A Russian billionaire businessman has the power to influence his government even without direct political ties, the foreign affairs minister's lawyer suggests.
Alexander Abramov, who became head of Russia's largest steel producer Evraz, is suing Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong in the Federal Court, after the former government's April sanctioning of 67 Russian elites and oligarchs over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.
The sanctions imposed by former foreign minister Marise Payne on Mr Abramov were later revoked, but then immediately reimposed by Ms Wong in September.
Mr Abramov's lawyer has rejected the Australian government's assertions that the steel magnate is economically or strategically significant to Russia, pointing to his self-proclaimed lack of political connections and resignation as chair of Evraz.
The Australian government has previously claimed it's unlikely a businessman of his standing, with an estimated net worth of $6.4 billion, has no connections to the Russian government.
Barrister Perry Herzfeld SC, representing Ms Wong, argued in the Federal Court on Wednesday the sanctions were not limited to those who have direct influence on foreign governments.
Even if Mr Abramov's assertions about his lack of government influence were correct, influence could come about indirectly - in his case, through Evraz, Mr Herzfeld said.
Both decisions to sanction him focused on his influence on Evraz rather than the government, he said.
"The mere fact of the condemnation ... might cause foreign governments to be influenced," Mr Herzfeld told the court.
People of significance don't lose their ability to influence others just because they resign from a particular role, he suggested.
The government rejected Mr Abramov's assertions it made mistakes when it sanctioned him by not taking into account his resignation from the role of Evraz chair in March, and by wrongly referring to him as the company's co-founder.
The businessman's lawyers were wrong to argue the minister's decision could be upended by simple mistakes of fact, Mr Herzfeld said.
"There is no error of law in simply making a wrong finding of fact," he said.
The hearing continues.
