By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Newly released documents reveal that maintaining the seized $230 million superyacht Amadea, allegedly owned by sanctioned Russian oligarch Suleyman Kerimov, has cost U.S. taxpayers tens of millions of dollars over two years. Expenses include crew upkeep, fuel, and even iPhone replacements, all while the yacht sits in San Diego awaiting legal proceedings. This ongoing cost has prompted criticism and calls for reform to expedite the forfeiture process of such assets. The seizure, initially hailed as a victory against Russian oligarchs, is now raising concerns about the financial burden on American taxpayers.
Read the original article here
The US government is spending tens of millions of dollars maintaining the Amadea, a $230 million yacht seized from a sanctioned Russian oligarch. This is an exorbitant sum, with monthly expenses exceeding $900,000. The costs include a staggering $360,000 for crew salaries alone, despite the yacht being docked and immobile in San Diego.
This substantial expenditure includes additional significant sums for fuel, maintenance, waste removal, and food, alongside insurance and dry-docking fees. The sheer magnitude of these costs raises questions about the efficiency and practicality of the government’s approach to managing seized assets.
Many people are questioning the need for a full crew and the ongoing provision of fuel, food, and waste removal services for a vessel that’s essentially idle. The notion of a crew maintaining a non-operational, docked yacht generates considerable criticism, especially given the high cost involved.
The ongoing expenses raise serious concerns about the wisdom of maintaining the yacht’s condition. It is argued that the costs, continuing to mount, could quickly exceed the value of the yacht itself, making the endeavor financially impractical and possibly a detriment to the government.
Several alternatives to the current strategy are being suggested. These include selling the yacht at auction and using the proceeds to offset the costs incurred, or to donate the proceeds to Ukraine. This would resolve the ongoing expense while also potentially serving a humanitarian purpose.
Another proposed solution focuses on disposing of the yacht entirely. Suggestions range from sinking it to create an artificial reef to using it for target practice. These more drastic approaches aim to eliminate the financial burden and expedite asset forfeiture.
There is widespread criticism that this expensive process is essentially subsidizing the oligarch’s ownership, incurring substantial costs that the owner may ultimately be required to cover but only after considerable expenditure. This raises questions about the overall effectiveness of the seizure process as a deterrent or as a means of asset recovery.
The idea of the yacht being maintained in pristine condition, ready for its eventual return to its owner, is also causing frustration, with many feeling it’s an inefficient use of taxpayer funds, especially given the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Many are advocating for immediate action to either sell or dispose of the yacht, ensuring a more financially responsible outcome.
The comparison to other asset seizures is also brought up. Private entities often show less concern for the upkeep of seized collateral, illustrating a disparity between government procedure and standard practice. This highlights a perception of inefficiency within the government’s handling of such assets.
The continued expenditure on maintaining this luxury yacht, while funds are needed for other pressing issues, represents a significant opportunity cost. Many observers would prefer to see these tens of millions of dollars redirected to more vital public services or towards supporting the war effort in Ukraine.
Ultimately, the case of the Amadea illustrates the complexities surrounding the seizure and management of assets linked to sanctioned individuals. The ongoing debate highlights a need for re-evaluation of current procedures, to ensure a more cost-effective and efficient approach to dealing with such high-value, seized assets in the future.