Euroclear’s Russian liability
Euroclear, however, is under pressure to offset the growing black hole that is now appearing on its balance sheet and unnerving shareholders.
In response it is heaping pressure on the Commission to change its mind about the riskiness of direct seizure, according to the three officials, who were granted anonymity because the matters are sensitive.
While Commission officials are said to be open to these ideas, accommodating the request requires unanimous approval by the bloc’s 27 national capitals, meaning a concrete decision is unlikely to come soon.
The matter could, however, be formally considered in a broader review of EU sanctions policy that is currently being blocked by Hungary, according to one of the officials.
The original EU agreement — which opted to set aside 10 percent of the windfall profits to cover Euroclear’s legal exposures, and which predates the creation of the G7 loan — stressed that if the risks do not materialize within five years, the unused funds should be handed over to the EU.
According to that agreement, the Belgian National Bank and the European Commission can also opt to withhold more if legal costs escalate. But exercising this option, critics note, would eat into the sums available to service the G7 loan.