Connect with us

News

UK imposes sanctions on Russian insurer protecting ‘shadow fleet’ of tankers

Published

on

UK imposes sanctions on Russian insurer protecting ‘shadow fleet’ of tankers

Stay informed with free updates

The UK has imposed sanctions on Russian insurer Ingosstrakh, a key player in the operation of the Kremlin’s “shadow fleet” of oil tankers, as part of a push to tighten measures designed to restrict Moscow’s energy revenues.

Ingosstrakh, a large Russian insurer, has become a significant provider of insurance for vessels in the so-called shadow fleet — the 100 or so mostly ageing tankers Moscow has acquired to transport and sell its oil for more than the $60-a-barrel limit western powers have attempted to impose.

The price cap is intended to allow Russia to keep exporting oil so as to avoid global price spikes that would harm western economies, while squeezing the Kremlin’s revenues. Insurers have been an important lever for enforcing the policy as ships can be required to show adequate insurance, when entering ports in particular.

Advertisement

The FT reported in March alongside Denmark’s Danwatch that Ingosstrakh was insuring shadow fleet vessels, but that the insurance it was providing could be voided if the shipments were breaching the cap. This could potentially saddle coastal states with huge clean-up bills in the event of an oil spill.

Craig Kennedy, an expert on Russian energy based at Harvard, said: “Sanctioning insurers which help the shadow fleet is a way to make it harder for these vessels to operate. But the most important thing for all the G7 countries is to target ships, by name, which we know are part of this evasion network.”

In recent months, ships targeted by US sanctions appear to have become harder for Russia to use to move its oil.

The UK’s sanctions, which restrict dealings with the targeted entities, have also directly designated a number of shadow fleet vessels for the first time. One of them, the 19-year-old Canis Power, broke down last year in the Danish straits in an event that was seen as a warning about the dangers in Russia’s systematic use of old tankers.

These sanctions are the first use of new sanctioning powers passed by the British parliament at the end of May during the legislative “wash-up” in days after the UK called its general election. The new powers allow Britain to target ships with sanctions that “obtain a benefit from or support the government of Russia” or have undermined Ukrainian integrity.

Advertisement

Kennedy said: “The next step should be that we should require ships to make insurance disclosures to prove they are properly covered. If they refuse to do so, and continue to operate, we should add them to the sanctions lists. That way, we can deter ships from operating without good insurance.”

Red Box Energy Services in Singapore, which the FT also revealed was shipping large components from China to Russia for a new liquefied natural gas project, was also sanctioned on Thursday following the US designating the company last month.

The sanctions come as western leaders try to rally support for Ukraine after it faced a number of military setbacks in recent weeks.

Ingosstrakh is part-owned by Italy’s Generali, though the Italian company’s stake has been frozen since shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and it no longer plays a role in the management of the company.

Ingosstrakh has been contacted for comment. The insurer has previously stated that its response to discovering a policyholder was breaching sanctions “will not be different” to “any other international insurer”.

Advertisement

News

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

Published

on

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.

Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.

The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Casper.

Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.

Advertisement

In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.

“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” said James, a Democrat.

A voter casts a ballot during New York’s primary election on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Ryan Murphy)

Advertisement

Advertisement

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle that it s up to the states and Congress to set election rules.

“While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down,” Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement. “So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.”

Requests for comment sent to the White House and he U.S. Department of Justice were not immediately returned.

The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. The Republican president has since signed another executive order on elections that seeks to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.

Advertisement

Last fall, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred Trump’s defense secretary from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.

On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not sign legislation until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.

The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens. Violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.

In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by Election Day.

Advertisement

Casper, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Published

on

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

new video loaded: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

transcript

transcript

Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

“I see a New York that we can all afford. I see a New York that truly invests in its babies, not bombs.” Reporter: “What’s the first thing you’re looking forward to doing in Congress?” “Well, tomorrow — thank you — I mean, tomorrow morning, you know, I’m going to be back at 26 Federal Plaza doing court watching, and we want to carry that into Congress as well.”

Advertisement
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

By Julie Yoon

June 24, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

Published

on

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

A massive 826,780-square-foot warehouse sits illuminated Feb. 12, 2026, in the El Paso suburb of Socorro, Texas, that was recently purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for $122.8 million.

Morgan Lee/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Morgan Lee/AP

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a lower court decision that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling was a big victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion of so-called expedited removal as a key tool for carrying out its mass deportation policy.

Expedited removal — quick deportation without a chance to appear before a judge — has previously been applied to migrants arriving by sea or caught at or near the border shortly after crossing.

Advertisement

In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants all over the United States. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days.

“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Balakrishnan represented plaintiffs in arguments before the appellate panel and said its ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the judges on the panel, said the plaintiffs had not shown the expanded use of expedited removal violated due process rights. Immigrants received notice of removal proceedings and were given a chance to respond, he wrote in his opinion.

Walker and the second judge in the majority, Neomi Rao, were appointed by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Advertisement

Walker said there was no requirement that the administration inform immigrants that they can avoid expedited removal if they can show they have been in the United States for more than two years.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending