Uncategorized

This article is a general summary of the position as at August 2026 and is not legal advice. The Immigration Rules change frequently and often at short notice; advice should be taken on individual circumstances before any application or decision on timing.

Artificial intelligence in legal work: what it is doing well, where it is going wrong, and where the rules are heading

Tatiana Svetlova · Founder and Principal Solicitor, Svetlova LLP · July 2026

In R v FGD [2026] EWCA Crim 918 a criminal trial was stayed part-way through after a download of the complainant’s phone revealed that she had prepared for cross-examination using an AI chatbot. It had produced a tidied narrative of her account, together with two dozen questions a defence advocate might ask and suggested answers to each. The Court of Appeal reversed the stay: the coaching was not in dispute, but the trial process had ample means of dealing with it — an adjournment, exclusion, recalling the witness on the documents, or a firm direction of the kind approved in Momodou. Two features mattered. Her evidence-in-chief was a pre-recorded ABE interview given years earlier and could not have been contaminated; and, unusually, everything the AI had told her existed in writing and could be put before the jury.

Coaching by a human being happens behind a closed door and leaves no trace. This left a transcript — which is why it was caught, and why most of it will not be.

The court added an observation that will outlast the case: this is unlikely to be an isolated example. It invited the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to consider how to address and regulate the use of AI in criminal proceedings. That is the question this article is really about: is a regulatory check now due, and of what kind?

What AI is quietly doing well

It is worth saying plainly, because the reported cases are all disasters and give a distorted picture: in day-to-day practice these tools are doing a great deal of good, and much of it is invisible.

The most important effect is on access. People who would not previously have had proper — or affordable — access to legal help can now enter this territory with far more confidence. They arrive understanding roughly what kind of problem they have, what the process is likely to involve, and what questions are worth asking. That is a significant shift for anyone who has historically had to choose between paying for advice they could not afford and going without it altogether.

The effect is visible on the client side every week. Clients — particularly younger buyers in residential transactions — now arrive with genuinely well-formulated briefs. They have thought about what they want, identified the points that worry them, and can articulate an issue in terms a solicitor can act on immediately. A buyer who flags potential issues is not a threat to professional work – it is a better instruction, and better instructions make better outcomes.

The ordinary gains are real too: first-pass review of long documents, translation triage in cross-border matters, chronologies, structuring a set of enquiries, and stress-testing an argument by having it attacked.

Where it goes wrong

Fabrication. The most familiar failure is the invented authority. In Ayinde v Haringey LBC and Al-Haroun v QNB [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the Divisional Court considered its Hamid jurisdiction in respect of non-existent citations placed before the court. The Crown Prosecution Service has apologised for hallucinated material in court documents; at least one substantial firm has referred itself to the SRA. The problem is never that the tool was used. It is that nothing was checked.

Contamination of evidence. This is the FGD problem, and it is more insidious than fabrication because nothing produced is false. An AI asked to help a witness prepare will do exactly what it is asked: it will smooth the account, reconcile the inconsistencies, supply the confident answer, and — as the documents in FGD did — reassure the witness that their account is strong and consistent. That is precisely the danger identified in R v Momodou and Limani [2005] EWCA Crim 177 at [61]: an honest witness shifts emphasis without realising it, and a dishonest one calculates rapidly how the testimony might be improved. These tools are agreeable by design. Agreeableness is a defect in a witness preparation aid.

Confidentiality and privilege. Putting client material into a general-purpose consumer system is a disclosure of that material to a third party. Whether it is a breach depends on the terms, the deployment and the safeguards, but the analysis has to be done rather than assumed — and it engages both the duty of confidentiality and data protection obligations. Sanctions-sensitive and cross-border matters raise this in sharper form.

Disclosure exposure — the trap nobody anticipates. The Court of Appeal in FGD made a point that deserves wider attention. A complainant’s use of AI can itself create a reasonable line of enquiry, opening their phone and their online activity to a far broader and more intrusive examination than would otherwise have been justified.

Fluent wrongness. The output reads like competent work whether or not it is. That is a particular hazard where the user cannot yet evaluate what they are reading — the litigant in person, the client who believes they have received advice, and the practitioner working at the edge of their knowledge. The tool that helps you learn faster is the same tool that will let you sound expert before you are.

So is AI due a regulatory check?

Yes — but not the kind usually imagined. The answer is not a prohibition on AI in legal work. That is both unenforceable and undesirable, and it would fall hardest on the users who benefit most: small firms and unrepresented litigants.

The civil side is already some distance ahead. The Civil Justice Council, through a working group chaired by Birss LJ, consulted between February and April 2026 on whether rules are needed to govern the use of AI by legal representatives in preparing court documents. Its interim position is instructive: existing professional frameworks are treated as sufficient for pleadings, skeletons and advocacy documents, because the lawyers who sign them are already regulated and already owe duties to the court.

The proposals bite where regulation runs out — a declaration that AI has not been used to generate the content of a trial witness statement, including by altering, embellishing, strengthening, diluting or rephrasing it; a transparency requirement for experts; and continuing work on witness statements and on litigants in person, where the issues are hardest. A final report is expected later this year.
The criminal side has no equivalent and now has a Court of Appeal invitation to build one.

Four things would matter more than a rule change alone:

Warning at the point of contact. Witnesses learn what is expected of them from the officer in the case, from witness care, and from the ABE process. That is where the message belongs — before the conduct, not in a rule they will never read.
A record, not a ban. FGD shows the value of an auditable trail. Rules that push AI use into the open produce evidence a jury can weigh; rules that drive it underground produce nothing.
Guidance on the remedy. The Court of Appeal’s practical direction to counsel — to raise and explore each available trial-process remedy explicitly, so the judge can rule on them separately — should be standard practice in any abuse application of this kind.
Restraint on disclosure. If discovering AI use routinely justifies a full device download, complainants will pay a disproportionate price for a mistake most of them do not know they are making. Bater-James proportionality has to hold.
What this means for firms now
For solicitors, the regulatory position is already clear enough to act on. The SRA has not restricted the use of AI; it has confirmed that responsibility for the work is undiminished by the fact that a machine helped produce it.
A closing thought
The lesson is not that these tools are dangerous. It is that they are indiscriminate. They will help a solicitor understand an unfamiliar jurisdiction, help a buyer arrive with an intelligent brief, and help a witness rehearse evidence they were never permitted to rehearse — with the same fluency and the same air of authority in every case. The regulatory task is not to decide whether AI belongs in legal work. It is already there. The task is to draw the line between preparation and contamination, in terms that ordinary people encountering the justice system for the first time can actually understand.

