New American Proposal to Seize Russian Oligarchs' Assets

[Debater Slayer]

The U.S. is in the process of implementing new measures to seize and sell the property of Russian oligarchs, which the White House is stating is linked to "Russian kleptocracy":

Today, in concert with his supplemental request to Congress to support Ukraine, President Biden will send a proposal for a comprehensive legislative package that will enhance the United States Government’s authority to hold the Russian government and Russian oligarchs accountable for President Putin’s war against Ukraine. The proposals were crafted in close consultation with interagency partners, including the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the Department of Commerce. The Biden Administration looks forward to working closely with Members of Congress as a whole to implement this package of proposals.

This package of proposals will establish new authorities for the forfeiture of property linked to Russian kleptocracy, allow the government to use the proceeds to support Ukraine, and further strengthen related law enforcement tools.

FACT SHEET: President Biden’s Comprehensive Proposal to Hold Russian Oligarchs and Elites Accountable | The White House

This leads me to ask three questions:

1) Could this, in your opinion, set a precedent where the American government has authority to seize assets of foreign investors it deems a part of a "kleptocracy"?

2) What about Russian billionaires who are not allies of Putin? Are they going to have their assets seized too?

3) Why isn't this also done to Saudi, Emirati, and/or Chinese oligarchs with financial and diplomatic ties to the U.S. despite ties to regimes that aid corruption and abuse in their respective countries as well as other countries (e.g., Yemen and, in China's case, North Korea)?

On a side note, only few members of Congress opposed the proposals, including AOC, Ilhan Omar, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and a few others with progressive and right-wing leanings:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was one of just eight House lawmakers to vote against seizing assets from Russian oligarchs.

The progressive firebrand said seizing the yachts and plush apartments of billionaire cronies of Russian President Vladimir Putin could undermine Americans’ Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.

The no votes included an extremely unusual coalition: AOC was joined on the left by three of her staunchest progressive allies, including Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Cori Bush (D-Missouri).

They were joined by four of the most extreme right-wing Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-Fla.), Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.) and Rep. Tom Massie (R-Ky.)

AOC defends lonely vote against seizing assets of pro-Putin Russian oligarchs

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is worrisome because we have overseas assets too. Where does it stop? But, then if Putin's strongest supporters started to feel a bite from this war that would not be a bad thing. I will have to think about this. I am not ready to go whole hog Yay or Nay yet.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

3) Why isn't this also done to Saudi, Emirati, and/or Chinese oligarchs with financial and diplomatic ties to the U.S. despite ties to regimes that aid corruption and abuse in their respective countries as well as other countries

Or this guy, who is apparently Zelensky's puppet master: Ihor Kolomoyskyi - Wikipedia

It could be done to the US, as well. We love to pretend we're exempt. Maybe not for so much longer.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It is worrisome because we have overseas assets too. Where does it stop? But, then if Putin's strongest supporters started to feel a bite from this war that would not be a bad thing. I will have to think about this. I am not ready to go whole hog Yay or Nay yet.

Same here. I'm not ready to oppose an effort that might contribute to ending the Russian invasion, but I'm also concerned about the potentially harmful precedent this could set as well as its ostensible inconsistency.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Or this guy, who is apparently Zelensky's puppet master: Ihor Kolomoyskyi - Wikipedia

It could be done to the US, as well. We love to pretend we're exempt. Maybe not for so much longer.

I was going to ask how he was connected to Zelenskyy, but then I came across this in the Wiki article:

Zelenskyy was viewed by some as Kolomoyskyi's candidate. Zelenskyy appointed Kolomoyskyi's personal lawyer as a key campaign advisor, travelled to Geneva and Tel Aviv to confer with the then-exiled Kolomoyskyi on multiple occasions, and benefited from the endorsement of Kolomoyskyi's media empire. Once in office, Zelencky appeared to remove officials deemed a threat to Kolomoyskyi's interests, among them the Prosecutor General, Ruslan Ryaboshapka and the Governor of the National Bank of UkraineYakiv Smolii, and Zelenskyy's first prime minister, Oleksiy Honcharuk, who tried to loosen Kolomoyskyi's control of a state-owned electricity company.[100]

If true, that seems quite worrisome. I fully believe Zelenskyy is right about Putin and the Russian invasion, but I'm also wary of portraying him as an angel or some absolute hero. His support for Israel despite its illegal occupation and war crimes has also raised my eyebrows, especially considering that he should know better than anyone how abusive and condemnable both of those things are.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I was going to ask how he was connected to Zelenskyy, but then I came across this in the Wiki article:



If true, that seems quite worrisome. I fully believe Zelenskyy is right about Putin and the Russian invasion, but I'm also wary of portraying him as an angel or some absolute hero. His support for Israel despite its illegal occupation and war crimes has also raised my eyebrows, especially considering that he should know better than anyone how abusive and condemnable both of those things are.

