Pressure grows on UK to stop ‘abusive litigation’ by oligarchs against critics

The UK is making it more difficult for the Russian elite to go after its opponents by tightening its restrictions, although freedom of expression advocates say the measures do not go far enough.

The government’s sanctions enforcement agency has made the changes, which come into effect from April 29. stop using frozen funds To pay legal fees relating to defamation suits in the UK.

The new rules make it harder for sanctioned individuals and companies to sue journalists for defamation, and are part of its wider crackdown on so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPS).

According to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, slaps refer to legal actions used by powerful individuals in “abusive litigation” designed to “harass or intimidate” opponents into silence.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Britain has placed more than 1,300 individuals and entities linked to President Vladimir Putin’s regime under sanctions, imposing severe and broad sanctions on those listed.

However, the Office of Financial Sanctions Enforcement (OFSI), which is part of the Treasury, has issued licenses to use frozen assets to pay for approved individuals to cover their legal fees, in accordance with the right of legal representation. has continued.

The office has now amended the “General License for Russian and Belarusian Legal Services,” as it is known, so it no longer authorizes legal fees for defamation cases.

The invasion of Ukraine has focused on the use of the legal system by wealthy individuals and companies seeking to intimidate journalists, academics, writers and publicists.

The threat of endless litigation and huge legal costs, sometimes running into the millions of pounds, is used against authors who face financial ruin if they decide to defend a defamation case.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that the Treasury had granted a UK law firm a license to accept payments from Putin’s close aide Yevgeny Prigozhin. The dispensation allowed Prigozhin, the founder of the Wagner mercenary group, to circumvent UK sanctions.

Prigozhin sought to privately sue Elliot Higgins, the founder of the investigative website Bellingcat, for defamation.

But Russia’s billionaires have long sought to use Britain’s strict libel, privacy and data protection laws to prevent light being shed on their activities.

Catherine Belton, a former Financial Times reporter, and her publisher faced a barrage of defamation lawsuits – including one from former Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich – following the publication of her book in 2021 Putin’s people Who investigated the coming to power of the Russian President. All actions were eventually settled or dropped before trial.

The Office has said that “in most cases” it would consider the use of frozen assets by sanctioned individuals to finance defamation cases “is not an appropriate use of funds, and in many cases would be against the public interest”.

The government said in a statement: “We refuse to allow sanctioned oligarchs to manipulate the UK legal system to bully and intimidate journalists and we have taken defamation out of ordinary licence.”

It added that license applications would be considered “on a case-by-case basis”, but that “our default position would be to deny these applications”.

The UK vowed last July to introduce new legislation to crack down on the practice, including a process to quickly dismiss meritless cases.

The Justice Ministry said it would “as soon as possible legislate” to bring about the proposed reforms.

But campaigners for free speech are concerned that parliamentary time is limited before the next general election, and that without legislative reform the legal system will continue to be abused by the global rich and powerful.

Susan Cottree, director of the International Affairs think-tank Foreign Policy Centre, said: “Obviously we welcome the government’s repeated commitment to the law, but it rings hollow when nearly a year later There is no proposed bill or timeline.

A MOJ consultation last year found that slaps, or the threat of them, had such a “chilling effect” that some individuals or corporations are considered “no-go” zones because of the risk of retaliation, he said.

The Communications and Digital Committee of the House of Lords recently wrote Demanding action from the government. Committee chair Lady Tina Stowell said it was “vital” that ministers introduce “specific legislation to deal with slapping in the round”.

Legal regulators have also stepped up their investigations. The Solicitors Regulation Authority currently has approx. 50 under investigation in the alleged slap and issued warning notices to law firms last year.

McCue Jury & Partners, the firm representing Higgins, has alleged that the Prigozhin lawsuit was a slap and has complained to the SRA about Discreet Law, the firm that worked for Prigozhin until March 2022. The SRA confirmed that it has received a complaint and is investigating.

Discreet Law said: “It is public knowledge that Discreet Law LLP acted for Mr. Prigozhin and our position is that at all times we fully complied with our legal and professional obligations. While the SRA inquiry continues we will further Do not think it appropriate to comment.

The regulator published a thematic Review In February, 25 law firms concluded the slap was “good practice”. However, it added, “there were areas where firms needed to do better”.