Svetlova LLP, 2 Allen Street, London W8 6BH
This article is published for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should be taken on any particular matter.

Why “can I still transfer money from Russia?” is the wrong question — and what the right one gets you

Ask most people whether money can still move from Russia to the UK, and you’ll get a flat “no.” It’s an understandable assumption — four years of escalating sanctions packages will do that. It’s also, in a large number of cases, wrong.

At Svetlova LLP we’re asked this question most weeks, usually by someone who has already been turned away once — by a bank, a compliance officer, or their own instinct — and has stopped looking for an answer. The sanctions regime is not a blanket prohibition. It is a targeted, constantly-updated licensing system, and the UK government has been actively expanding — not just tightening — the general licences that let legitimate money move.

The Regime Isn’t a Wall. It’s a Filter.

Sanctions work by exception, not by default. The starting position is that a transaction is prohibited only if it falls foul of a specific restriction — a designated person, a prohibited sector, a blocked payment route. Outside that, general licences carve out categories of transaction that are pre-authorised, and the UK has kept that carve-out alive and current: the personal remittance general licence was itself updated as recently as May 2026, and the regime as a whole has seen new packages issued roughly monthly this year. This is a live, moving system — which means the answer to “can I transfer this?” genuinely does depend on when you ask, not just what you’re asking.

What tends to get lost is that four separate sets of rules are usually in play at once, and they don’t always point the same way:

• UK sanctions law — asset freezes, designated persons, sectoral and financial restrictions, and the general licences that permit specific categories of payment
• Russian currency control and counter-sanctions rules — Russia’s own restrictions on outbound capital, which can block a transfer even where UK law would allow it
• Correspondent bank policy — commercial de-risking decisions that go well beyond what the law actually requires
• UK compliance requirements — source-of-funds and AML evidence that the receiving institution will demand before it will touch the money

A transfer can be entirely lawful under UK sanctions and still fail at any one of the other three hurdles. That’s the piece almost nobody explains — and it’s usually the real reason a transaction stalls.

What Is Actually Moving Right Now

Categories we continue to see transferred compliantly, subject to the specific facts and applicable licence conditions, include:

• Inheritance proceeds from an estate with Russian-based assets
• Sale proceeds from Russian property or other assets, once appropriately structured
• Rental income from Russian real estate
• Personal savings accumulated before an individual became sanctions-relevant in any way
• Certain categories of business income, where the underlying activity and counterparties are not restricted

None of this is automatic. Every one of these categories still requires the transaction to be checked against the current designated persons list, the relevant general licence conditions, and the receiving bank’s own risk appetite — which is precisely where most of the real difficulty sits.

Where It Actually Breaks Down

In our experience the transfer rarely fails on the law. It fails on process. The pattern we see repeatedly:

• No clear, documented source-of-funds narrative — banks will not accept “trust me” where a paper trail is expected
• The wrong payment route chosen for the category of funds, triggering correspondent bank refusal rather than a sanctions breach
• Reliance on a general licence that has since been amended or narrowed — checked once at the outset and never revisited
• A designated party appearing somewhere in the chain — not the sender or recipient, but an intermediary bank, adviser, or corporate structure

Each of these is fixable with the right preparation. None of them is fixable after the payment has already bounced.

Svetlova LLP advises regularly on cross-border transactions involving Russian assets, inheritance funds, and property sales, including source-of-funds preparation, sanctions and general licence analysis, and navigating bank compliance requirements on both sides of the transfer.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on a specific transaction, please contact us directly.

The old workaround — six or twelve months upfront — is now unlawful. Here’s what replaces it.

Until 1 May 2026, a landlord unsure about a tenant — no UK credit history, self-employed, relocating from abroad — had a simple tool available: ask for several months’ rent upfront, sometimes a full year, and skip the guarantor conversation altogether. Under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, that tool has gone. What hasn’t gone is the underlying risk landlords were managing, which means the practical question now is not “can I still do this” but “what do I do instead.”

The Rule, Precisely

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 amends the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and the Housing Act 1988 to restrict upfront rent payments for tenancies in England. Two provisions work together:

• Section 9 prohibits a landlord or agent from inviting, encouraging, or accepting any rent payment before the tenancy agreement is signed
• Section 8 renders any tenancy term requiring rent to be paid in advance during the tenancy of no legal effect

The combined effect, in force from 1 May 2026, is a hard cap: a landlord cannot require or accept more than one month’s rent in advance (28 days, pro rata, for a weekly tenancy), regardless of the tenant’s circumstances. Requesting or accepting a prohibited payment is a civil offence — penalties for a first breach run into several thousand pounds, escalating sharply for a repeat breach within five years, with criminal prosecution available as an alternative in serious or repeated cases. Transitional rules apply to tenancies already running before the commencement date, and the treatment of fixed terms converting to periodic tenancies around that date is a live area of uncertainty — worth checking against the specific tenancy timeline rather than assumed.

Why This Creates a Guarantor Gap

Advance rent and guarantors were, in practice, substitutes for each other. Landlords typically asked for one or the other, not both, and tenants without a UK-based guarantor — international students, recent arrivals, people with thin credit files — used advance payment specifically because they had no one to stand behind them. Industry data suggests roughly one in five renters used an advance payment for exactly this reason. With that route closed, the same tenants who previously paid their way around the guarantor requirement now need to satisfy it directly — at the same time as every other landlord in the market is reaching for the same solution.

Guarantors Themselves Are Also Changing

It’s worth noting that guarantor arrangements haven’t stood still either. Under the same Act, a guarantor’s liability now ends on the tenant’s death — previously a guarantor could remain liable for rent accruing after the tenant died, which is no longer the case. A guarantor arrangement itself does not breach the one-month advance-rent cap: liability is triggered by default during the tenancy, not by any upfront payment, so a landlord can lawfully combine a one-month advance payment with a guarantor requirement for the same tenancy.

