UK Crown Court grants application to dismiss charges against London art gallery for making art available to person connected with Russia

13 July 2026

R v Hauser & Wirth Gallery Ltd [2026] EWCR 7: Southwark Crown Court has granted an application to dismiss 2 charges brought against the Hauser & Wirth art gallery and logistics company Artay Rauchwerger Solomons Limited (ARS) - The defendants were charged with making luxury goods available to a “person connected with Russia” contrary to regulation 46B(2)(b) of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

In 2021, the gallery agreed to sell George Condo’s “Escape from Humanity” to Alexander Popov, a Russian national (not sanctioned). The invoice gave a Moscow address. The gallery sold the artwork to Mr Popov in 2022, and it was delivered to ARS on Mr. Popov’s instructions in August, for it to be transferred to an Armenian address. It was seized by UK Border Force before it left the UK. The defendants were both charged with the offence of breaching Regulation 46B(2)(b) (a statutory offence in the UK under Regulation 46B(4)) in November 2025.

Under Schedule 3(2) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 a court can dismiss charges if the evidence against the defendants is not sufficient for a properly directed jury to convict them. The Court (HHJ Baumgartner) had to decide whether there was enough evidence on 2 issues corresponding to the elements of the offence: whether the gallery and the company made the artwork available to Mr Popov; and whether Mr Popov was a “person connected with Russia”. Under Regulation 21(2), a person is “connected with” Russia if they are “ordinarily resident” or “located” in Russia.

The Court found that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that the defendants had made the artwork available to Mr Popov, but not for it to find that Mr Popov was “ordinarily resident” in Russia at the time of the sale

• In PJSC National Bank Trust v Mints(see our post) Cockerill J considered whether the act of making a judgment could amount to “making available” funds under Regulation 12. In this case, the Court followed her view that “making available” has a broad meaning, that turns on the practical power to dispose of goods, rather than on their physical delivery. The Court found that by 26 August 2022 (at the latest), the combination of transfer of title, payment, and the release of the artwork to ARS gave Mr. Popov the practical and legal power of disposal over it, such that the defendants had made it available to him.

• By the time title had passed, Mr Popov had begun relocating from Russia. He had (unsuccessfully) sought to renounce his Russian citizenship, moved to Bosnia (applying for citizenship and obtaining taxpayer registration there), and transferred his other artworks out of Russia during 2022. These steps were “consistent with a departure from Russia and the establishment of life elsewhere”, and the evidence disclosed no “continuing pattern of residential life in Russia” that might have supported dual ordinary residence.

Because the evidence was not sufficient for a jury to convict the defendants on all the elements of the offence, the Court dismissed the charges against both of them.