You might find this interesting, as well. I was just skimming through it.
Pandora Papers Reveal Offshore Holdings of Ukrainian President and his Inner Circle - OCCRP

 

[Revoltingest]

You might find this interesting, as well. I was just skimming through it.
Pandora Papers Reveal Offshore Holdings of Ukrainian President and his Inner Circle - OCCRP

This is just info...not criticism.
About your source....
Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project - Wikipedia

 

[74x12]

1) Could this, in your opinion, set a precedent where the American government has authority to seize assets of foreign investors it deems a part of a "kleptocracy"?

Yes. And they'll do it selectively. Basically whenever they want. Their honor is gone as far as I'm concerned.

2) What about Russian billionaires who are not allies of Putin? Are they going to have their assets seized too?

Maybe. War on civilians is what it is. A new precedent indeed.

3) Why isn't this also done to Saudi, Emirati, and/or Chinese oligarchs with financial and diplomatic ties to the U.S. despite ties to regimes that aid corruption and abuse in their respective countries as well as other countries (e.g., Yemen and, in China's case, North Korea)?

Because it's not currently politically expedient.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You might find this interesting, as well. I was just skimming through it.
Pandora Papers Reveal Offshore Holdings of Ukrainian President and his Inner Circle - OCCRP

I would need to read more about this in order to determine how much (if any) of it to believe. I don't think it's impossible for Zelenskyy to have some skeletons in the closest like many politicians do, but there's so much propaganda and smearing targeting him nowadays in particular.

I think the tendency of some Putin supporters to use unpleasant information (whether accurate or not) about Zelenskyy to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine is one of the main reasons many people become dismissive or defensive when such allegations are brought up about him. For better or worse, many people are unable to consider a politician's personal integrity and ethics in isolation of said politician's political views (e.g., whether they're right about the motives behind a foreign invasion of their country).

 

[Revoltingest]

The U.S. is in the process of implementing new measures to seize and sell the property of Russian oligarchs, which the White House is stating is linked to "Russian kleptocracy":

This is about more than just a kleptocracy. They also
serve a country that is trying to conquer another.
A slippery slope argument that this would extend to
all kleptocracies would require more evidence.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would need to read more about this in order to determine how much (if any) of it to believe. I don't think it's impossible for Zelenskyy to have some skeletons in the closest like many politicians do, but there's so much propaganda and smearing targeting him nowadays in particular.

I think the tendency of some Putin supporters to use unpleasant information (whether accurate or not) about Zelenskyy to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine is one of the main reasons many people become dismissive or defensive when such allegations are brought up about him. For better or worse, many people are unable to consider a politician's personal integrity and ethics in isolation of said politician's political views (e.g., whether they're right about the motives behind a foreign invasion of their country).

Well, they're not making it up. The Panama Papers are real: Panama Papers - Wikipedia

It really doesn't have anything to do with the current conflict, as that article is from last year and I was just putting that info out there as it's relevant to the thread.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This is about more than just a kleptocracy. They also
serve a country that is trying to conquer another.

Then Saudi officials and oligarchs aiding or having ties to the Saudi regime despite the war on Yemen also deserve to be sanctioned, don't they?

A slippery slope argument that this would extend to
all kleptocracies would require more evidence.

Do you trust the U.S. government to wield such power consistently and fairly? (We're back to this question from other discussions.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Then Saudi officials and oligarchs aiding the Saudi regime despite the war on Yemen also deserve to be sanction, don't they?

I don't know.
Are Saudis trying to conquer & take the country,
with designs on its neighbors? If so, then the
situations would be comparable.

Do you trust the U.S. government to wield such power consistently and fairly? (We're back to this question from other discussions.)

I don't trust it. But this doesn't mean that every
seizing of assets would be wrong. I see merit in
such sanctions against Russia's elite.
Should the untrustworthiness of US government
mean it should stand down in assisting Ukraine
by sanctioning Russia?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't know.
Are the Saudis trying to conquer & take the country, with designs
on its neighbors? If so, then the situations would be comparable.

No, but they're waging a war on it that has led to a humanitarian crisis, widespread famine, and thousands of civilian deaths.