The Practical Alternatives

In place of extended advance rent, landlords are converging on a small number of lawful alternatives, usually combined rather than used alone:

• A UK-based personal guarantor — still the cheapest option where a tenant has a friend or family member willing and financially able to stand behind the tenancy
• A professional guarantor service — a paid third-party provider acts as guarantor for tenants without a suitable personal one, typically at a cost to the tenant of a percentage of annual rent
• Rent guarantee insurance — taken out by the landlord, covering default risk directly rather than relying on recovering money from a guarantor after the fact
• Enhanced referencing — using overseas employment records, bank statements, and visa or right-to-work documentation to build an affordability picture where a UK credit file doesn’t exist
• The deposit, unaffected by this change — still capped separately under the Tenant Fees Act at five weeks’ rent (six weeks where annual rent exceeds £50,000), and remains available in full alongside any of the above

Structuring a Compliant Letting

For a landlord assessing a higher-risk tenant under the new rules, we’d suggest working through the following in order, rather than defaulting to whichever tool was used last time:

• Confirm the one-month cap applies to the specific tenancy — check the commencement date and whether any transitional treatment is relevant
• Decide whether a personal guarantor is realistically available before paying for a professional service or insurance product
• Where insurance is used, check what it actually covers — policies vary significantly on notice periods, excess, and whether legal costs of recovery are included
• Document the referencing basis clearly, particularly for overseas tenants, so the file supports the decision if it’s later challenged
• Take the deposit in full alongside whichever guarantor or insurance solution is used — there is no reason to leave that layer of security unused

Svetlova LLP advises landlords and tenants on tenancy structuring under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, including compliant advance-rent and guarantor arrangements, and represents clients in related disputes.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. It reflects the law in England as at July 2026; Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have separate regimes. For advice on a specific tenancy, please contact us directly.

A Practical Guide to Probate for International Families

By Tatiana Svetlova — Founder & Solicitor, Svetlova LLP

Introduction

Losing a loved one is always difficult. For international families, however, the emotional burden is often accompanied by legal uncertainty. Questions commonly arise such as:

• Can I deal with an estate if I live outside the United Kingdom?
• Is a UK Grant of Probate required?
• What happens if there is no Will?
• How long does probate take?
• Do I have to travel to England?
• Will I have to pay UK Inheritance Tax?

Many people are surprised to learn that probate in England and Wales is generally a structured and transparent legal process. With appropriate legal advice and careful preparation, estates involving overseas beneficiaries can usually be administered efficiently.

What is Probate?

Probate is the legal process by which a deceased person’s estate is administered. Where a valid will exists, the executors usually apply for a “Grant of Probate”. If there is no valid will, a close relative normally applies for “Letters of Administration”. These documents provide legal authority to collect assets, settle debts, pay taxes and distribute the estate.

When is Probate Required?

A Grant is commonly required where the deceased owned property, significant bank accounts, investments, shares or business interests. Smaller estates or jointly owned assets may not require probate. Each estate should be considered individually.

What Happens if There is No Will?

If someone dies without leaving a valid Will, the estate is distributed according to the rules of intestacy. These rules determine who inherits and in what proportions. Unmarried partners do not automatically inherit under the intestacy rules.

The rules follow a fixed order of priority, broadly favouring a surviving spouse or civil partner, then children, then more distant relatives. Where family circumstances are more complex — for example, a surviving partner who was not married to the deceased, or children from more than one relationship — the intestacy rules can produce outcomes the deceased would not have intended. This is one of the strongest reasons to make a Will, particularly for international families whose circumstances often fall outside the assumptions the intestacy rules are built around.

Can I Deal with an Estate if I Live Outside the UK?

Yes. Executors and administrators are not required to be resident in England and Wales, and there is generally no requirement to hold British nationality. Many estates administered by English solicitors involve executors based in the United States, the Gulf, continental Europe or further afield.

In practice, the executor’s role — collecting in assets, paying debts and taxes, and distributing the estate — is usually carried out through a solicitor acting on their behalf. Most of the substantive work can be completed by correspondence, and original documents can typically be certified and returned by post or courier rather than requiring the executor to attend in person.

Do I Have to Travel to England?

In most cases, no. The Grant of Probate application itself is made in writing (or electronically) and does not require the executor’s physical attendance at a court or probate registry. Identity verification, where required, can usually be completed remotely through certified copies of identity documents or a video call with a solicitor.

Travel may become necessary only in limited circumstances — for example, where a dispute arises that requires a court hearing, where a property needs to be inspected or cleared, or where local banking formalities require an in-person signature. These situations are the exception rather than the rule.

Will I Have to Pay UK Inheritance Tax?

Inheritance Tax (IHT) is charged on a deceased person’s worldwide estate if they were domiciled, or deemed domiciled, in the UK at the time of death. Where the deceased was not UK domiciled, IHT is generally charged only on UK-situated assets, such as UK property or, in some cases, UK bank accounts.

Domicile is a question of fact rather than nationality or residence, and it is frequently misunderstood by international families. A person can be a long-term UK resident without being UK domiciled, and conversely, a person living abroad can in some circumstances remain UK domiciled. From April 2025, the UK moved away from a domicile-based system for long-term residents toward a residence-based test for IHT purposes, which has changed the position for individuals who have spent many years in the UK. This is an area where early, specific advice matters, since the position turns on the deceased’s particular history rather than any general rule.

The current nil-rate band, residence nil-rate band, spousal exemption and any applicable double taxation treaty should each be considered as part of the estate’s IHT position. Any IHT due is generally payable before the Grant is issued, which is why early engagement with a solicitor and, where relevant, the estate’s bankers is important for cross-border estates.

How Long Does Probate Take?

Timescales vary with the complexity of the estate, but as a general guide:

• Obtaining the Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration: often around 3–6 months, longer where IHT is payable or where overseas assets or documents are involved.
• Full administration of the estate, including collecting in assets, settling debts and tax, and distributing to beneficiaries: often 6–12 months, and longer for estates with foreign property, complex investments or a business interest.

International estates typically take longer than purely domestic ones, principally because of the time needed to obtain certified translations, apostilled documents, and responses from overseas banks or registries. Building this into expectations from the outset avoids unnecessary frustration for beneficiaries abroad.

