On the Nov 8, 2018 the Jersey Evening Post (https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2018/11/08/trump-sanctions-prompt-exit-of-russian-owned-businesses/) reported a story about Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch and his company

1. SANCTIONS imposed by the Trump administration have caused two Jersey-based businesses owned by one of Russia’s richest men to press ahead with plans to leave the Island.
2. It went on to say “According to announcements from both the Hong Kong and London Stock Exchanges, Rusal – the world’s second-largest aluminium producer – and EN+ Group – a supplier of natural resources – are both now due to be registered in Russia. They are currently registered at the headquarters of Intertrust at 44 Esplanade.
3. The two companies are controlled by Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is valued at $3.3 billion and has close ties to his country’s president, Vladimir Putin.”

However, before this time the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee published on 28 March 2018 Oral evidence: Russian Corruption and the UK, HC 932.  Members present:

1. Tom Tugendhat (Chair); Ian Austin; Chris Bryant; Ann Clwyd; Mike Gapes; Ian Murray; Priti Patel; Andrew Rosindell; Mr Bob Seely; Royston Smith.

1. Witnesses
   1. I: Oliver Bullough, Journalist and Author on Russia; Juliette Garside, Financial Correspondent; Luke Harding, Journalist and Author on Russia; and Tom Keatinge, Director, Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies, RUSI.
   2. II: Vladimir Ashurkov, Executive Director, Anti-Corruption Foundation; and Roman Borisovich, Co-founder, ClampK.
2. Examination of witnesses
   1. Witnesses: Oliver Bullough, Juliette Garside, Luke Harding and Tom Keatinge.

Watch the meeting https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/82f6d3cc-c0bf-425a-8af2-fc01fee8053d

This meeting has now been following by a report by the UK Foreign Affairs Select Committee raised several concerns about sanctions and specifically questioned how the Russian company, EN+ Group, was allowed to list in 2017 given it was owned by a suspected “Kremlin associate” Oleg Deripaska.  The report is titled

• Fragmented and incoherent: the UK’s sanctions policy – https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmfaff/1703/170302.htm

This report follows

• Moscow’s Gold: Russian corruption in the UKreport, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmfaff/932/932.pdf (Moscow gold)

The Moscow Gold report used testament from a Foreign Affairs Committee meeting [Oral evidence] on Russian Corruption and the UK, HC 932 (Russian corruption)

• http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/foreign-affairs-committee/russian-corruption-and-the-uk/oral/81007.html)

In this report [Moscow gold] and the house of commons minutes on Russian corruption it is noted:-

1. Deripaska was not subject to sanctions at the time of the En+ IPO, his proximity to the Kremlin was well known; Roman Borisovich, for example, noted that Deripaska had been asked to build the international airport in Sochi for the 2014 Winter Olympics. In Q96 http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/foreign-affairs-committee/russian-corruption-and-the-uk/oral/81007.html)
2. In Q117 – http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/foreign-affairs-committee/russian-corruption-and-the-uk/oral/81007.html]
   1. Chris Bryant asks:
      1. From your experience of dealing with British businesses that have had to do business in Russia, has the Bribery Act made it more difficult for them?
   2. Vladimir Ashurkov: Executive Director, Anti-Corruption Foundation; and Roman Borisovich, Co-founder, ClampK.
      1. Probably yes, superficially. But that’s the irony—from talking to different anti-corruption practitioners in the UK, from our own experience, it seems like the Serious Fraud Office is more interested in prosecuting a British company that is bribing some Government official, rather than someone like Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska who is in a corrupt relationship with the Russian Government.
      2. At the same time, Mr Deripaska owns property in London, he is a majority shareholder of a company that is quoted on the London Stock Exchange, and he was the chief executive officer of that company, so there is clearly British [connection]
   3. In Qq161–162 http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/foreign-affairs-committee/russian-corruption-and-the-uk/oral/81007.html]
      1. Mike Gapes:
         1. This was public knowledge. None of these things were secret, so why did the regulator not stop it?
      2. Emile Simpson:
         1. That is a good question for the regulator.
      3. Mike Gapes:
         1. What do we need to do to ensure that things like this do not happen again?
      4. Emile Simpson:
         1. I think there needs to be an investigation into what processes failed in the regulator. There needs to be a look at the regulator’s code.

The latest report Fragmented and incoherent: the UK’s sanctions policy – https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmfaff/1703/170302.htm urges the UK government to carry out a “major review” of its approach to sanctions, the Select Committee stated:

1. “The Foreign & Commonwealth Office also seems unwilling to acknowledge that it has a vital role to play in helping to keep the UK and our allies safe by cracking down on the laundering of dirty money.
2. As this Committee has said in previous reports, dirty money is a national security issue, especially in the light of London’s importance in the global financial system.
3. It is simply not good enough for the Minister of State to assert that financial crime is ‘not quite’ the Foreign & Commonwealth Office’s ‘patch'”.

In closing and keeping focused on the question,

• Should Jersey ask the same questions about its AML and sanction regimes after the EN+ Group issue in 2018?