Inside the €350m Superyacht Deal Now Before the UK High Court

Revolut chief executive Nik Storonsky bought a superyacht valued at €350 million after using ChatGPT to identify its previous owner, according to a defence filed by his lawyers in a UK legal dispute. The vessel had originally been commissioned by Canadian businessman and former ice hockey player Patrick Dovigi, sold during construction to Brazilian banker Daniel Vorcaro in 2024, and later repurchased by Dovigi after Vorcaro's arrest on fraud charges in November 2025. Dovigi subsequently sold the yacht to Storonsky.

Luxury yacht brokerage Cecil Wright & Partners is suing Storonsky in the UK, alleging that he avoided roughly €17.5 million in commission by cutting the firm out of the deal and buying directly from Dovigi. Storonsky's legal team denies the claim and argues that Cecil Wright did not introduce him to Dovigi or negotiate the sale.

In the defence, his lawyers say Storonsky learned through a ChatGPT search using publicly available information that Dovigi was the previous owner, and that the brokerage informed him of the Brazilian owner's identity only three days after the arrest. They also accuse Cecil Wright of misleading his family office and concealing the prior owner's identity.

The case offers an unusually public view of the ultraluxury yacht market, where a small circle of shipbuilders and intermediaries organises nine-figure purchases through family offices, private messages and offshore companies.

What Storonsky and Cecil Wright Each Claim About the Sale

What Cecil Wright claims

The brokerage's core allegation is that Storonsky and Dovigi agreed a side deal to cut the price and avoid the €17.5 million commission that Cecil Wright says it was owed. The firm previously sued Storonsky in the UK, and its founder, Chris Cecil-Wright, has said he is maintaining the firm's version of events and expects to present evidence in court.

What Storonsky's defence says

Storonsky's lawyers argue the commission claim fails because the broker did not introduce him to Dovigi and did not negotiate the transaction. They say the broker told him the identity of the Brazilian previous owner only after the arrest, and they accuse Cecil Wright of concealing that information. The ChatGPT detail is being used to show that Storonsky identified the prior owner independently, from public sources, rather than through the brokerage.

Why the ownership chain matters

The yacht began with Dovigi, passed to Daniel Vorcaro during construction in 2024, and returned to Dovigi after Vorcaro's arrest on fraud charges. That ownership history is central to the dispute: Cecil Wright says it identified the yacht while it was still under construction and negotiated with the then-owner, while the defence says those negotiations collapsed after the Brazilian owner's arrest and were not responsible for the later sale.

The wider significance

Beyond the parties, the litigation exposes how opaque high-end yacht deals can be. Purchases worth hundreds of millions of euros are handled by a limited group of brokers and shipbuilders, often through family offices, offshore vehicles and informal communications. The case is a reminder that in such private markets, ownership, introductions and commission obligations can easily become contested when a deal changes shape.

What the Case Signals for Brokers, Buyers and Family Offices

  • For yacht brokers: The case shows a commission claim will depend on proving that the broker introduced the buyer to the seller or otherwise caused the completed sale. Cecil Wright's claim is contested precisely on that introduction point, so written records of who brought the parties together are likely to be decisive.
  • For family offices and wealthy buyers: Ownership history can be reconstructed from public information and AI tools, as Storonsky's lawyers say happened here. When a previous owner has been arrested on fraud charges, buyers should separately verify seller identity and assess reputational exposure before completing a private purchase.
  • For advisers involved in revived deals: If a transaction collapses and is later revived without the original intermediary, document why the first process ended and who reconnected the parties. That is the factual question at the centre of this dispute.