Judicial superyacht sales: Three cases, three fault lines - Amadea Yacht Sale

When execution succeeds but certainty fails

Part III: The Sale of the yacht Amadea & the Case

Several superyachts seized or immobilised since 2022 have now been sold. Buyers exist, even for vessels with a complicated past. Whether those sales hold over time, in other jurisdictions and against later challenges is a separate question.

This series looks at three of them: Alfa Nero, Axioma and Amadea. All three were sold, and none offers a model that can simply be reused. Read together, they show a market that completes sales more easily than it secures them.

Amadea differs from both Alfa Nero (link to Part I) and Axioma (link to Part II). The sale was organised, completed and, since June 2026, upheld by the US courts. It does not show a failure of title. The question it raises comes after the sale: how far a title transferred in one country is recognised elsewhere.

A state-led sale

Amadea was seized in Fiji in 2022 at the request of the US Department of Justice, as part of the US response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and taken to San Diego. In October 2023 the government filed a civil forfeiture complaint, alleging that the yacht belonged to Suleiman Kerimov, who is subject to US sanctions.

Eduard Khudainatov, a former head of Rosneft, and his company Millemarin Investments, which held legal title, claimed ownership. In March 2025 the district court found that they were straw owners without standing to contest the forfeiture, and that the evidence pointed to ownership by members of Mr Kerimov's family. A judgment of forfeiture followed, and the court refused to suspend it pending appeal.

The US Marshals Service then sold the yacht in 2025, by sealed bids and on an 'as is, where is' basis, with the support of Fraser Yachts. The sale was completed in the autumn. The Marshals confirmed it but did not disclose the buyer or the price. The yacht has since been registered in the Cayman Islands.

Seen from the outside, the process had what a sale needs: a clear procedure, identified parties, an engaged market and a completed transfer.

Litigation after the sale

Mr Khudainatov's lawyers called the sale improper and premature, and appealed. On 1 June 2026 the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the district court, holding that legal title alone did not give standing to contest the forfeiture. The appellate ruling substantially strengthened the legal position of the US authorities, although its precise procedural consequences must be distinguished from recognition of the sale abroad.

His counsel had said they would keep fighting until the yacht was returned. Whether they will try elsewhere is not known. To our knowledge, no action outside the United States has been reported to date.

The real issue: how far the title travels

This is where Amadea matters. A sale can produce a valid transfer under the law of the country that ordered it without that transfer being recognised everywhere. A US forfeiture judgment binds US courts. Other countries decide for themselves, under their own rules, whether to give it effect.

For a buyer, the risk is no longer that the sale fails. It is having to defend it again later: a claim brought in another jurisdiction, an attempted arrest in a foreign port, an insurer or a registry that hesitates.

The Cayman Islands registration is an encouraging sign: a registry accepted a transfer made under US law. It remains the decision of one jurisdiction, not a recognition by all.

Three fault lines

Alfa Nero showed a sale that did not settle the question of title. Axioma showed a sound sale that still yielded about half of the value commonly attached to the yacht. Amadea shows a sale upheld in the country that ordered it, whose effects abroad have not yet been tested.

The US appeal decision reduces the risk considerably. It does not remove it, because the questions that remain are not for the US courts to decide.

The Beijing Convention

A mechanism designed for this problem now exists. The United Nations Convention on the International Effects of Judicial Sales of Ships, known as the Beijing Convention, entered into force on 17 February 2026. It addresses a familiar difficulty: a vessel validly sold in one country whose buyer then faces challenges elsewhere, problems with deregistration, new arrests or parallel litigation.

Its central tool is the certificate of judicial sale. The sale itself must confer clean title under the law of the state where it takes place. The certificate, issued once the Convention's conditions have been met, gives that sale the same effect in the other states parties. They may refuse recognition only where it would be manifestly contrary to their public policy.

Its reach is still limited. The states parties are Barbados, El Salvador, Spain and Panama, the world's largest flag state, joined by the European Union within its areas of competence from 15 December 2026.

Most signatories have not ratified. The United States is not a party, so Amadea could not have benefited. Whether sales following civil forfeiture proceedings fall within the Convention's scope depends on the legal structure of the sale and, in particular, whether its proceeds are made available to creditors as required by the Convention. The Convention does not yet answer the question Amadea raises. It points in a direction: a sale whose effects are recognised beyond the country that ordered it. Until that becomes the norm, these three cases leave the same question open: can a sale be considered complete if its effects do not travel with the vessel?

Contact

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

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.