Suspected corrupt wealth in the UK risks never being returned to victims, new research warns

September 9, 2026 - More than £60 million in assets linked to Azerbaijani elites suspected to be the proceeds of corruption could ultimately be retained by the UK after at least £9.6 million recovered in two related cases was already kept by the Government, new research from Transparency International UK (TI-UK) warns.  

Published today, Closing the Loop finds that a gap in the Government’s asset return rules can allow frozen funds to remain in Britain in cases where corruption was not formally established in court, even when there are strong grounds to believe it was involved. 

At least £9.6 million recovered in two high-profile Azerbaijan-related recoveries has already been retained by UK authorities instead of being considered for return to Azerbaijan. 

The money in these cases had passed through the Azerbaijani Laundromat, an industrial-scale money laundering operation and slush fund that moved $2.9 billion (some £2.1 billion) through UK-registered shell companies. The scheme was exposed by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project in 2017.  

But because corruption was not formally established in the recovery proceedings - one case was settled before the forfeiture hearing and the other was resolved through civil proceedings that did not require UK law enforcement to prove the precise underlying offence - the funds fell into a policy grey area, despite there being reasonable grounds to suspect the money was the proceeds of corruption.

The report identifies a further £64 million in recovered assets linked to Azerbaijani elites which could fall into the same grey area as cases progress. Unlike the ongoing cases linked to Nigeria and Uzbekistan featured in the report, where the link to corruption is clearer, the Azerbaijan cases risk falling outside the UK’s asset return rules.

TI-UK is calling on ministers to close this gap, ensuring money linked to overseas corruption is ultimately used for the benefit of the people it was stolen from.

Duncan Hames, Director of Policy at Transparency International UK, said: 

“Money likely stolen through overseas corruption and laundered through the UK does not belong to us simply because the cases are complex, or because funds have been recovered through the civil courts.

“Where a safe return of stolen wealth cannot immediately be agreed, the money should be set aside. Where direct return is too risky, the government should work with civil society and trusted third parties to find a responsible alternative.

“Seizing the proceeds of corruption is only half the job. Asset recovery only truly delivers justice when the money is ultimately used to benefit the people it was stolen from.”

Key figures

• £1.3 billion - the value of assets frozen, seized and recovered by the UK between 2005 and 2024. 
• £276 million - the value of assets returned to countries of origin over the same period. 
• 69 per cent - the share of those returns by value coming from a single repatriation to Pakistan in 2019/20. 

Closing the Loop examines past and ongoing UK asset recovery and return cases across countries with different political and governance conditions. Drawing on case studies and interviews with civil society, government officials and practitioners, it identifies recurring weaknesses in how decisions are made about whether, when and how recovered assets are returned. 

Azerbaijan: when direct return is too risky

The UK has recovered substantial assets linked to members of Azerbaijan’s elite. Returning the money directly to the Azerbaijani state risks it simply being stolen again, but leaving it frozen in Britain or absorbing it into Government coffers does nothing to deliver justice for the people of Azerbaijan.  

Azerbaijani civil society figures have instead proposed using recovered wealth to support initiatives including scholarships, independent journalism and other programmes that could benefit Azerbaijani society without placing the money back under state control. 

Among the strongest advocates of this approach is economist and anti-corruption activist Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu. He was arrested in July 2023 after campaigning for assets recovered from Azerbaijani elites to fund scholarships for Azerbaijani students and has now been deprived of his liberty for more than three years. Amnesty International has said his arrest and prosecution appear to be retaliation for his criticism of the government and his political and civic activities. 

Emin Bayramli, human rights advocate and the son of Dr. Ibadoghlu, said:  

"My father, through the Azerbaijani Youth Education Fund, proposed a concrete model for asset recovery, one in which wealth stolen from the Azerbaijani people and economy, then confiscated abroad, is returned directly to the people rather than to the very authorities responsible for stealing it. 

“In doing so, he offered both the countries holding recovered assets and his own government a working example of what genuine restitution could look like. He continues to pay a heavy price for that example. 

“In countries like Azerbaijan, it is those who expose and fight corruption who are held criminally accountable, while those actually responsible for it remain untouched." 

Transparency International UK calls on the Government to: 

• Stop retaining the suspected proceeds of corruption by closing gaps in the rules so that recovered money is considered for return wherever there are strong grounds to suspect it is linked to overseas corruption, even where this was not formally established in court. Where money cannot immediately be returned, it should be set aside rather than absorbed by the UK Government.  
• Give civil society a meaningful role from the outset by involving organisations from affected countries early in decisions about how assets should be returned, including in designing return mechanisms and monitoring how the money is ultimately used. 
• Make asset recovery and return more transparent by publishing clearer information about individual recovery cases, return agreements, how recovered money is spent and who is responsible for overseeing its use.  

Notes to editors:

• The UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) explicitly allows for reasonable expenses associated with recovering and returning assets to be deducted. TI-UK's concern is with what happens after reasonable costs have been covered.
• The £1.3 billion figure is a total of assets frozen, seized and recovered, so not all of it was available to be returned. The £276 million figure is the total amount that has been returned. The two figures draw on two different sources which use different definitions and collection methods. They accurately illustrate the scale of UK asset recovery and the much smaller scale of recorded returns, but are not comprehensive and should not be presented as a £1.3 billion pot from which only £276 million was returned.