Selling one of the world's most well-known football clubs was meant to create a $4.8 billion lifeline for Ukrainians fleeing a Russian invasion.
But two years later the money made from selling Chelsea Football Club is still locked in a frozen bank account in the United Kingdom.
The club's former owner is Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich – now accused of having close ties to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin.
Here's what we know.
Who is Roman Abramovich?
Abramovich was once described by a UK judge as a "moderately successful businessman" before he became one of Russia's most well-known billionaires.
Orphaned at four years old, he joined the army as a young man and eventually moved to Moscow.
The break-up of the Soviet Union made him one of Russia's wealthiest men, taking part in a controversial oil trade deal that set up his fortune and influence for years to come.
It was that fortune and influence that made it possible for him to buy one of the UK's most popular football clubs – Chelsea – for a cool $240 million in 2003.
He went on to invest millions into the club over the next two decades.
During his ownership, Chelsea dominated the Premier League, FA Cup, and the League Cup.
According to Deloitte's 2024 Football Money League, Chelsea was the ninth-highest-earning football club in the world.
So why did Abramovich sell?
When Russia invaded Ukraine, countries began to crack down on it and its allies.
In the UK, the government and the European Union targeted people it thought had close ties with the Kremlin – one of those people was Abramovich.
Abramovich saw the writing on the wall, some media outlets say, and attempted to offload Chelsea before he became a target in Britain's "largest ever" package of sanctions against Russia.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was quick to move, labelling him "a designated person and therefore subject to financial sanctions".
It alleged he had close ties with Putin's regime, and had benefited from a friendly relationship with the Russian president.
It is a claim Abramovich has denied.
"I have instructed my team to set up a charitable foundation where all net proceeds from the sale will be donated," he said in a statement on the team's website.
"The foundation will be for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine.
"This includes providing critical funds towards the urgent and immediate needs of victims, as well as supporting the long-term work of recovery.
"Please know that this has been an incredibly difficult decision to make, and it pains me to part with the club in this manner."
Where did the money go?
As a result of the sanctions, "all funds and economic resources belonging to, held or controlled directly or indirectly by [Abramovich] are required to be frozen immediately".
That included any money from the sale of Chelsea, and any of the club's activities in the meantime.
Sanctions meant the club couldn't sell new tickets or merchandise, couldn't transfer or acquire players, and caps were put on match travel.
Chelsea was effectively placed in the hands of the UK government while different billionaires battled it out in the background to take over the club.
A "consortium of investors", including LA Dodgers part owner Todd Boehly, had the winning bid with $8.2 billion — making it the most expensive team transaction in professional sports.
It was a deal that was made up of $4.8 billion for the club itself, plus $3.3 billion to go towards investment over the next 10 years.
Two years on, where is the money now?
Tom Keatinge is the director of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute in the UK, and said the money received from the sale of the club is locked in a trust controlled by lawyers.
"It's important to recall that this money still belongs to Abramovich," he said.
"When assets are frozen by sanctions the ownership does not change, they can't just be accessed, sold – this is why Abramovich needed a licence from His Majesty's Treasury to sell Chelsea so that it could continue operating.
"When assets are frozen, they cannot be accessed by the user without a licence."
The licence, alongside difficulties faced by setting up a new independent foundation and political differences on its expenditure, means the UK government is now going on two years with the money still locked in the same account.
Some of the concerns with the delay were detailed in a report by the UK parliament's European Affairs Committee.
"When pressed on reasons for the delay ... the Minister for Europe told us that there is a 'disagreement' between the parties about who should benefit from the fund and where the monies should be spent," the report read.
"The government is insisting that the funds have to be spent in Ukraine on Ukrainians."
Mr Keatinge said the condition brought about an impasse.
"I believe Abramovich wants the assets to be used on other causes, like displaced Russians, and as he controls what happens to the assets — subject to a licence from the UK government — if he does not agree, nothing will happen," he said.
"They are his assets."
The report still called for the government to speed up its processes around securing the money.
"We urge the government to use all available legal levers to solve this impasse rapidly so that Ukraine can receive much needed, promised, and long overdue relief," it said.
"All of the funds should be spent in territories controlled by the Ukrainian government.
"[This money] has the power to transform the lives of many victims of the conflict, allowing them to move forward with their lives.
"The funds have the potential to dramatically improve the situation for victims and survivors and uphold their right to reparation, entrenched in international human rights and international humanitarian law.
"It also has been reported that a dispute has emerged between the government and the foundation over whether the funds are to be directed exclusively to Ukraine or Ukrainian victims, or for broader purposes."
However, Mr Keatinge said the government was likely no closer to accessing the money than they were two years ago.
"In fact probably further away, because the UK had an opportunity for leverage when it granted to the Chelsea FC sale licence," he said.
"It should have been more proscriptive on what must happen to the assets.
"It was not and so now the assets sit, frozen, somewhere, not benefiting the Ukrainian people."
Pressure is continuing to build in recent months around the release of the funds, as other countries also grapple with the problem of frozen Russian assets.
At a European Union summit late last month, leaders said they would begin
While some countries are keen to begin using money from frozen assets to begin paying for aid and weapons in Ukraine, others have questioned the legality of the move and what sort of precedent it could set.
Mr Keatinge said many Western countries were dealing with the same issue as the UK when it comes to dealing with Russian assets.
"Because these assets still belong to the oligarchs, even if they are frozen," he said.
"We need to go through a legal process to prove that they are – for example – the proceeds of corruption or crime.
"We cannot simply expropriate assets from people we don't like.
"Otherwise we are no better than an authoritarian like Putin."
What's happening at Chelsea?
The Premier League launched an investigation into the side over how Abramovich previously funded the club, but its terms, frame of reference and any findings have not been publicly disclosed.
University of Stirling economist Carl Singleton said the sanctions that were imposed on the club had made their mark in 2022, and an investigation into the club would likely take a "very long time".
"If the investigation finds that Abramovich was using creative methods to circumvent financial rules, the parties to blame would seem to be the Premier League itself, and the UK Government, both of which have the power to be tougher on who can do business in the UK and who can purchase and invest in football clubs," he said.
"Punishing Chelsea FC and its fans now, for the actions of its previous ownership, would only deflect blame away from the Premier League, which has long talked a tough game on managing financial fair play and 'fit and proper' ownership but has repeatedly been caught short."