Practical Steps for Overseas Executors and Beneficiaries

• Locate the original Will (if any) and any earlier Wills, codicils, or letters of wishes.
• Obtain a certified copy of the death certificate, and an apostilled version if it was issued outside the UK.
• Identify UK assets (property, bank accounts, investments, pensions, business interests) and approximate values.
• Consider whether the deceased held assets in other jurisdictions, which may require separate or parallel proceedings.
• Instruct a solicitor early — particularly where IHT, foreign assets, or potential disputes between beneficiaries are involved.

How Svetlova LLP Can Help

Svetlova LLP advises executors, administrators and beneficiaries based in the UK and overseas on all stages of the probate process, from the initial application through to final distribution. We regularly act in estates with an international dimension — including cross-border assets, non-UK domiciled individuals, and family circumstances that fall outside the standard intestacy assumptions — and we are experienced in coordinating with overseas advisers, banks and registries where required.

If you are dealing with an estate and are uncertain about your position, we would be pleased to discuss the matter with you.

This guide is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should be sought in relation to individual circumstances.

Outline guide — UK sanctions, professional conduct and related considerations

Prepared by Svetlova LLP — 7 July 2026. This is a working outline, not a substitute for a full sanctions risk assessment or specific advice on any transaction. The regime changes frequently — always check OFSI/OTSI’s current guidance and the Consolidated List before acting.

1. The core distinction: sanctioned vs. merely Russian

The most common misconception is that all dealings involving Russia or Russian nationals are prohibited. They are not. UK sanctions law draws sharp distinctions between:

• Designated Persons (“DPs”): individuals and entities specifically named on the UK Sanctions List. An asset freeze applies — their funds and economic resources are frozen, and it is prohibited to make funds or economic resources available to them, directly or indirectly (Regulation 11 and 17A, Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, “the Russia Regulations”).
• Persons connected with Russia: a much broader category (Regulation 21) — essentially anyone ordinarily resident or located in Russia, and any entity incorporated or domiciled there (including a Russian subsidiary of a UK company). This category is not subject to an asset freeze, but is the trigger for the professional and business services ban (Regulation 54C) and related restrictions.
• Everyone else — a Russian national who is neither a DP nor connected with Russia (e.g. resident and ordinarily based outside Russia) is not, by virtue of nationality alone, subject to sanctions restrictions. Nationality/ethnicity is not itself a basis for refusing to act — doing so risks unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (see XTX Markets Technologies Ltd v Mazars LLP [2025], concerning de-banking of non-sanctioned individuals).

Always check the actual and current UK Sanctions List (the single official list, OFSI’s Consolidated List having been folded into it) before assuming anything about a client or counterparty’s status.

2. What is absolutely prohibited (asset freeze — Designated Persons)

• Making funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of a DP (Regulation 11/17A).
• This is strict liability civilly — OFSI can impose a monetary penalty even without knowledge, though actual/constructive knowledge and the standard expected of a regulated professional are aggravating or mitigating factors.
• Criminal liability attaches where there is knowledge or reasonable cause to suspect a breach.
• “Economic resources” is interpreted broadly — it can include intangible assets and services, not just cash (OFSI has taken enforcement action on this basis).
• A UK legal firm can act for a DP and be paid, but only within the terms of OFSI’s Legal Services General Licence (currently INT/2026/9512597, effective 29 April 2026 to 28 October 2026 — check for a successor licence if outside that window), which caps hourly rates and fee levels and requires reporting to OFSI.

3. Professional and business services ban (Regulation 54C)

Since 21 July 2022 (extended through 2022), it has been prohibited to provide, directly or indirectly, the following services to a person connected with Russia: accounting, advertising, architectural, auditing, business and management consulting, construction, engineering, IT consultancy and design, and public relations services (Schedule 3J).

Legal advisory services are not included in this list — they are governed by a separate, narrower regime (Regulation 54D, below). This is a frequent point of confusion.

Limited exceptions exist, including services provided to discharge a UK statutory/regulatory obligation not arising under contract, and certain pre-existing contracts (time-limited wind-down provisions, now expired for most categories).

4. The specific legal advisory services restriction (Regulation 54D)

Since 30 June 2023 (amended 6 September 2024), it is prohibited for a UK person, anywhere in the world, to provide legal advisory services to a non-UK person where the UK person knows the object or effect of the services is to enable or facilitate activity that would be prohibited under the Russia Regulations if it had the necessary UK links.

4.1 What counts as “legal advisory services” for this restriction

• Non-contentious advice on the application or interpretation of law.
• Acting on behalf of a client, or advising, in connection with a commercial transaction, negotiation, or other third-party dealing.
• Preparation, execution or verification of legal documents.

4.2 What is expressly carved out — and remains lawful

• Litigation and arbitration: representation or advice in proceedings before courts, arbitral tribunals or administrative agencies in any jurisdiction is not “legal advisory services” for these purposes. Acting for a Russian party (or a party connected with Russia) in contentious proceedings is not, of itself, restricted by Regulation 54D.
• Sanctions and compliance advice — advising on the Russia Regulations, other UK or non-UK sanctions, Russian counter-sanctions, or other criminal/compliance legislation (Regulation 60DB).
• Diplomatic/consular matters.
• (Re)insurance claims management.

The 2024 amendment added a knowledge requirement — the offence now requires the adviser to know the object or effect is to enable/facilitate prohibited activity, narrowing the earlier, broader “in relation to or in connection with” formulation.

5. Circumvention and facilitation (Regulations 19 and 55)

Separately from 54C/54D, it is an offence to intentionally participate in activities knowing their object or effect is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent any prohibition in the Russia Regulations, or to enable/facilitate a contravention. This is a general anti-avoidance provision that can catch legal (and other) services even outside the specific 54C/54D categories, if the underlying transaction being assisted is itself prohibited.