The UK is making it more difficult for the Russian elite to go after its opponents by tightening its restrictions, although freedom of expression advocates say the measures do not go far enough.

The government’s sanctions enforcement agency has made the changes, which come into effect from April 29. stop using frozen funds To pay legal fees relating to defamation suits in the UK.

The new rules make it harder for sanctioned individuals and companies to sue journalists for defamation, and are part of its wider crackdown on so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPS).

According to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, slaps refer to legal actions used by powerful individuals in “abusive litigation” designed to “harass or intimidate” opponents into silence.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Britain has placed more than 1,300 individuals and entities linked to President Vladimir Putin’s regime under sanctions, imposing severe and broad sanctions on those listed.

However, the Office of Financial Sanctions Enforcement (OFSI), which is part of the Treasury, has issued licenses to use frozen assets to pay for approved individuals to cover their legal fees, in accordance with the right of legal representation. has continued.

The office has now amended the “General License for Russian and Belarusian Legal Services,” as it is known, so it no longer authorizes legal fees for defamation cases.

The invasion of Ukraine has focused on the use of the legal system by wealthy individuals and companies seeking to intimidate journalists, academics, writers and publicists.

The threat of endless litigation and huge legal costs, sometimes running into the millions of pounds, is used against authors who face financial ruin if they decide to defend a defamation case.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that the Treasury had granted a UK law firm a license to accept payments from Putin’s close aide Yevgeny Prigozhin. The dispensation allowed Prigozhin, the founder of the Wagner mercenary group, to circumvent UK sanctions.

Prigozhin sought to privately sue Elliot Higgins, the founder of the investigative website Bellingcat, for defamation.

But Russia’s billionaires have long sought to use Britain’s strict libel, privacy and data protection laws to prevent light being shed on their activities.

Catherine Belton, a former Financial Times reporter, and her publisher faced a barrage of defamation lawsuits – including one from former Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich – following the publication of her book in 2021 Putin’s people Who investigated the coming to power of the Russian President. All actions were eventually settled or dropped before trial.

The Office has said that “in most cases” it would consider the use of frozen assets by sanctioned individuals to finance defamation cases “is not an appropriate use of funds, and in many cases would be against the public interest”.

The government said in a statement: “We refuse to allow sanctioned oligarchs to manipulate the UK legal system to bully and intimidate journalists and we have taken defamation out of ordinary licence.”

It added that license applications would be considered “on a case-by-case basis”, but that “our default position would be to deny these applications”.

The UK vowed last July to introduce new legislation to crack down on the practice, including a process to quickly dismiss meritless cases.

The Justice Ministry said it would “as soon as possible legislate” to bring about the proposed reforms.

But campaigners for free speech are concerned that parliamentary time is limited before the next general election, and that without legislative reform the legal system will continue to be abused by the global rich and powerful.

Susan Cottree, director of the International Affairs think-tank Foreign Policy Centre, said: “Obviously we welcome the government’s repeated commitment to the law, but it rings hollow when nearly a year later There is no proposed bill or timeline.

A MOJ consultation last year found that slaps, or the threat of them, had such a “chilling effect” that some individuals or corporations are considered “no-go” zones because of the risk of retaliation, he said.

The Communications and Digital Committee of the House of Lords recently wrote Demanding action from the government. Committee chair Lady Tina Stowell said it was “vital” that ministers introduce “specific legislation to deal with slapping in the round”.

Legal regulators have also stepped up their investigations. The Solicitors Regulation Authority currently has approx. 50 under investigation in the alleged slap and issued warning notices to law firms last year.

McCue Jury & Partners, the firm representing Higgins, has alleged that the Prigozhin lawsuit was a slap and has complained to the SRA about Discreet Law, the firm that worked for Prigozhin until March 2022. The SRA confirmed that it has received a complaint and is investigating.

Discreet Law said: “It is public knowledge that Discreet Law LLP acted for Mr. Prigozhin and our position is that at all times we fully complied with our legal and professional obligations. While the SRA inquiry continues we will further Do not think it appropriate to comment.

The regulator published a thematic Review In February, 25 law firms concluded the slap was “good practice”. However, it added, “there were areas where firms needed to do better”.