UK: (Politico) Pledges to take Russian money to help Ukraine face a litany of legal and tactical quandaries - Plenty of bold words have been bandied about since Russia launched its illegal invasion, but two years later, little has been done to seize Russian assets, whether those owned by the oligarchs or, more realistically, those of the central bank.
- The government has never released official figures for the total value of Russian assets held in the U.K., but itâs estimated that ÂŁ18 billion worth of individual assets have been frozen so far, alongside around ÂŁ26 billion worth of Russian central bank assets in the U.K. It's a sizeable figure, although dwarfed by the âŹ260 billion of Russian central bank assets in the EU.
- But policy experts stress there are big differences between freezing assets and seizing them: the freezing of assets is viewed as legally proportionate because it is a temporary step (the assets themselves will in theory be returned at some point). Seizing them permanently, on the other hand, could have massive legal ramifications.
- Beyond the legal issues of seizing assets outright, U.K. officials are conscious that frozen Russian assets could be a useful tool in future peace negotiations. Billions of pounds of frozen cash, along with treasured assets like mansions and superyachts, are a pretty good card to play in any such talks.
- Although all jurisdictions are nervous of the potential legal and financial ramifications of taking the money - they fear it could deter investment in the currency or put other countries off depositing funds at the central bank - the City of Londonâs fears risking its reputation as a leading place to invest, and, a cynic might say, as a hotbed for dirty money.
- In the U.S. there are strong bipartisan calls for assets to be seized, while in the EU the bloc is split (as the majority of assets are held at Euroclear, a securities depository in Belgium, an EU-wide agreement would be needed). The topic will be on the table at June's G7 summit.
Italia: (il Post) Il governo si lamenta molto degli effetti del Superbonus, ma fa poco per limitarli - il sottosegretario allâEconomia Federico Freni ha comunicato che il totale dei crediti connessi alle agevolazioni fiscali per la ristrutturazione degli immobili privati, dal 15 ottobre 2020 al 4 aprile 2024, è di ÂŤcirca 219 miliardiÂť, di cui 160,3 miliardi per il Superbonus, e 58,7 miliardi per tutti gli altri bonus.
- Si tratta nel complesso di una cifra enormemente maggiore rispetto a quella inizialmente stimata: nel 2020 la Ragioneria prevedeva che nel loro insieme i vari bonus sarebbero costati al massimo 71 miliardi in tre anni. Nel 2023 i dirigenti tecnici del ministero dellâEconomia e il capo della Ragioneria Biagio Mazzotta aggiornarono il conto valutando in 116 miliardi il costo totale dei bonus edilizi.
- Anche per tentare di mitigare questi effetti catastrofici del Superbonus, il ministro dellâEconomia Giancarlo Giorgetti ha giustificato la pubblicazione di un Documento di economia e finanza (DEF) molto prudente. Ma ai tanti annunci di provvedimenti per correggere le storture ed eliminare gli abusi in maniera piĂš circostanziata da parte di Meloni e Giorgetti sono seguiti interventi piuttosto parziali.
- LâambiguitĂ della destra sul Superbonus era evidente giĂ prima della nascita del governo di Meloni: per tutto il 2021 e buona parte del 2022 Draghi e Franco si trovarono a fronteggiare le resistenze e le contrarietĂ di quasi tutti i partiti, schierati compatti a difesa del Superbonus. Non solo il M5S, ma anche Lega e Forza Italia, che erano parte della maggioranza di governo. Fratelli dâItalia, lâunico partito che stava allâopposizione, contestava le critiche di Draghi al Superbonus.
Svezia: (Associated Press) The trial of a former Syrian general over alleged role in war crimes starts in Stockholm - The prosecutor claims the 65-year-old Mohammed Hamo - who was a brigadier general in the Syrian army between January 2012 and July 2012 - has participated in the warfare that âsystematically included attacks carried out in violation of the principle of distinction, caution and proportionality,â adding that the attacks were âindiscriminate.â
- âThis trial is important because itâs the first time that anyone from the Syrian government or the Syrian army is actually put on trial for the attacks that took place,â said Aida Samani of the Stockholm-based Civil Rights Defenders, a politically and religiously independent human rights organization.
|