6. Worked example: can a UK company sell shares in its Russian subsidiary at nominal value simply to exit?

In principle, yes — exiting Russia (as opposed to investing into Russia) is generally the direction sanctions law does not restrict. But “nominal value, no sanctions involved” requires unpacking across several distinct checks, not one:

6.1 Check the counterparty

• Is the buyer, or anyone who ultimately owns or controls the buyer, a Designated Person? If so, selling an asset at an undervalue is capable of being characterised as making an economic resource available to that DP (i.e. the value transferred exceeds the price paid) — squarely within the asset freeze prohibition, regardless of how the transaction is documented.
• This is the single most important check, and the one most often missed in a rushed exit — ownership and control structures in Russia are frequently opaque, and the Court of Appeal’s decision in NBT v Mints [2023] EWCA Civ 1132 confirms that “control” for sanctions purposes can be found on a fact-specific basis even absent formal majority ownership.

6.2 Check Regulation 20 (dealing in transferable securities/money-market instruments)

• Regulation 20 restricts dealing in transferable securities and money-market instruments issued by, or on behalf of, certain Russian persons/entities, but this is principally targeted at capital markets instruments (bonds, listed securities) issued after specified dates, and at the Russian state and major state-linked entities — it is not a general prohibition on selling shares in an ordinary private Russian subsidiary. It should nonetheless be checked against the specific entity and instrument in question before assuming it is out of scope.

6.3 Check for circumvention/facilitation

• If the nominal-value structure exists to disguise value passing to a DP, or to achieve indirectly what regulation 17A/11 would prohibit directly, this is a circumvention risk under Regulation 19/55 — independent of Regulation 20.

6.4 Russian counter-sanctions — a separate, non-UK regime that will govern the deal mechanics

• Presidential Decree No. 618 (and related Russian domestic legislation) imposes its own requirements on the Russian side for a divestment by a person from an “unfriendly” state: mandatory approval of a Russian Government Commission, a mandatory minimum discount to market value (historically around 50%, subject to change), and often an “exit contribution” payment to the Russian federal budget calculated as a percentage of the transaction value.
• This is Russian law, not a UK sanctions constraint — but it directly shapes why a nominal or heavily discounted price might be commercially unavoidable, and needs to be factored into the UK-side analysis (including on valuation and tax, below) rather than treated as a red flag in isolation.

6.5 UK company law and tax consequences (not sanctions, but frequently overlooked)

• Selling a company asset for nominal value engages ordinary UK director’s duties — principally the duty to promote the success of the company (Companies Act 2006, s.172) and to exercise reasonable care and skill (s.174). Directors should document the commercial rationale (including the Russian counter-sanctions constraints above) to justify why nominal consideration was the best reasonably available outcome, to protect against a future minority shareholder or liquidator challenge.
• For UK tax purposes, a disposal to a connected party is generally treated as being at market value regardless of the price actually paid (TCGA 1992, s.18/s.17, and equivalent corporation tax principles) — a nominal sale price does not achieve a nominal tax base cost or avoid a deemed market value gain/loss calculation. Specialist tax advice should run in parallel.

6.6 Practical conclusion on the example

A UK company can lawfully sell shares in a non-sanctioned Russian subsidiary, including at nominal value, without breaching UK sanctions, provided: the buyer is not a DP and not owned/controlled by one; the shares/instrument are not caught by Regulation 20; the structure is not designed to circumvent any prohibition; and the firm advising is not thereby providing prohibited legal advisory services to a non-UK person in relation to other restricted activity. The transaction will separately need to satisfy Russian counter-sanctions requirements (Decree 618 and related legislation) on the Russian side, and UK director’s duties and tax analysis on the UK side — none of which are “sanctions” issues but all of which will drive the real structure and price of the deal.

7. SRA / professional conduct obligations

• Firms must conduct a sanctions risk assessment for relevant clients and matters, and are expected to apply risk-based due diligence proportionate to their exposure (SRA guidance, drawing on OFSI’s risk indicators).
• The SRA has published “red flags” for attempted circumvention — e.g. unusual corporate structures, reluctance to disclose beneficial ownership, last-minute changes to payee details, and transactions that make commercial sense only if a sanctions prohibition is being avoided.
• Firms holding funds connected to designated persons, or who know/suspect a breach, are subject to reporting obligations to OFSI (and, where relevant, the NCA under POCA/AML legislation) — this can override the normal duty of confidentiality.
• Client and other professional privilege is not overridden by sanctions reporting obligations in the same way as under POCA disclosure requirements — the two regimes should be considered separately and carefully for any given piece of information.

8. Quick reference — what is and isn’t restricted

• Acting for a non-designated Russian national resident outside Russia: generally unrestricted (subject to ordinary conduct/AML checks).
• Litigation/arbitration for a Russian party or entity: not restricted by 54D, even where the counterparty or matter has Russian connections — always check the client/counterparty is not a DP for other reasons (asset freeze, payment mechanics).
• Non-contentious commercial/transactional advice to a person connected with Russia, on activity that would itself be prohibited if UK-linked: restricted under 54D.
• Advice on sanctions compliance itself, to anyone: permitted (Regulation 60DB).
• Receiving fees from a Designated Person: only within the current OFSI Legal Services General Licence.
• Selling/exiting non-sanctioned Russian assets: generally permitted, subject to the counterparty, securities-dealing, and circumvention checks set out in Section 6.
• New investment into Russia, or dealing in newly issued Russian securities: separately and more heavily restricted — not covered in detail in this note; take specific advice.

9. Sources and further reading

• Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, as amended — in particular Regulations 11, 17A, 19–21, 54C, 54D, 55, 60DB, and Schedule 3J.
• OFSI, “Russia sanctions: statutory guidance” (gov.uk, last updated 20 May 2026).
• OFSI/DBT, “Complying with professional and business services sanctions related to Russia” (gov.uk).
• SRA, “Sanctions: Legal services” guidance (sra.org.uk).
• NBT v Mints [2023] EWCA Civ 1132 (ownership and control test).
• Current OFSI Legal Services General Licence — check gov.uk/government/publications/legal-services-general-licence for the version currently in force.

This note reflects the position as understood as at 7 July 2026. The Russia sanctions regime changes frequently (OFSI reported 240 active enforcement investigations as at April 2025, and continues to issue and amend general licences on a rolling basis) — always verify the current position before relying on any point above in a live transaction.

Thousands of Russian nationals living legally in Britain — many of them British citizens, many of them critics of Putin — are being denied bank accounts, mortgages and professional services. None of them are sanctioned. Is this lawful?

