Russia Is Expanding Asset Nationalization

The recent court-ordered transfer of nearly 2 million square meters of warehouse space from Raven Russia to state ownership (Case No. A40-194926/2024), decided on 31 January, 2025, highlights the Russian government’s more decisive approach to transferring assets from owners deemed “unfriendly.”

This case points to several emerging trends: notably, an expanded interpretation of what constitutes “strategic” assets and questions surrounding transparency in the legal process. In this instance, the court decision rests on the reclassification of commercial warehouse facilities as transportation terminals critical to national security.

Such reasoning could establish a significant precedent, particularly for large-scale logistics operations and for those transferring assets from foreign to Russian ownership. Similar measures in 2025 have already affected other major entities, including a leading grain exporter and Moscow Domodedovo Airport, all of which have encountered state-led transfers due to perceived foreign ownership links.

Russia is currently refining its approach to asset nationalization through new legislation. Presidential Decree No. 442, signed in May 2024, along with a subsequent draft law (not yet submitted to the State Duma), establishes guidelines for potentially seizing assets belonging to entities and individuals from countries categorized as “unfriendly.” The grounds for such measures include alleged contract breaches by foreign governments or financial institutions, damages arising from sanctions-related decisions, involvement in the seizure of Russian assets abroad, or unjust enrichment linked to those seizures.

Under the draft law, the Moscow Region Commercial Court would have jurisdiction over these cases, and either the state or the Bank of Russia could initiate proceedings. The process also involves the Government Commission for Control over Foreign Investment, which identifies properties in Russia that might be subject to seizure.

While initial focus appeared to center on assets from the United States, the principle of reciprocity could have implications for European businesses and private individuals from European countries, too. Limited clarity on the asset selection criteria, together with the potential seizure of both state-held and privately held assets, introduces additional uncertainty for foreign companies. Moreover, the value of frozen Russian assets abroad significantly exceeds that of foreign-owned assets in Russia, suggesting that privately held assets may also be affected in the future.