UK court discharges worldwide freezing order because sanctioned bank (VTB) failed to pay fortification into court & says asset disclosure order and freezing injunction are not funds / economic resources

7 September 2026

In two judgments in July 2026, the UK High Court discharged a worldwide freezing order (WFO) obtained by UK-sanctioned bank VTB against Timur and Alfiya Kuanyshev to support VTB’s proceedings in Russia (VTB Bank v Kuanyshev et al [2026] EWHC 1983), but refused to set aside the order on the basis that it did not breach the UK’s Russia sanctions regime (VTB v Kuanyshev et al [2026] EWHC 2140).

The WFO ordered VTB to pay £500,000 into court as fortification for its cross-undertaking in damages (VTB Bank v Kuanyshev and Askar [2026] EWHC 591 (Comm)). By July 2026, VTB had failed to pay the funds into court more than 5 months after the order was made. Payment was delayed in part because of VTB’s sanctioned status, and the need for OFSI to authorise the transfer of its funds into court.

Discharge application

Mr and Mrs Kuanyshev applied for the WFO to be discharged on the basis that VTB’s failure to pay the funds into court breached the order’s terms. The Court discharged the WFO. It said there was insufficient evidence on whether, or when, VTB would be able to pay the fortification into court. It also said that a sanctioned entity should be treated in the same way as a non-sanctioned entity, and that 6 months is the longest appropriate time for any party to have the benefit of a freezing order without paying the price for it.

Set aside application

Mr and Mrs Kuanyshev also applied for the WFO to be set aside on grounds including that the freezing injunction and asset disclosure order attached to the WFO, breached Regulations 11-15 of The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 by making funds or economic resources available to VTB. They argued that the injunction and order were “funds” under s60(1) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA), because the WFO increased the value of VTB’s cause of action, its purpose was to make funds available for VTB, and because information Mr and Mrs Kuanyshev were ordered to disclose could be financially valued. Alternatively, they argued the injunction and order were economic resources because they financially benefitted VTB.

The Court rejected these arguments and dismissed the application. It said an asset disclosure order and freezing injunction are not economic resources because they cannot be used in exchange for resources. And they are not funds because they do not have an “intrinsic financial value” (see PJSC National Bank Trust and another v Mints and others). A freezing injunction does not create a proprietary interest or cause a change in either party’s asset position until there is a judgment to enforce it, and the only value of information disclosed under an asset disclosure order is that which the information represents (it is not intrinsic to the information itself).