Russian Tycoon's Court Clash Over $850M to Test UK Sanctions
Boris Mints, the controversial Russian tycoon accused of stealing hundreds of millions from the private lender that he founded, is being chased through London's courts by the country's authorities.
December 13, 2022 at 01:59 PM
2 minute read
The U.K.'s sanctions measures against Russia's financial elite are set to be scrutinized by London's courts in one of the first major tests of the regime.
Boris Mints, the controversial Russian tycoon accused of stealing hundreds of millions from the private lender that he founded, is being chased through the city's courts by the country's authorities.
But on Tuesday, his lawyers sought to pause the litigation arguing that the Russian government-controlled lenders, one of which is sanctioned, could not lawfully collect potential damages of $850 million.
"The claimants maintain that they are entitled to use the English courts," for the "benefit of the Russian State," Laurence Rabinowitz, Mints' lawyer, said at the London hearing. If the court were ultimately to award damages "it could fairly be said that the U.K. sanctions regime is not fit for purpose."
The case highlights how the imposition of sanctions could frustrate the attempts of Russia to enforce against exiled businessmen, and how those same measures could make life easier for the pursued. The lenders argue that for a judge to prevent them from collecting an award would effectively see them cut off from access to justice.
In 2019 Russian lender National Bank Trust PJSC together with Bank Otkritie, owned by the Russian Central Bank, obtained a worldwide freezing order on the assets of Mints and his sons. They allege that Mints, the founder of Bank Otkritie, defrauded the lenders, before their collapse and bail out by the government.
The attempt to halt the litigation was "opportunistic and ill-conceived," lawyers for the lenders said in a filing. Mints was trying to "exploit" the government measures to exclude sanctioned people from "access to the U.K. courts."
"No such judgment will exist until late 2024 or 2025, by which time the sanctions position may well have changed," said Nathan Pillow, a lawyer for the lenders.
Jonathan Browning reports for Bloomberg News.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
CFPB Orders Big Banks to Limit Overdraft Fees to $5. But Will Its Edict Stick?
3 minute readUS Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
4 minute readGreenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
Trending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250