Picture this: a woman who has lived in London for fifteen years, holds a British passport, pays her taxes, runs a business. She fled Russia a decade ago, in part because she wanted nothing to do with the government now making headlines. One morning she receives a letter from her bank. Her account is being closed. No explanation, no designation or indeed a court order. Just a polite letter and sixty days to find somewhere else for her money. She is also advised that the bank can send the funds by a cheque only.

The issue stems from just her surname, birthplace and her nationality of origin. At Svetlova LLP we have dealt with these kind of scenarios frequently enough to understand that this is not an isolated case. Client can and should take action to prevent any potential disruption to their affairs.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, lawyers across England have been fielding a growing wave of instructions from Russian nationals — many of them UK citizens or long-term residents — who have had banking services terminated, mortgage applications refused and professional relationships severed. Not because they are sanctioned or are suspected of money laundering, but because they are simply Russian.

Whilst the institutions doing this believe, or claim to believe, that they are complying with the law, they are unwittingly breaking it.

“Being Russian is not a sanctionable offence. The law says so. Institutions that act as though it were should expect to be held to account.”

The UK’s Russia sanctions regime is one of the most extensive ever enacted. Under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, asset freezes and financial restrictions apply to specifically designated individuals and entities. As of mid-2026, roughly 1,600 people and 229 companies appear on the UK Consolidated Sanctions List: oligarchs, Kremlin insiders, Duma members, defence industry executives. The list is, of course, public.

The critical word is designated. The sanctions regime does not apply to Russian nationals as a class. It applies to named individuals or companies. A Russian citizen who lives in Kensington or Cheshire, Edinburgh or Whitstable, who is not on that list, is no more subject to financial sanctions than a German or an Australian. The Government’s own guidance makes this explicit. Holding a Russian passport — or even a British passport issued to someone born in Moscow — is not a criterion for sanction.

Banks and professional firms are, understandably, under enormous pressure. The sanctions regime has been amended almost continuously since February 2022 — seventeen rounds of amendment by mid-2023. Compliance teams are stretched and the penalties for a genuine sanctions breach are severe.

Whilst the anxiety is understandable – acting on it unlawfully is not and raises a serious question.

The law is clear about the four circumstances in which a bank may freeze or close an account: 1) the customer must be designated on the sanctions list; 2) the bank must have filed a Suspicious Activity Report with the National Crime Agency, triggering a lawful moratorium period of up to 38 days; 3) there must be a court order or 4) there must be specific, evidence-based grounds to suspect the funds are held for the benefit of a designated person.

When banks go beyond what the law requires, they do not merely over-comply. They discriminate. Section 29 of the Equality Act 2010 prohibits service providers from refusing to provide services because of a protected characteristic. Nationality is a protected characteristic. A bank that closes a non-sanctioned Russian national’s account on the basis of their nationality is committing unlawful direct discrimination.

This is not a theoretical argument. In XTX Markets Technologies Ltd v Mazars LLP, decided in 2025, a County Court found that refusing professional services to a company solely because its owner was Russian would have constituted direct discrimination under the Equality Act. The court also held that the sanctions regulations did not — and could not — justify such a blanket refusal, rejecting the argument that it was “reasonably necessary” for sanctions compliance. The claim failed on a procedural technicality, not on the substance.

“Among the most affected are Russians who came to Britain precisely because they opposed Putin. They are being punished for the identity they fled.”

The human consequences are acute. Those affected include families unable to access their savings during mortgage applications, small business owners who have seen payment infrastructure suddenly withdrawn, professionals who cannot receive client fees. In the most distressing cases, the affected individuals include Russians who left their home country precisely because of their opposition to the current regime — dissidents, journalists, academics, lawyers — who built lives in Britain only to find themselves subjected here to the very arbitrary exclusion from normal civic life that they escaped.

There is also a practical point that institutions seem to have overlooked. De-banking a non-sanctioned customer does not reduce sanctions risk. It increases legal risk. The affected customer has a breach of contract claim — most bank terms require reasonable notice and justification for account closure — and an Equality Act claim that must be brought within six months of the discriminatory act. Firms which have been closing accounts on nationality grounds are accumulating liability.

The regulatory picture is shifting too. The Financial Conduct Authority has been clear that firms must not apply blanket policies that result in the unlawful exclusion of customers, and the Consumer Duty requires firms to act to deliver good outcomes for retail clients. De-banking on nationality grounds is increasingly difficult to defend to a regulator, let alone a court.

None of this requires institutions to ignore the sanctions regime or to take undue risk. It requires only that they do what the law actually asks of them: check whether a customer is designated. The list is public and updated in real time.

The UK built its sanctions regime to punish those responsible for a war. That is a legitimate aim. Extending those consequences to every Russian who happens to live here — the dissident, the entrepreneur, the long-settled professional, the naturalised citizen — is not an extension of that policy – it is a perversion of it.

We are now seeing the second wave of unlawful closures since 2022, as banks and financial institutions review and review their policies.

So what remedies are available for the affected individuals?

An individual or entity subjected to unlawful de-banking or denial of services on nationality grounds has the following avenues of redress:

Breach of Contract

A claim for breach of contract may be brought in the County Court (for lower-value claims) or the High Court (for claims above £100,000). The limitation period is 6 years from the date of breach (Limitation Act 1980, s.5). Remedies include damages and, in appropriate cases, specific performance.

Equality Act 2010 Claim

A claim under section 29 of the Equality Act 2010 must be brought in the County Court within 6 months of the act of discrimination (Equality Act 2010, s.118). The County Court has power to award damages (including injury to feelings), make declarations, and grant injunctions. The 6-month limitation is strict and should not be allowed to run during pre-action correspondence.

FCA Complaint and Financial Ombudsman Service

A complaint may be made to the firm, escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), and where appropriate referred to the FCA. The regulatory route tends to be slow and is rarely effective as a primary remedy where the issue is urgent access to funds. However, it generates a record and may support parallel legal proceedings.

Interim Injunction

Where funds are unlawfully frozen and the customer faces urgent financial hardship, an application for an interim mandatory injunction compelling the release of funds is available. The court will apply the American Cyanamid balance of convenience test. Where the frozen funds are needed for ordinary living expenses or to meet business obligations, the balance is likely to favour the applicant.