If you'd prefer a comparison involving a country occupying the territory of another, we could talk about the unwavering support the U.S. gives Israel even when the latter builds illegal settlements.

I don't trust it. But this doesn't mean that every
seizing of assets would be wrong. I see merit in
such sanctions against Russia's elite.

What about Russian businessmen (and women) who are unaffiliated with Putin? Do they get hit with the long baton of American law as well?

Should the untrustworthiness of US government
mean it should stand down in assisting Ukraine?

No, but it should be cause for prudence when considering measures that could set a thorny precedent.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, but they're waging a war on it that has led to a humanitarian crisis, widespread famine, and thousands of civilian deaths.

USA government doesn't have hard & fast criteria
for seizing assets. So for even comparable situations
it's understandable that policy would differ.

If you'd prefer a comparison involving a country occupying the territory of another, we could talk about the unwavering support the U.S. gives Israel even when the latter builds illegal settlements.

I'm merely addressing your posts.
Do you think I'm a fan of US policies towards Israel?
I'm not.

What about Russian businessmen (and women) who are unaffiliated with Putin? Do they get hit with the long baton of American law as well?

I'd prefer sanctioning only malefactors.
But government is a blunt instrument,
so there'll be collateral damage.

No, but it should be cause for prudence when considering measures that could set a thorny precedent.

We'll see if this turns out to be a precedent,
& whether it's for good or bad.
At least current US policy is to aid the good
side in a war, rather than to wade in & wage
war. I see this as better than our usual.

 

[Debater Slayer]

USA government doesn't have hard & fast criteria
for seizing assets. So for even comparable situations
it's understandable that policy would differ.

Somehow I'm not very optimistic about the soundness of the judgment of this U.S. government or future ones concerning "kleptocracies." History paints a rather worrying picture.

I'm merely addressing your posts.
Do you think I'm a fan of US policies towards Israel?

My posts imply inconsistency on the part of the U.S. Supporting Israeli occupation while seizing oligarchs' assets in the name of combating occupation seems overtly selective.

I'm not against measures to stop the Russian invasion; I'm against not applying them to similar offenders.

I'd prefer sanctioning malefactors.
But government is a blunt instrument,
so there'll be collateral damage.

Does government have to be a blunt instrument? Do you think they couldn't be more nuanced in their approach if they wished to be?

"Collateral damage"... that phrase kinda brings up flashbacks of American politicians and public figures brushing aside the results of drone strikes and bombing of overseas countries.

We'll see if this turns out to be a precedent,
& whether it's for good or bad.

I'm waiting to see. Not holding my breath for the U.S. government to be a beacon of international justice, though. I'd love to be proven wrong and pleasantly surprised.

 

[sun rise]

This issue is not political because both parties are in favor of it EXPLAINER: Why US needs a law to sell off oligarchs’ assets | Federal News Network

Personally I rank it with cops selling off property they seize too often ignoring the rights of the property owners. So I'm against it in principle.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I see one group of One Percenters using government to harass and intimidate another group of One Percenters, mostly who came from a different land, and comparatively recently...

 

[F1fan]

Well none of us on an obscure forum can say we know the full depth of the policy set out by the Biden administration. I suspect there has been extensive legal examination and analysis on doing this, and surely checked with international law.

The fact is that Russia has been condemned by the vast majority of nations and that the corruption of oligarchs is well evidenced suggests this policy is on a similar legal setting as taking custody of money and property of drug dealers. It's not uncommon that forfeiture of assets is used to offset costs of enforcement and for victim compensation. There is no doubt that the war was started on criminal grounds. There is no doubt that there has been massive destructions of many cities. There is no doubt that many citizens have been murdered. There is no doubt that refugees have cost local and global nations a lot of money to help cope with Russia's actions. Against all these facts it is defendable to seize assets directly tied to Putin and Russia as a way to help offset the costs of Putin's decisions to invade.

I'm sure there will be due diligence to determine who is tied to Putin and who is not.

 

[F1fan]

This issue is not political because both parties are in favor of it EXPLAINER: Why US needs a law to sell off oligarchs’ assets | Federal News Network

Personally I rank it with cops selling off property they seize too often ignoring the rights of the property owners. So I'm against it in principle.

In these cases there is no victim or actual crime. Are you against this if there are actual victims and actual crimes? Let's say there is a rich drug dealer who does a drive by shooting and a child is shot and injured, are you opposed to law enforcement taking his money to cover medical costs and for pain and suffering?