Jersey Investigators Probe Abramovich’s Offshore Network Over Money Laundering and Sanctions Breaches

Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, a figure long associated with immense wealth and political influence, is once again at the center of an international financial crime probe.

Authorities in Jersey have launched a sweeping investigation into suspected money laundering and sanctions violations, focusing on a labyrinth of offshore companies and financial flows dating back to the 1990s. Central to the case are allegations that Abramovich’s offshore entities and layered transactions were used both to disguise corruption payments and to manage the proceeds from one of Russia’s most significant oil deals.

Jersey’s Focus on Money Laundering Allegations

At the heart of the Jersey inquiry are suspicions that Abramovich used offshore corporate structures spanning multiple jurisdictions to funnel billions of dollars. Court documents reveal that prosecutors believe corruption payments were made in the 1990s to secure control over Sibneft, the oil giant that Abramovich later sold for over $13 billion. According to Jersey filings, those funds were subsequently transferred into accounts held by companies registered in Jersey and other secrecy jurisdictions.

Jersey’s legal arsenal for combating illicit finance is formidable, anchored in the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 and reinforced by its compliance with the FATF Recommendations. Investigators are now testing whether Abramovich’s transactions violated prohibitions against laundering criminal property under these laws.

Sanctions evasion is also a key dimension of the case. Abramovich was sanctioned in Jersey in March 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Prosecutors suspect that corporate entities linked to him may have carried out transactions in breach of those restrictions. Such activity would constitute an offense under the Sanctions and Asset-Freezing (Implementation of External Sanctions) (Jersey) Order 2021. By probing both money laundering and sanctions breaches, Jersey is highlighting how financial crime and geopolitical enforcement increasingly overlap in offshore centers.

Offshore Networks and Swiss Cooperation

The Jersey investigation underscores how offshore networks and banking secrecy can obstruct efforts to trace illicit funds. Swiss prosecutors have ordered domestic banks to hand over records connected to companies incorporated in Cyprus, Jersey, and the British Virgin Islands (BVI). Judgments from Swiss courts cite more than 20 companies and several trusts as part of the scrutiny, mapping out the extent of Abramovich’s offshore empire.

For investigators, the case illustrates the classic method of layering across multiple jurisdictions. By routing funds through entities in Cyprus, the BVI, and Jersey, suspicious capital could be reintroduced into the financial system with a veneer of legitimacy. The Swiss courts rejected appeals from the implicated firms, paving the way for Jersey authorities to obtain detailed account statements, ownership records, and trust documentation.

This cooperation between Switzerland, Cyprus, and Jersey demonstrates the growing reliance on mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs). Without such cross-border legal frameworks, it would have been virtually impossible for prosecutors to pierce secrecy rules and secure the evidence needed. In today’s AML landscape, these treaties have become indispensable tools for ensuring that offshore laws do not shield the abuse of global finance.

Political Patronage and Compliance Red Flags

Beyond the technicalities of offshore structuring, the Abramovich probe highlights the importance of political patronage in money laundering risk. Allegations point to substantial payments made in Russia in the 1990s to secure political protection, a practice widely known as krysha. While not unique to Abramovich, the pattern exemplifies the intersection of corruption and financial crime.

For compliance professionals, the allegations illustrate a series of red flags that demand vigilance:

• Rapid accumulation of wealth tied to state-controlled resources

• Extensive use of offshore companies and layered trust structures

• Movement of assets through secrecy jurisdictions

• Business dealings involving politically exposed persons (PEPs)

• Transactions coinciding with international sanctions designations

Under the EU’s Fifth and Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directives and the UK’s Money Laundering Regulations 2017, financial institutions are expected to detect and escalate these indicators. Jersey’s own framework mirrors these obligations, mandating enhanced due diligence for high-risk clients. Failure to identify such risks can result in severe regulatory repercussions for banks and trust companies.

Implications for Global AML Enforcement

The Abramovich case is not just about one oligarch under pressure—it is emblematic of the convergence of corruption, sanctions enforcement, and money laundering in a globalized financial system. Offshore hubs like Jersey face mounting pressure to prove that they can enforce tough AML laws without undermining their position as international finance centers.

If Jersey prosecutors substantiate their suspicions, the case could set a critical precedent. It would demonstrate that even billionaires with vast networks of offshore companies cannot indefinitely shield themselves from accountability. It would also strengthen the case for transparency reforms, such as the establishment of public beneficial ownership registers—initiatives already underway across Europe and the UK’s Crown Dependencies.

For banks and compliance officers, the lesson is stark: high-value clients with opaque corporate structures cannot be taken at face value. Risk assessments must account for geopolitical ties, historical controversies, and hidden ownership risks. Institutions in Switzerland, Cyprus, and Jersey are now under renewed scrutiny over whether their controls were sufficiently rigorous when billions linked to Sibneft entered their financial systems.

By fLEXI tEAM