>

As far as it goes with assets, at some point it is no longer the fiscal hit - you have compliance issues with audits on the value of the company. Asset management is complex - abandoning an asset has it's own host of issues far beyond fiscal, and that is just all on paper. And even if they did just do that, the paperwork and audits and other things to communicate and document that with investors or the bank and other institutions takes a lot of time under regular operations, never mind something that is as unusual as this. I'm not the deepest into financial asset management, only a couple of years in. But I've been learning that the whole "lets just get the deal done" is far more complicated than that. 
I'm not disagreeing that they should move out, absolutely and completely on moral and political motives, but these things take time, and it's only coming up to a year right now of this war. Relatively speaking, that's a short amount of time. There's just a lot of work that goes into these decisions, and some companies can do it quickly, some can do it shortly, and I suspect, many companies are learning how to handle it because they've never needed to do something like this before. But that said, we should be critical of companies that are in there, and keep monitoring their activities and hold them accountable - just need to take nuanced views on the why.
wonder how they transfer money to pay for goods, send profit to HQ etc. Or are there so many loopholes still that sanctions dont really bite? >

In truth it's more the opposite. The war started and effective sanctions landed so hard and so fast that companies had no way to divest their assets and relocate. Abandoning their operations is basically the only way for most of them to leave, which would immediately trip off fraud and mismanagement claims (for publicly traded companies at least, or really want company with loans).
The article itself is kind of BS in that is using the most absolutist standard possible. Like a company that's closed their shop and still paying employees a stipend is still "doing business in Russia". When in truth most of them have shut down a lot, they just haven't turned the keys over to the new owner yet. Not like most of them can even find buyers to begin with.
There's a lot of complicating factors that IMO sensationalist articles deliberately avoid discussing. Because they want reactions like your own, where people think it's business as usual over there. It's not. Just kind of hard to tell the bank you have to stop paying your mortgage because you donated your collateral to charity and stopped working. >

But isn't that in so many words just proving the point? Like getting out would have been poor monetary decision (mismanagement) so that they're just staying in to keep making the most money? I get what your saying but I think the point is that if they said for moral and political reasons they would get out, they should get out regardless of taking the fiscal hit. Besides, I don't think the sec is going to grill any execs for getting out of Russia because of the war, that would look horrible. They don't even enforce their own policy int he states.