“Britain Has Gone to Hell”: Why Billionaires Are Quietly Moving Their Money – and Their Families – Out of London

A Billionaire’s Verdict on Britain

“Britain has gone to hell.” With that line, Norwegian-born shipping magnate John Fredriksen crystallised what many ultra-wealthy London residents have been discussing privately for years: the UK is no longer the default capital of global capital. His decision to shut his London headquarters, move his business operations to the United Arab Emirates and quietly shop one of the city’s most valuable private homes marks a symbolic moment in the city’s relationship with the global elite.​

For CEOs, family offices and policy makers, the story is not about one billionaire’s grievance; it is about how a series of tax and regulatory changes – culminating in the abolition of the non-dom regime – are reshaping residency, investment and headquarters decisions at the very top of the wealth distribution.​

John Fredriksen: From Chelsea Showpiece to UAE Base

Fredriksen, long ranked among the UK’s wealthiest residents, built his fortune in oil tankers, rigs and salmon farming, amassing an estimated net worth of roughly £13–14 billion. A self-made son of an Oslo welder, he left Norway in the late 1970s, made aggressive bets during the Iran–Iraq war and ultimately became one of the world’s largest independent tanker owners.​

In London, his symbol of arrival was The Old Rectory in Chelsea, a Grade II-listed riverside mansion with ten bedroom suites, a ballroom, swimming pool, tennis court and roughly two acres of private gardens. Purchased for £37 million in 2001 and now estimated at up to £250–337 million, it is widely regarded as one of Britain’s most valuable private residences and is reportedly being shown discreetly to potential buyers.​

“Britain Has Gone to Hell”: What He Really Meant

Fredriksen’s now-famous comments were made at the Nor-Shipping event in Oslo, where he told Norwegian outlet E24 that Britain is “starting to remind me more and more of Norway” and that “the entire Western world is on its way down.” He has already acquired Cypriot citizenship and now prefers the UAE as an operating base, while saying he tries to avoid Norway as much as possible.​

His critique is economic and cultural: he laments the tax environment, questions productivity and criticises the rise of remote work, arguing that “people should get up and work even more, and go to the office instead of having a home office.” For peers, these remarks go beyond rhetoric; they vocalise a broader concern that Western European jurisdictions are becoming less predictable, less rewarding and more hostile to large, globally mobile fortunes.​

The Non-Dom Regime: From Competitive Advantage to Political Target

For over two centuries, the UK’s non-domiciled (“non-dom”) regime allowed foreign-born residents to pay UK tax on domestic income while keeping foreign income and capital gains outside the UK net unless remitted. This structure was not just a tax perk; it was a strategic magnet that helped turn London into a hub for billionaires, global families, hedge funds and private capital.​

That era ended on 6 April 2025, when Labour formally abolished the historic regime and replaced it with a residency‑based system that ultimately subjects long-term residents to UK tax on worldwide income and, crucially, to inheritance tax on global assets – including those held in trusts. While some transitional reliefs exist under the new Foreign Income and Gains framework, the direction of travel is clear: generous, open-ended non-dom status is over, and political pressure favours broader, not narrower, tax bases at the top.​

A Visible Wealth Exodus – and a Data Dispute

The abolition has coincided with a sharp rise in wealthy departures. Henley & Partners’ Wealth Migration Dashboard estimates that the UK lost about 10,800 millionaires in 2024 alone – a 157% increase in millionaire outflows compared to 2023, and roughly one millionaire leaving every 45 minutes. In parallel, one analysis of Companies House data suggests almost 3,800 company directors shifted their residence abroad between October 2024 and July 2025, up from 2,712 in the same period of 2023 – an increase of around 40%.​

Yet the scale of this “exodus” is contested. The Tax Justice Network notes that millionaire migration figures often amount to a near-zero share of total millionaires in any given country, and warns against overstating their macroeconomic impact. HMRC and the Office for Budget Responsibility initially forecast that around 1,200 non-doms would leave after abolition, many of them those with complex trust structures, a far smaller number than headline migration estimates.​

Beyond Headlines: Real Policy Risk for the Ultra-Rich

Regardless of the precise numbers, the behavioural signal is unambiguous: when governments tighten regimes that ultra-wealthy residents view as part of the “deal”, those residents reassess not only their tax position but their entire jurisdictional strategy. A deVere Group survey cited in coverage of the changes shows roughly 42% of individuals with UK financial assets actively looking to move wealth to more tax‑friendly jurisdictions.​

