Frozen Yachts Under Sanctions: Why Criminal Proceedings Can Become a Trap

M/Y Royal Romance and the pitfalls of procedural fragmentation

Administrative, customs and sanctions-based approaches: a pragmatic path to asset preservation

The management of yachts frozen or immobilised under international sanctions raises a central question, often overlooked in public debate: should the asset be subjected to criminal proceedings, or should an administrative pathway be preserved to allow for controlled management and an orderly exit?

Contrary to purely punitive reflexes, recent experience shows that premature criminalisation can paradoxically destroy value, expose States to extensive litigation, and turn a strategic asset into a long-term liability.

In an interview given to the Ukrainian outlet UNN on 13 January 2026, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine explained its position regarding the continued freeze of the superyacht Royal Romance. The case appears to be a complex entanglement of uncoordinated procedures involving the Ukrainian prosecution authorities, ARMA, and the Croatian criminal courts.

Clarifying the case

The Ukrainian Prosecutor General has publicly clarified the chain of responsibility: the seizure of the yacht and its transfer for potential sale have been carried out, and subsequent decisions no longer fall within the prosecutor’s remit.

The legal turning point occurred on 5 May 2022, when the seizure orders were formally transmitted to ARMA, which then became solely competent for the management and disposal of the asset, while the Prosecutor General’s Office was limited to international judicial cooperation.

The article highlights a major procedural inertia: no sale procedure was initiated by ARMA before March 2024, nearly two years after the seizure, leaving the asset without any operational exit strategy.

At the same time, Croatia, as the host State, has consistently maintained that any definitive sale requires a final criminal confiscation order, while the main criminal proceedings remain ongoing.

This requirement arises in an unprecedented context, as the seizure ordered by the Split District Court — including the freezing of registration and the transfer of management to a foreign authority — constitutes a first in Croatian criminal law.

This explains the extreme caution exercised by local authorities and the multiplication of mutual legal assistance exchanges.

Finally, while EU sanctions, adopted in May 2024, prevent the yacht from leaving the Union, they do not override national criminal law requirements, leaving the final decision on any sale to the Croatian authorities.

M/Y Royal Romance is therefore suspended in an unprecedented situation under Croatian criminal law. Even with the best intentions, Croatia will not assume such legal risk unilaterally.

European courts are beginning to be seized of these issues, yet no consistent doctrine has emerged to date. What legal lessons can be drawn from this situation?

Criminal seizure: a long timeline often incompatible with yachts

The opening of criminal proceedings for money laundering or related offences entails immediate consequences:

• the freezing of the asset for the duration of the investigation,

• the subordination of any sale to a final judicial decision,

• the multiplication of appeal mechanisms,

• increased exposure to compensation and convention-based litigation.

  
  

For a yacht — a mobile asset, technically sensitive, costly to maintain and carrying significant environmental risk — such extended timelines quickly become counterproductive.

Criminalisation turns the asset into an object of procedure, rather than a property to be actively managed.

Administrative and customs seizure: a logic of control

By contrast, administrative seizure mechanisms, particularly customs-based conservatory measures (Article 389 of the French Customs Code, for example), offer an approach grounded in:

• risk neutralisation,

• value preservation,

• active asset management,

• and, where appropriate, a controlled early disposal.

  
  

These mechanisms do not require a prior criminal conviction. They operate within a logic of control and conservation, fully compatible with international sanctions regimes.

International sanctions: immobilising without confiscating

Sanctions, particularly European ones, are powerful but often misunderstood tools. They allow for:

• the freezing of assets,

• the prohibition of making assets available,

• restrictions on use and transfer rights.

  
  

However, sanctions do not amount to criminal confiscation. They do not, in themselves, transfer ownership.

It is precisely this administrative nature that makes it possible, under strict conditions, to envisage:

• controlled management,

• or even a regulated sale,without waiting for the outcome of lengthy criminal proceedings.

The risk of premature criminalisation

Criminalising a frozen yacht too early presents several major risks:

• immobilising the asset for years,

• triggering irreversible technical degradation,

• creating environmental risk,

• exposing the State to restitution or compensation claims,

• ultimately weakening the credibility of the sanctions framework itself.

  
  

In other words, in the context of frozen yachts, criminal law may protect moral principles, but administrative law protects value.

An emerging doctrine: manage before judging

A pragmatic approach is gradually emerging:

• managing the asset within a secure administrative framework,

• preserving its economic and technical value,

• ensuring a legally defensible exit,

• and reserving criminal proceedings for individuals, financial flows and personal liability — not for the asset itself.

  
  

This separation between asset treatment and criminal repression constitutes a major strategic lever for States facing frozen maritime assets.

Conclusion

In the context of yachts frozen under sanctions, the issue is not to abandon criminal law, but to refuse to make it a systematic prerequisite for any decision concerning the asset.

By way of comparison, the sale of M/Y Amadea was conducted on the basis of civil confiscation, not criminal confiscation.

The combination of administrative or customs seizure + sanctions regime + active management currently offers the most balanced path between legal certainty, economic efficiency and environmental responsibility.

It is here, quietly but decisively, that the credibility of yacht asset-freezing policies is being shaped.

Contact

Emmanuelle VOTAT – Judicial Yacht Asset Manager (France) - Specialist in Seized Maritime Assets ev@yachting-legal-auction.com

Frozen Yachts & Sanctions – M/Y Royal Romance: One Step Away From Sale… and Splash???Read the LinkedIn post

This article is based on publicly available facts, verifiable data, and an independent legal and strategic analysis. It does not, under any circumstances, constitute a definitive statement regarding the guilt or innocence of the individuals or legal entities mentioned, but rather forms part of a general-interest reflection on the management of frozen or seized assets in a complex geopolitical context. Any correction or right of reply may be submitted through the appropriate official channels and will be given due consideration. The author acts in full independence and in compliance with the right to information and the duty of professional restraint.