The £2.5billion promised to Ukrainian war victims following the sale of Chelsea remains stuck in a bank account, with fears growing that it may take years - and even an act of Parliament - before funds can be released.

As part of the forced transaction which took the Stamford Bridge club out of Roman Abramovich’s hands and into the control of a US-based consortium two years ago following Russia’s invasion of its neighbour, the staggering sum was set aside for victims of the conflict.

However, Mail Sport understands that it remains in a London bank account, albeit gathering ‘sizeable’ interest.

One of the main issues has been over where funds will be diverted. 

Earlier this week foreign secretary David Cameron told the House of Lords of an ‘immensely frustrating situation’. He highlighted a disagreement over whether all the money goes to Ukraine or other countries, not including Russia or Belarus, that have suffered as a result of the war. 

The £2.5bn promised to Ukrainian war victims following Roman Abramovich's sale of Chelsea remains stuck in a bank account, with fears growing that it make take years to be released

‘That is the difficulty with the people who set up this trust,’ Lord Cameron said. ‘We have to resolve that with the European Union and Portugal, where Abramovich has citizenship. We are working very hard because I do not want month after month to go by while the money has not got out of the door. It is difficult to get everybody into alignment, but we are on it.’

However, sources close to the matter say that should agreement over where the money goes not be reached, there may then be an issue over how to ‘force’ the payments within the legal system.

While he has been sanctioned for allegedly benefiting from his close ties to Vladimir Putin, Abramovich has not been charged with any criminal activity. Given the centuries-old principle that forfeiture before conviction is illegal government would face issues re-directing the money without the oligarch’s consent.

A breakdown in talks without agreement could mean that new legislation – which would allow the government to distribute the money without Abramovich’s approval – could be called for.

Should that be the case, a considerable further amount of time, most likely to be a number of years, could pass with the money stuck in the bank. Such a bill may also face opposition within Parliament, given potential wider ramifications.

According to a Politico report, Abramovich wants some of the money to go to Russian ‘victims’. Mike Penrose, a former UNICEF UK director who was appointed to oversee the foundation, has been tasked with breaking the impasse and has considered using the money on projects outside of Ukraine involving war refugees. Such a move would see cash diverted to displaced Ukrainians, including those in this country.

The report added that Penrose had ‘lost confidence’ that a deal could ever be struck and was concerned the funds could end up frozen indefinitely.

Chelsea’s new owners, Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital, have had nothing to do with the money since it was handed over and have no influence on the matter.

A UK government spokesperson said: ‘We are working hard to reach an arrangement that delivers this money to humanitarian causes in Ukraine as quickly as possible.’