Experts warn that the biggest flashpoint is not annual income tax but inheritance and wealth taxation. Under the new rules and accompanying announcements, long-term residents can see their worldwide estates subjected to the UK’s 40% inheritance tax, one of the highest headline rates globally – including assets structured in trusts that previously enjoyed exemptions. For many non-British tycoons, this is the red line: they did not plan to have global family wealth exposed to a single country’s estate rules indefinitely.​

Who Else Is Leaving London – and Where They Are Going

Fredriksen is not the only non-dom heavyweight cooling on London. Reports indicate that billionaire Helene Odfjell, a major shareholder in Odfjell Drilling, who moved to the UK in 1989, is now based in Lugano, Switzerland, after years as a Kensington resident. Another Norwegian shipping billionaire, Peter T. Smedvig, has reportedly shifted back to Stavanger after decades in London, putting his Chelsea townhouse on the market.​

Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, historically one of Britain’s most prominent billionaire residents, has also been cited as reconsidering London, with advisers pointing to inheritance tax exposure – not income tax – as the core driver. Meanwhile, data compilations highlight a broader pattern: wealthy UK-linked directors and HNWIs are increasingly relocating to the UAE, Italy, Spain and Switzerland, attracted by lower effective tax burdens and more stable regimes for succession planning.​

Is London Losing Its Edge – or Just Repricing Its Offer?

Supporters of the reforms argue that the non-dom system was politically unsustainable and economically overvalued. HMRC data show that only around 2,600 people paid the highest annual non-dom charges, suggesting that the most generous benefits accrued to a small, ultra-elite group – even if their broader spending and investment contributed to over £8–9 billion in tax revenues annually.​

Critics counter that headline tax revenue understates the full economic value of attracting these households: they point to luxury consumption, philanthropy, corporate headquartering, capital markets activity and reputational signalling from being the preferred home of global billionaires. As one relocation adviser warned, if a future wealth tax were introduced on top of existing changes, it could trigger an even more aggressive wave of departures among those remaining.​

What This Means for CEOs, CFOs, and Family Offices

For corporate leaders and family offices, the UK’s non-dom saga offers several board‑level lessons:

• Jurisdictional risk is now a core strategic risk, not a back-office tax issue.​
• Headquarter and residency decisions should be reviewed in the same cadence as capital allocation and M&A strategy, not only at moments of crisis.​
• Wealth, domicile and operating footprint need to be integrated into a single playbook, particularly for founder-led and family-controlled businesses.​

In practice, that means boards and investment committees must stress‑test structures under multiple scenarios: higher inheritance tax rates, stricter disclosure rules, wealth taxes and more aggressive enforcement across borders. It also means recognising that reputational and political optics increasingly shape tax policy – and that silence or complacency can leave even high‑contributing taxpayers exposed when public narratives turn.​

Strategic Playbook: How the Ultra-Rich Are Responding

Emerging patterns among HNWIs and UHNWs facing UK-style shifts include:

• Re-domiciling early: Moving personal and corporate residency to jurisdictions such as the UAE, Switzerland, Italy (lump-sum regime), or certain Mediterranean states before new rules fully bite.​
• Re-engineering trust and holding structures: Revisiting trusts, foundations, and holding companies to mitigate exposure to a single country’s inheritance regime.​
• Diversifying political risk: Spreading real estate, operating entities, and personal presence across multiple jurisdictions to avoid concentration risk.​
• Investing in mobility: Expanding citizenship and residency portfolios through investment migration programmes to retain optionality if a primary base becomes hostile.​

Advisers note that nearly all non-dom clients have reassessed UK-linked structures since the reforms, with some firms reporting that virtually their entire non-dom client base has either left or is actively planning exits. That behavioural shift, more than any single billionaire headline, is what should focus attention in boardrooms and ministries alike.

The Bigger Picture: Capital Follows Confidence

Taken together, Fredriksen’s exit, the loss of non-dom status and the contested data on millionaire migration underscore a simple reality: capital is not loyal; it is conditional. When policy makers change those conditions, especially around succession and global asset exposure, the ultra-wealthy respond not with press releases but with plane tickets, trust deeds and redomiciliations.​

For London, the question is whether this episode becomes a managed recalibration – a shift from tax arbitrage hub to more “normal” high‑tax, high‑services economy – or the start of a longer erosion of its status as the world’s premier home for globally mobile wealth. For CEOs, CFOs and family offices, the message is clear: tax and domicile are no longer technical footnotes; they are now board‑level strategy.