The Policy Context and Its Limits

It is important to acknowledge the environment in which this is occurring. Financial institutions face significant compliance pressure. The sanctions regime has been amended almost continuously since February 2022 — by mid-2023 it had been through seventeen rounds of amendment. Compliance teams are stretched, penalties for sanctions breaches are severe, and the reputational risk is acute.

But these pressures do not create new legal rights for institutions. The law does not permit over-compliance by discriminating against entire national groups. The Government has not instructed institutions to refuse services to all Russians. The risk appetite of a compliance team does not override the Equality Act. The inconvenience of individual assessment does not justify categorical exclusion.

There is also a deeper irony. Among the most severely affected are Russians who fled to the United Kingdom precisely because of their opposition to the Putin regime — journalists, activists, dissidents, professionals who built lives here. To subject them to financial exclusion on the basis of their nationality is to visit upon them the very form of arbitrary treatment from which this country purports to offer refuge.

Conclusion

The legal position is not uncertain. Unless an individual is designated on the UK Consolidated Sanctions List, subject to a valid SAR-based moratorium, bound by a court order, or objectively connected to a transaction benefiting a designated person, there is no lawful basis for freezing, restricting or terminating their banking or financial services. Doing so on the basis of Russian nationality alone is direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, a breach of contract, and potentially a violation of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Affected individuals should act promptly, particularly given the 6-month limitation period under the Equality Act. Correspondence setting out the legal basis of the complaint, demanding reversal of the restriction, and reserving the right to bring proceedings is the appropriate first step. Where the position is not resolved, the courts remain available.

Please contact Svetlova LLP for a confidential discussion on +44 (0)207 129 129 6

The Renters’ Rights Bill became law on 27 October 2025, after completing its passage through Parliament on 22 October 2025. The Act applies to England. Crucially, many measures are not yet in force: the Government says it will publish a separate timetable setting out when each part starts. Until then, the current rules continue to apply.

The core reforms

The Act reshapes private renting around a single, clearer model. Section 21 “no-fault” evictions are abolished, so landlords seeking possession must rely on statutory grounds (for example, serious arrears, anti-social behaviour, genuine sale, or moving in). Alongside this, assured shorthold tenancies and fixed terms end: all private tenancies will become open-ended periodic assured tenancies, with tenants able to leave on two months’ notice aligned to the rent period, and landlords using the reworked Section 8 grounds with strengthened safeguards (such as longer notice and protection against misuse of “sell” or “move-in” grounds).

On rents, the Act channels increases through a single route: the Section 13 statutory process. Tenants may challenge above-market proposals at the First-tier Tribunal; the Government reiterates it is not introducing rent controls but expects increases to reflect market levels. The Act also limits rent in advance so landlords cannot require payment before the rent period it relates to (tenants remain free to pay early if they wish).

Accountability and standards step up. A new Private Rented Sector Landlord Ombudsman will deliver quick, binding redress; a national PRS Database will register landlords and underpin enforcement (with links to use of certain possession grounds). The Decent Homes Standard will apply to the private sector for the first time, and Awaab’s Law style deadlines will require hazards such as damp and mould to be remedied within set timeframes to be defined in secondary legislation. The Act also bans rental bidding (soliciting offers above the advertised rent) and prohibits discrimination against renters with children or those in receipt of benefits. Detailed guidance and secondary legislation will follow.

When will the changes take effect?

The Act is on the statute book, but most measures await commencement regulations. The Government has confirmed it will introduce the new tenancy system in one stage for all private tenancies (avoiding a two-tier market) and will give the sector sufficient notice before switch-over. As of November 2025, no dates have been published. Until commencement, landlords may still use Section 21 where otherwise valid under current law.

What happens to existing tenancies?

On the commencement date for tenancy reform, existing ASTs and other assured fixed-term tenancies will convert automatically to the new open-ended periodic model. Fixed-term clauses that conflict with the new regime will cease to have effect from that date. Transitional provisions will explain how steps taken under the old rules (for example, a pre-commencement rent-increase notice) are treated, but the intention is a clean, one-stage conversion with clear guidance for both parties.

Practical implications now

For landlords and agents:

• review portfolios and any planned possession or rent-review activity in light of the Section 8/Section 13 framework;
• prepare policies that reflect the bans on rental bidding and advertising discrimination;
• plan for Ombudsman membership and PRS Database registration; and
• check properties against the forthcoming Decent Homes and Awaab’s Law timeframes once published.

For tenants: expect greater security when commencement happens (no Section 21, open-ended tenancies), a clear process to challenge above-market rent increases, access to a binding Ombudsman, and enforceable standards on hazards once the detailed rules go live. In the meantime, your current agreement and rules still apply until the Government starts the new system.

If you need help with your existing or new tenancy arrangements, our specialist landlord & tenant and conveyancing teams can help you chart the right course through a fast moving legal landscape. Call us now on tel. 02033759040 or send us an email enquiry at tsvetlova@svetlovallp.com or yelda@svetlovallp.com.

Automatic renewal clauses—commonly referred to as “evergreen clauses”—are widely used in contracts for services, subscriptions, and commercial leases. These clauses automatically renew a contract unless the customer provides written notice of cancellation within a specific period—often 60 to 90 days before expiry. While such clauses are legally permitted, their enforceability is increasingly being challenged under UK contract law and regulatory guidance when they are applied unfairly, without transparency, or without reasonable opportunity for customers to cancel. This article explores the legal and regulatory context surrounding these clauses and provides real-world examples involving LexisNexis and Regus.

The Legal and Regulatory Framework in the UK

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, contract terms must be fair, transparent, and not cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties. While these laws apply primarily to consumer contracts, they influence the treatment of small business contracts—especially where there is an imbalance in bargaining power.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has issued guidance that automatic renewal clauses may be unfair if:
– Customers are not clearly informed of the renewal process.
– The cancellation window is unduly long or unreasonable.
– The customer does not receive a timely reminder before renewal.

CMA Enforcement and Supporting Case Law

In recent years, the CMA has taken enforcement action against companies such as Norton and McAfee for unfair auto-renewal practices. These companies were required to provide clearer cancellation options and refund mechanisms. This regulatory pressure reflects growing concern about the impact of these clauses on both consumers and small businesses.

