The author argues that in some countries where the rule of law is erratic or weak, certain governments use criminal law to target people for political and commercial gain. It would be naïve in the extreme to assume that this does not happen, which is why those who handle such clients, or are approached by them, must bear this in mind. The topic has implications for those working with Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), for example. It also has implications around the proper boundaries of financial privacy and disclosure. 

The editors are pleased to share this article and hope it stirs up conversations and comments. To respond, please email tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com and amanda.cheesley@clearviewpublishing.com  The usual editorial disclaimers apply to views of guest writers.

For internationally mobile individuals and families, allegations of criminal wrongdoing can have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate legal proceedings. Criminal investigations and prosecutions typically trigger travel restrictions, asset freezes, reputational damage and immigration difficulties affecting multiple jurisdictions. This is precisely what can make them such an effective means of targeting political opponents, critics, businesspeople or individuals who have fallen out of favour. 

In jurisdictions where the rule of law is fragile, the lines between criminal justice, politics and commercial interests become blurred, creating the opportunity for criminal proceedings to serve broader strategic objectives. These can range from weakening perceived political adversaries to exerting pressure in commercial disputes or facilitating the capture of valuable private assets and business interests (often referred to as “corporate raiding”). What may first appear to be a genuine prosecution may therefore form part of a wider campaign directed against a particular individual or group.

For individuals in the UK facing criminal proceedings in their country of nationality that are being pursued for one or more political, commercial or other improper reasons, asylum can provide a critical protection solution. 

The anatomy of a politically motivated prosecution
Jurisdictions renowned for waging “lawfare” on their opponents in this way include Russia, China, Turkey, Venezuela, Mexico and the Central Asian states. Well-known examples include the prosecution of Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky following his criticism of the Kremlin and support for opposition parties, the proceedings brought against Russian businessman Ziyavudin Magomedov connected to the seizure of his strategically important logistics assets, and the conviction of Chinese real estate entrepreneur Ren Zhiqiang after his public criticism of President Xi Jinping. 

These cases rarely begin with an overt declaration that an individual is being targeted for political reasons. Instead, they often involve allegations that, on their face, appear entirely legitimate. Business owners may find themselves accused of fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion, corruption, money laundering or national security offences following a political disagreement, a commercial dispute involving politically connected interests, criticism of the authorities or a change in the political landscape.

The criminal proceedings are often accompanied by the freezing of bank accounts, restrictions on travel, the seizure of business assets and extensive public campaigns designed to damage the individual's reputation. Leveraging their influence over the media landscape, state authorities may seek to shape public perception and legitimise their actions by presenting allegations as established fact. In some cases, these efforts are reinforced through the misuse of international mechanisms such as INTERPOL notices, extradition requests and cross-border law-enforcement cooperation, enabling states to pursue perceived opponents beyond their own borders.

The consequences can be profound. Aside from the immediate threat of detention and subjection to serious mistreatment, targeted individuals find themselves unable to travel freely, access banking services, or manage business interests. For internationally mobile families, what begins as a domestic criminal investigation can quickly develop into a far broader challenge affecting reputation, investment structures and long-term family security. 

The distinction between prosecution and persecution
Individuals who are in the UK while these criminal proceedings are commenced or escalating may need to explore immigration options that allow them and their family members to remain lawfully in the UK. Often, one of those options to consider will be making an asylum claim.

Claiming asylum can have several strategic advantages in these situations: it enables the applicant and any dependants to stay lawfully in the UK while it is under consideration. If successful, it results in a grant of permission to stay in the UK. It prevents extradition while under consideration and acts as a barrier to extradition if granted, and it can form the basis of a request to delete an INTERPOL Red Notice.  

But on what basis can an asylum claim be made? 
In simple terms, a refugee is a person who is outside their country of nationality and who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The 1951 Refugee Convention precludes the UK from returning refugees to their country of nationality (known as the principle of non-refoulement). 

