Alisher Usmanov’s assets could be beyond the reach of the sanctions regime | Alisher Usmanov

Alisher Usmanov, the Russian oligarch once considered the UK’s richest person, claims to have placed hundreds of millions of pounds of his assets in an irrevocable trust, potentially leaving them outside the sanctions regime established by governments Westerners.

The tycoon – a former 30% shareholder in Arsenal football club who also invested millions in Everton sponsorship and faces sanctions – can today be revealed to be linked to at least six properties luxury property in the UK and a central London office building, collectively worth more than £170million and held through an intricate network of offshore companies and family members.

The list of assets linked to Usmanov was compiled by the Russian Asset Trackera partnership involving the Guardian, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and other international news outlets that report on the wealth of Russia’s most powerful operators.

The project also found evidence that the oligarch has:

• The use of a $350m private jet and helicopter debarred from the Isle of Man the day Usmanov was sanctioned by the UK, plus another now debarred from Luxembourg, LX-VIP .

• A 512-foot, $600 million private yacht called Dilbar, along with a concession to moor the ship until 2036 in the port of Barcelona, ​​estimated to be worth around $20 million.

Russian asset tracking serves as a snapshot in time and only includes assets where journalists have seen documentary evidence or other reliable information linking them to those under sanctions.

The purpose of the sanctions against Russia is to punish those accused of supporting Putin’s regime from profiting from their wealth. The complicated structures in which assets linked to Usmanov are held show how difficult they are to enforce.

In response to questions from the Guardian about the ownership of these luxury assets, a spokesperson for Usmanov revealed that most of the billionaire’s UK properties, as well as his yacht, had been “long since transferred into irrevocable trusts”.

He added: “From that moment Mr. Usmanov did not own them, nor was he able to manage them or deal with their sale, but could only use them on hire. Mr. Usmanov withdrew as beneficiaries of the trusts, gifting his beneficiary rights to his family.

Data from UK and offshore registers previously appeared to show Usmanov’s assets were held by companies and trusts he controlled.

A irrevocable trust cannot be modified without the authorization of the beneficiaries. The person who places the assets in the trust – called a grantor – effectively removes their ownership rights to the assets. Irrevocable trusts are usually set up to minimize taxes or protect assets.

Usmanov’s spokesperson did not reveal exactly when the irrevocable trust was established, or give its name or jurisdiction, and he did not say when Usmanov withdrew from the list of beneficiaries, or whether these moves had been triggered by the threat of sanctions.

However, he hinted that the trust now ultimately owned Usmanov’s Beechwood House in Highgate, north London, worth an estimated £48million, and his 16th-century Sutton Place estate of £34m to Surrey. Both properties were cited by the UK government when it announced this month it was freezing Usmanov’s assets.

Sutton Place is owned by Delesius Investments Limited and Bacerius Investments Limited, both of which are registered in Cyprus, while Beechwood House is owned by Hanley Limited, based in the Isle of Man, according to land records.

Experts have suggested that UK authorities would find it difficult to use the current sanctions regime against the families of people who had been sanctioned, even if they believed rules were being broken.

James Birkett, sanctions expert at business intelligence firm Alaco, said: “The challenge would be to identify and prove these relationships. [between the sanctioned individual and family members and associates] – both given the well-known capacity constraints of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) and the ability to conceal ownership of assets through offshore structures.

“It is likely that such a decision would be the subject of a legal challenge and the OFSI would like to be fairly sure that it could avoid the embarrassment of being forced to reconsider its decision… No one is concerned. still really takes it out on family members. It would be a radical change in the way the programs were applied.