulted in a surge of litigation in the financial services sector and beyond, some of which is still continuing a decade on.
Almost all predictions for 2019 indicate a recession is coming. This will fuel litigation over who is at fault and who should pay for the consequences. A recent Citi Private Bank survey stated that roughly three-quarters of law firm leaders believe that demand for legal services will increase over the next year, while at the same time they expect the global economy to worsen or (at best) remain the same.
In the UK the outlook is perhaps even rougher due to the additional complication of Brexit. Businesses operating in the UK must be prepared to respond to structural change and disruption in the markets. It is an optimum time for them to strategically review their operations and commercial relationships. Options for resolving issues prior to litigation or arbitration being commenced should be explored, such as mediation or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, in order to seek to avoid protracted formal legal proceedings. Restructuring scenarios should also be considered. Pre-litigation and litigation specialist law firms are best placed to advise commercial clients on strategic planning so that worst case scenarios can be avoided.
Despite contingency planning such scenarios can still be realised; there are always elements outside a business’ or client’s control. The most important decision a company or individual can make in advance is who they should call if disaster strikes. Specialist dispute resolution and investigations firms are the most experienced in helping clients through crisis situations. Those with their own team of forensic accountants and data experts are particularly well positioned as they provide a solution to both disputes and investigations matters. Smaller specialist firms have further advantages over bigger outfits; they are more agile with a reduced chance of conflict and can usually start acting straight away, which is crucial when matters are time sensitive.
An increase in regulatory investigations is another trend businesses and individuals should prepare for. In challenging economic times regulatory bodies are under increased pressure to deliver results; no stone is left unturned. Companies and individuals must ensure their businesses are in order. Proposing settlements or self-reporting could be beneficial for some; the new Profit Diversion Compliance Facility announced last week by HMRC aims to encourage multinational enterprises to align their transfer pricing policies through self-disclosure. Lawyers with strong relations with HMRC and experience in dealing with such enquires can be invaluable to achieving the best possible outcome.
Contentious regulatory disputes will continue. The SFO, FCA and HMRC among others, have shown themselves willing and able to take matters to court. 2019 has begun with the trial of four Barclays banking executives for fraud and other charges related to the last financial crisis brought by the SFO. Clients should turn to firms with specialist investigations teams who can guide them through such probes and minimise the financial, reputational and operational damage they can cause. Such firms often have former employees from these regulatory bodies working for them who can support clients through the investigation stage and onto trial stage if needed.
For 2019, it is hard to predict what will happen in the next week, let alone over the course of 12 months. This uncertain environment is very challenging for businesses. To ensure they are in the best possible position to achieve their commercial aims over the next year, businesses must plan ahead. Time spent now on researching the leading dispute resolution and investigations law firms to call in a crisis, and seeking expert legal advice in advance of disputes or investigations, may be the best investment a business makes in the year ahead.
Advocate General (AG) Kokott has issued her opinion in two cases concerning claims for group relief made by Swedish companies for the losses of wholly-owned direct and indirect subsidiaries established in other EU Member States. The opinions are in line with the AG’s consistent approach that the “no possibilities” test in Marks & Spencer (C-446/03) is unclear and should therefore be abandoned. This view, expressed in Commission v United Kingdom (C-172/13) and in A Oy (C-123/11), has repeatedly not been followed by the CJEU.
In Holmen AB v Skatteverlet, a Swedish parent company sought the deduction of losses in a wholly-owned Spanish company which it held indirectly through a Spanish subsidiary. The Holmen group planned to either liquidate the sub-subsidiary and the subsidiary, in the same year and in that order, or merge the sub-subsidiary into the Swedish parent. If the Spanish sub-subsidiary had also been Swedish, loss relief would have been available and its losses could have been used or carried forward in the Swedish parent. In Memira AB vSkatteverlet, a Swedish parent sought the deduction of losses in a wholly-owned German subsidiary. The Memira group planned to merge the subsidiary into the Swedish parent. Swedish law allowed loss relief in mergers only if the transferring company had taxable income in Sweden.
AG Kokott held, in both cases, that the differences in treatment under Swedish law did amount to a restriction on the freedom of establishment. However, the AG took the view that the restrictions were justified by the preservation of balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States.
Firstly, the AG concluded that the use of the losses in the Spanish sub-subsidiary, and in the German subsidiary, by Holmen and Memira respectively, undermined Sweden’s fiscal autonomy because it required Sweden to adapt its tax legislation to account for losses that had originated solely from the operation of the Spanish and German tax systems. In the AG’s view, this conclusion followed from the fact that the losses in the sub-subsidiary were primarily a consequence of Spain’s 2011 reform, which had limited the amount of profits that companies could set off against losses incurred in previous years, and from the fact that German law did not allow losses to be transferred by way of merger.
Secondly, the AG concluded that the accumulated losses, which were initially regarded as non-final (as under German and, with limitations, Spanish law they could be carried forward), could not subsequently become final losses by the fact that they could not be further carried forward after the merger or liquidation of the loss-making companies. This conclusion was underpinned by the AG’s view that the “no possibilities test” in Marks & Spencer required taxpayers to exhaust all possibilities to use the losses in the Member State in which they had arisen, including the possibility of transferring the losses to a third party. The AG therefore took the view that the losses were not final also because neither Holmen nor Memira had exhausted that possibility.
Thirdly, the AG concluded that it could not be inferred from the fact that the decision in Marks & Spencer had not differentiated between final losses of subsidiaries and sub-subsidiaries that the CJEU had implicitly allowed parent companies to use the final losses in a sub-subsidiary. In Holmen, the AG stressed that, because it was still in principle possible for the direct Spanish parent company to set off the losses in Spain, there was a fundamental precedence for setting off the losses in the sub-subsidiary against the Spanish parent company over the setting off of the against the indirect Swedish parent (Holmen). The losses in Holmen’s Spanish sub-subsidiary were therefore not final in respect of the Swedish indirect parent.