Legal precedent also supports the argument that such clauses may be unenforceable. In Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that contractual penalties must be proportionate to the legitimate interests of the party relying on them. This case is especially relevant where a service provider seeks to enforce an entire year’s fee for a minor technical non-compliance with a notice deadline.

The LexisNexis Case: A Disputed Renewal Based on a 10-Day Shortfall

In 2022, a London law firm, a small UK law firm, entered into a two-year subscription with LexisNexis for legal research services. The agreement contained a clause requiring cancellation no later than 90 days before the contract’s expiration. The firm gave notice 80 days prior—only 10 days short of the required notice period.

Despite this, LexisNexis refused to cancel the renewal and demanded payment of over £3,000 for the new annual term. No reminder of the approaching cancellation deadline was issued, nor was the clause highlighted during onboarding. This enforcement of a strict technicality has been challenged as unfair and disproportionate under UK contract principles and CMA guidance.

The Regus Example: Automatic Renewals in Office Leases

Similar issues have arisen with Regus, the global serviced office provider. Regus contracts often include automatic renewal clauses with 90-day cancellation periods. Customers have complained that cancellation notices sent even a few days late have resulted in enforced annual renewals and aggressive collection efforts. These terms are rarely emphasised at the time of signing, and reminder notices are not consistently issued.

In some instances, small firms have alleged that Regus failed to process cancellation requests correctly or failed to acknowledge written notices. This has triggered complaints to trading standards and legal challenges on the grounds that the renewal terms are unfair, not transparent, and commercially unreasonable.

Legal Analysis: When Are Automatic Renewal Clauses Unfair?

Based on CMA guidance and UK case law, automatic renewal clauses may be unenforceable when they:
– Are not clearly disclosed or explained at the time of contract.
– Require unreasonably early notice (e.g., 90 days for a 12-month contract).
– Are enforced without a reminder being sent to the customer.
– Result in substantial financial penalties for minor or technical failures.

In both the LexisNexis and Regus examples, customers acted in good faith and gave substantial notice.
The rigid enforcement of these clauses, without reminders or grace periods, creates an unfair imbalance and may be legally challenged.

Conclusion: Pushback Against Unfair Practices

The UK legal landscape offers growing support for those challenging automatic renewal clauses. Regulatory action by the CMA and Supreme Court rulings reinforce the need for fairness, proportionality, and transparency. Businesses relying on rigid or unfair renewal clauses risk not only reputational damage but also legal defeat.

Customers—including small firms—should feel empowered to dispute auto-renewals that result in disproportionate loss or were not clearly explained. Legal advice, formal complaints, and regulatory escalation remain powerful tools against such practices.

UK law imposes no legal restrictions on non‑UK citizens purchasing residential property. However, foreign buyers must manage tighter regulatory, financial, and tax-related requirements than UK residents.

Legal and Regulatory Requirements

• While not a legal requirement, retaining a solicitor or licensed conveyancer is essential—particularly for foreign purchasers. They conduct searches, review title, draft contracts, verify property legality, and manage international funds transfers.
• Anti‑Money Laundering (AML) regulations require proof of identity (e.g. passport) and overseas address, plus detailed source‑of‑funds documentation (e.g. bank statements, tax returns or sale receipts).

Mortgage Financing for Foreign Buyers

• Mortgages are available to foreign nationals, but lenders typically require:
  • A higher deposit (often 20%–40%)
  • Evidence of stable employment or sufficient income
  • UK or international credit history, in some cases
  • A relatively long visa/residency tenure (e.g. at least 1‑year remaining).
• Using a specialist mortgage broker is strongly recommended to navigate lender restrictions and source products suited to overseas clients.

Stamp Duty & Tax Implications

Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT)

• Non‑UK residents must pay an extra 2% SDLT surcharge, in addition to normal SDLT bands (0–12%).
• If you already own a home abroad, a further additional surcharge (now 5%) may apply.

Income Tax (Rental Income)

• Renting your UK property triggers UK income tax obligations under the Non-Resident Landlord Scheme, regardless of your residence status.

Capital Gains Tax (CGT)

• Gains on the sale of a UK residential property are taxable. Non-resident CGT rates can range up to 28%, depending on gain and tax status.

Inheritance Tax (IHT)

• UK property owned by foreign nationals is subject to UK inheritance tax, potentially at rates up to 40%, and is liability‑triggering regardless of where you reside.

Typical Costs & Fees

Foreign buyers should budget for:

• Conveyancing fees: £600–2,400 (often higher for international cases)
• Survey and valuation costs: £250–1,500 depending on property value and type.
• Mortgage arrangement & valuation fees, if borrowing: £995–2,000 + valuation costs.
• Exchange costs when transferring foreign currency—typically 1–3% of the transaction amount.

Ownership Structures & Planning

• Purchases can be made individually, jointly, or via corporate entities.
• Companies face different tax rates: for instance, SDLT up to 17% for non-resident companies owning residential property over £500,000, plus ongoing corporation tax, ATED, and register of overseas entities obligations.

Practical Considerations

• Visa validity matters: lenders may decline applications if your UK visa expires within 12 months—or you lack sufficient UK residency history.
• Gifted funds: cash gifts for purchase are allowed, though solicitors will require AML documentation; the funds may need to be in UK bank for a certain period before completion.
• Property management: Non‑residents often appoint a UK‑based manager to handle tenants, compliance, tax filings, and maintenance.

Why Choose Svetlova LLP

Our experienced international and property law team offers:

• Tailored end‑to‑end support from funds verification and AML compliance through to completion and registration.
• Co‑ordinated advice on tax structuring, mortgage strategy, and inheritance/investment planning.
• Liaison with global clients, brokers, estate agents, and financial institutions to ensure a seamless transaction.

Key Checklist for Foreign Buyers

Buying residential property in the UK as a foreign national is entirely feasible—but requires expert legal guidance to navigate complex tax and regulatory hurdles. Stamp duty surcharges, AML checks, mortgage eligibility constraints, and tax obligations demand early coordination and careful planning.

At Svetlova LLP, our cross-border team is on hand to provide dedicated legal advice and deliver a smooth, compliant, and successful property acquisition.