Which major US and European companies still report material assets or revenue from Russia in their 2024–2025 filings, and what valuations do they disclose?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Major public filings show a small but consequential set of European financial firms and market infrastructure providers continuing to report material Russia-linked assets or revenues in 2024–2025 — most prominently Euroclear (as custodian of frozen Russian sovereign assets) and Austria’s Raiffeisen (which continues to disclose sizable profits from its Russian unit) — while broad claims that thousands of Western firms still operate in Russia are contested and not verifiable from the sources provided [1] [2] [3]. The headline numbers are dominated by custodial balances (hundreds of billions of euros held by Euroclear and EU custodians) and by writedowns and lost revenues previously tallied by Reuters at roughly $107 billion for Western firms exiting or impairing Russian operations [1] [4] [5].
1. Which companies explicitly still disclose Russia exposure in 2024–2025 filings: custodians first
Euroclear, the Brussels-based settlement provider that functions as a financial-market custodian, reported having roughly €194 billion of Russian sanctioned assets on its balance sheet as of June 30 and generated about €2.7 billion of interest in the first half of 2025, figures Euroclear itself disclosed and Reuters reported [1]. Euroclear’s public statements and press releases also note the windfall income and tax receipts tied to Russian-related interest earnings and the special treatment of those balances under EU rules [4].
2. Which operating companies still disclose material Russia-driven profit or revenue in filings: an example
Raiffeisen Bank explicitly reported a large contribution from its Russian unit: an 83.9 billion rouble net profit in the first half of 2025, a figure Reuters cites when analysing how European banks are affected by any change in the treatment of frozen Russian assets [2]. That disclosure is a concrete example of a Western bank continuing to report material Russia-sourced earnings in 2025 filings.
3. Broader corporate writedowns and the landscape of “left vs. stayed”
Reporting by Reuters in 2024 catalogued major Western writedowns and lost revenues totaling about $107 billion as companies that exited or reduced Russian operations wrote assets down or sold at steep discounts, a figure that remains the primary public estimate of the financial hit to Western corporates from post‑2022 exits [5]. This aggregated writedown number explains why most major non‑financial multinationals have been cautious about reinstating reported Russian assets or revenues in their 2024–2025 filings: many recognized losses when they pulled out [5].
4. What valuations are being disclosed and where the big numbers come from
The largest single balance cited in the sources is custodial: Euroclear’s roughly €194 billion of Russian sanctioned assets, which generated €2.7 billion of interest in H1 2025, and which Euroclear and press reporting link to windfall tax and EU policy discussions [1] [4]. For operating companies, the example valuation metric in public filings is income contribution rather than gross asset carrying value — Raiffeisen’s 83.9 billion rouble net profit from Russia is a flow measure disclosed in filings and statements [2]. Reuters and other outlets also reference earlier aggregated writedowns and lost revenues of $107 billion across many Western companies [5].
5. Claims, contestation and limitations of the record
A narrative appearing in some outlets that “2,315 Western companies are still actively operating in Russia” is reported in a Pravda item in the dataset but is not substantiated with company‑by‑company filing citations in these sources; that claim should be treated as contested and not a confirmed audit of filings [3]. The public record in the provided reporting is strongest for custodians (Euroclear) and for banks that continue to report Russian unit results (Raiffeisen); broad lists of thousands of firms operating in Russia are not corroborated here and require primary‑source filings or authoritative registries to verify [4] [1] [2] [3].
6. Why these distinctions matter for investors and policymakers
The distinction between custodial holdings (sovereign and corporate securities immobilised in Europe) and corporate operating exposure (profits, assets on company balance sheets) matters because custodial balances are politically and legally contested — underpinning EU debates about using frozen assets for Ukraine — while operating exposures drive corporate earnings, impairment risk and potential regulatory scrutiny [1] [4] [6]. Sources signal both financial scale (hundreds of billions in frozen assets) and political risk, which together explain why a handful of financial players remain the visible reporters of material Russia exposure in 2024–2025 filings [1] [4].