Case No. FD19F00071

70.In his statement H said this: “Shortly after our marriage, we decided to move together as a family to London. It was W’s idea and initiative to move initially … She always told me that she was attracted by the idea of ‘marrying a foreigner’ and she wanted an international lifestyle”. 71.I reject this evidence. When I asked H why it was that he came to England, he said that he came as it had the most comfortable investment programme, there were greater opportunities in the UK, and London was the best financial capital in the world. It was a good place to live and to educate all the children. That evidence I accept, and I do not know why in his statement he sought to attribute the move to W. 72.He said that as of 2010 he had no problems with the Russian government but could see what was happening to people who fell out with it. I accept the evidence that H moved most of his assets to the trust to distance himself in the eyes of the Russian government from them and for the same reason subsequently Russian assets were placed in ND’s name. 73.The relevance of this is that it establishes that H’s argument, to use my words, that W made her bed in London and now must lie in it, is not properly based.