The law is clear that an abusive prosecution which is disproportionate or discriminatory, which is brought for reasons other than the genuine pursuit of criminal justice, and/or in which fair trial rights will be violated, can amount to a vehicle of persecution. An immediate critical task for practitioners is therefore to understand both the treatment that the individual is likely to face on return and the state's underlying motivation for pursuing the prosecution. Doing so requires a careful examination of what lies beneath the allegations and whether the proceedings are in fact being used to advance political, commercial or other improper objectives. Threading the line from the criminal allegations themselves to the interests that may have given rise to them is rarely a straightforward exercise. 

The next challenge will be to demonstrate that the motivation behind the prosecution engages a Refugee Convention reason. Political opinion will often be engaged, particularly where the individual has criticised the government, supported opposition causes or become perceived as politically disloyal. Where the political element is less obvious, careful consideration should be given to whether the individual's business activities, assets, family connections, social status or association with others may bring the case within the scope of the Convention.

It is important also to note that the prosecution itself can create a barrier to asylum. There is an exemption to non-refoulement. This means that the Secretary of State for the Home Department can decline to provide protection under the Refugee Convention, where there are serious reasons to consider that the applicant has committed a serious, non-political crime outside the UK prior to admission as a refugee. It will therefore be necessary to demonstrate that such serious reasons do not exist. This may involve exposing the factual, legal, evidential and procedural deficiencies in the criminal case, demonstrating that the allegations are unsupported, unreliable or manufactured, and establishing that the proceedings are driven by political, commercial or other improper motives rather than the legitimate pursuit of criminal justice.

The importance of evidence and collaboration 
Success in cases involving politically motivated criminal proceedings hinges on the quality of the evidence, which requires a carefully assembled body of documentary, witness and expert evidence capable of illuminating both the flaws in the criminal proceedings and the context in which they arose.

Critical documentary evidence may include court filings, judgments, interview records, corporate records, financial documentation, media reporting and correspondence. Expert evidence can often be equally important, particularly where country experts are needed to explain the political environment, the operation of the criminal justice system, or patterns of state conduct towards political opponents, businesspeople or other perceived adversaries. Witness evidence will then help bring these issues to life by providing first-hand accounts of the events leading to the prosecution.

Obtaining and presenting this evidence often requires close collaboration with lawyers in the country of persecution. Those lawyers can play a vital role in securing relevant documents, investigating the status of proceedings, identifying irregularities and providing insights into how the case is being handled on the ground. Without that local knowledge, important pieces of the evidential picture can easily be missed.

A multidisciplinary approach is equally important. These matters frequently intersect with extradition, family, reputation management, regulatory and white-collar crime issues. The strongest outcomes are often achieved where all advisers work as a coordinated team, pursuing a consistent strategy across multiple forums that take into account the individual’s particular circumstances and goals. 

What should advisors look out for? 
Family offices, private client advisors, wealth managers and international legal teams are often the first professionals to become aware that a client is facing difficulties. Potential warning signs include:

-- A sudden investigation following political disagreement or criticism of the government.
-- Unexplained restrictions on travel, banking or business activities; 
-- Enforcement action directed disproportionately at one individual despite widespread industry practices; 
-- Proceedings targeting political opponents, prominent businesspeople, dissidents or members of a particular political, ethnic or social group; and 
-- State media campaigns portraying the individual as a criminal before any determination of guilt.

Where these factors are present, it may be appropriate to consider the option of claiming asylum. 

Conclusion
For high net worth individuals and internationally mobile families, politically motivated criminal proceedings can create risks that extend well beyond the criminal justice system. What begins as an investigation may culminate in threats to personal safety, international mobility, wealth preservation and family security.

Understanding when criminal proceedings amount to persecution is therefore a matter of profound practical and legal significance. Where criminal proceedings are being used as a tool of repression, recognising and demonstrating their true character will be central to accessing the protection afforded by international refugee and human rights law.

For individuals, family offices and other advisors supporting clients vulnerable to politically motivated state action, recognising those signs at an early stage may be critical not only to safeguarding personal safety and liberty, but also to preserving family wealth, maintaining international mobility and protecting long-term family interests.