Igor Soglaev, a former Rosneft executive, is suing traders of the Coral oil network, including Etibar Eyyub and Tahir Garayev, in Dubai and Brazil. He alleges they used a partnership with his company DIA33 to take its Brazilian diesel clients. A Dubai court froze up to $704M of their assets in June 2026, then questioned its jurisdiction, and the freeze stands pending Soglaev’s appeal.
Latest development Jun 2026
In June 2026, a court in Dubai barred Etibar Eyyub, Tahir Garayev, and 13 other individuals and companies from disposing of assets worth up to $704M. The judge later questioned the court’s jurisdiction, and Soglaev has appealed. The freeze remains in place pending the appeal.
Why it matters
The appeal will decide whether a Dubai court can keep up to $704M of sanctioned traders’ assets frozen in a dispute over Russian diesel sold to Brazil. It also tests how far UAE courts will hear disputes from the post-2022 Russian oil trade.
Background
Igor Soglaev is a former Deutsche Bank executive in Russia who later worked at Rosneft and advised its chief executive, Igor Sechin. He set up DIA33 in Dubai to resell Russian diesel to distributors in Brazil. In late 2023, DIA33 bought diesel from the Dubai company Serene Resources. In early 2024, it entered into a partnership with traders of the Coral network (renamed 2Rivers in 2024), which is linked to the Azerbaijani businessmen Etibar Eyyub and Tahir Garayev. The network became one of Rosneft’s main oil traders after 2022, and the UK and the EU have sanctioned Eyyub and Garayev.
Relations soured when a Brazilian port refused to accept a tanker carrying diesel worth tens of millions of dollars because of the vessel’s age. The parties could not agree on paying for the delay. The seller accused DIA33 of failing to pay for the fuel and misappropriating it. Soglaev alleges that the partnership was a ruse and that Serene Resources was linked to Coral, which the director of Serene Resources denies. In his account, the traders learned DIA33’s clients and contract terms and then offered fuel to those clients directly at a discount.
The defendants deny wrongdoing and say the partnership was never fully formalized. Soglaev brought claims in Dubai and Brazil and puts his losses at more than $500M. In Brazil, the DIA33 group is claiming R$138M from its former partner in the courts of São Paulo State, alleging unfair competition. In 2025, the 3rd Business Court of São Paulo found signs of unfair competition by Coral. Coral failed to obtain an order from a Paraná State court freezing R$133M of DIA33’s funds.
In early 2026, an arbitral tribunal in Dubai ordered DIA33 to pay $42M. In June 2026, a court in Dubai barred Eyyub, Garayev, and 13 other individuals and companies from disposing of assets worth up to $704M. The judge later questioned whether the case fell within the court’s jurisdiction, and Soglaev has appealed. He is seeking to have the dispute heard in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), and the freeze remains in place pending the appeal. Soglaev also says that Eyyub told him in a phone call that he had discussed their conflict with a “Chechen field commander,” which Soglaev regards as a death threat.
Timeline 5 events
-
JudgmentDubai court freezes up to $704M of the traders’ assets
The order covers Etibar Eyyub, Tahir Garayev, and 13 other individuals and companies. The judge later questioned the court’s jurisdiction, and Soglaev appealed. The freeze stays in place pending the appeal.
-
OrderDubai judge questions court’s jurisdiction over freeze
After granting the asset freeze, the Dubai judge raised doubts about the court’s jurisdiction to hear Soglaev’s claims against Eyyub, Garayev, and the other defendants.
-
AwardArbitral tribunal in Dubai orders DIA33 to pay $42M
The seller of the diesel had accused DIA33 of failing to pay for the fuel and misappropriating it. The award was made in early 2026.
-
OrderSão Paulo business court finds signs of unfair competition by Coral
The 3rd Business Court of São Paulo made the finding in DIA33’s claim against its former partner, according to Folha de S.Paulo.
-
OtherDIA33 enters a partnership with Coral-linked traders to sell diesel in Brazil
The partnership was to share profits from Russian diesel sold in Brazil. It broke down within months.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill a Dubai appellate court rule on Soglaev’s appeal over jurisdiction and the $704 million asset freeze by December 31, 2027, and if so, with what result?
- Soglaev’s appeal fails, freeze lifted40%
- Still pending on December 31, 202732%
- Appeal court keeps freeze in place22%
- Soglaev and Coral traders settle6%
- Resolves by
- Dec 31, 2027in 14 months
- Record confidence
- Low
The most likely result, at 40%, is that a Dubai appellate court rejects Soglaev’s appeal and lifts the $704 million freeze by December 31, 2027. The first-instance judge has already questioned jurisdiction, and appellate courts usually affirm. Opaque Dubai reporting makes a still-pending result plausible.
How it resolves. Resolves on public reporting or court records by December 31, 2027. “Appeal fails” if a Dubai appellate court upholds the lack of jurisdiction or otherwise lifts the freeze. “Freeze kept” if it accepts jurisdiction, transfers the claim to another court such as the DIFC Courts, or keeps the freeze in place. “Settle” if the parties announce a settlement before any appellate ruling. Otherwise “Still pending.”
Reasoning
Starting point. Appeals of interim asset freezes in onshore Dubai courts where the first-instance judge has questioned jurisdiction over foreign-linked commercial claims: Appellate courts generally affirm lower courts about 70% to 80% of the time. Freezes resting on doubtful jurisdiction are often discharged.
Appellate courts generally affirm lower rulings in roughly 70% to 80% of cases. Interim freezes that rest on contested jurisdiction are vulnerable. Here the same judge who granted the freeze later questioned jurisdiction, and that weighs against Soglaev. His push to move the dispute to the DIFC Courts suggests he sees weakness in the onshore forum. Onshore Dubai appeals usually move within months. But the record gives no case number, hearing date, or counsel, and outcomes may go unreported. That supports a meaningful still-pending share. The leading alternative is that the appeal court keeps the freeze or refers the claim elsewhere, which Soglaev could win given a large claimed loss and a supportive São Paulo finding of signs of unfair competition. Settlement looks unlikely given sanctions on Eyyub and Garayev, the $42 million award against DIA33, and personal hostility, including an alleged threat. Nothing in the record has changed since the previous forecast on the same question, so the numbers stay the same.
First-instance judge already doubted the court’s jurisdiction · High general affirmance rates on appeal · Sparse public reporting from onshore Dubai courts · Sanctions on defendants complicate settlement and enforcement · Soglaev’s effort to move the dispute to the DIFC Courts
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 27, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made