Executive Summary
This case concerns six on-demand bonds totaling over €280 million issued by Societe Generale and ING Bank branches in favor of LLC EuroChem North-West-2 (EuroChem NW2), linked to a Russian fertiliser plant project. Following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, EU sanctions were imposed on EuroChem’s founder, Mr Andrey Melnichenko, and his wife, Mrs Aleksandra Melnichenko, including asset freezes under Council Regulation (EU) No. 269/2014 ("Regulation 269"). The Banks refused payment on the Bonds citing illegality under EU sanctions. The core legal issue is whether EuroChem NW2 or EuroChem AG (the indirect owner) are owned or controlled by the sanctioned individuals, triggering asset freezes and prohibitions on making funds available under Articles 2(1) and 2(2) of Regulation 269.
Sanctions Highlights
- Mr Andrey Melnichenko was designated under EU sanctions on 9 March 2022; Mrs Aleksandra Melnichenko on 3 June 2022.
- Both are listed in Annex I to Regulation 269, triggering asset freeze obligations.
- Article 2(1) mandates freezing all funds and economic resources belonging to or controlled by designated persons.
- Article 2(2) prohibits making funds or resources available to or for the benefit of designated persons.
- The Banks argue payment under the Bonds would violate these provisions, rendering enforcement illegal under French and Italian law.
- EuroChem NW2 assigned Bond proceeds to EuroChem AG in December 2024, raising questions about ownership and control post-assignment.
Emerging Risks
- Complex ownership structures involving trusts and layered corporate entities in Cyprus and Switzerland complicate sanctions compliance.
- The discretionary trust (Firstline Trust) and shareholdings by sanctioned individuals create ambiguity over effective control.
- Potential for sanctioned individuals to indirectly benefit from funds despite formal ownership changes.
- Risk of cross-jurisdictional enforcement conflicts due to differing interpretations of sanctions legality in EU member states.
- The case highlights challenges in enforcing sanctions against entities with opaque ownership and control mechanisms.
Geopolitical Impact
- The case reflects broader EU sanctions enforcement against Russian oligarch-linked entities amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
- Involves multiple jurisdictions: EU countries (France, Germany, Italy, Cyprus), Russia, Switzerland, and the UK.
- Highlights EU’s regulatory reach over non-EU incorporated entities with EU banking and financial connections.
- Demonstrates tensions between EU sanctions policy and English law enforcement of contracts.
- The involvement of major European banks (SocGen, ING) underscores financial sector exposure to geopolitical sanctions risks.
Economic Intelligence
- EuroChem Group is a major global fertiliser producer with significant Russian operations and EU-based plants.
- The Kingisepp plant project is a strategic industrial asset in Russia, linked to sanctioned individuals.
- The frozen Bonds represent substantial financial exposure (€280 million+), impacting liquidity and project financing.
- Sanctions enforcement affects cross-border capital flows and contractual obligations in energy and agriculture sectors.
- The case may set precedent for handling sanctions-related bond disputes and asset freezes in international finance.
Strategic Recommendations
- Conduct thorough due diligence on ownership and control structures of counterparties to identify sanctioned persons.
- Implement enhanced compliance protocols for transactions involving entities with Russian links or complex trust arrangements.
- Monitor evolving EU sanctions regulations and national enforcement practices, especially in France and Italy.
- Engage legal counsel with expertise in EU sanctions and cross-jurisdictional enforcement to navigate contract risks.
- Consider risk mitigation strategies such as escrow arrangements or licenses to enable lawful payments under sanctions regimes.
---
**Source Notes:**
Sanctions Intelligence Digest, England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) [2025] EWHC 1938 (Comm)
https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/202