Pro-Kremlin Russian Nationalist Politician Calls for Rendition of William Browder to Russia
January 28, 2016
Pro-Kremlin Russian Nationalist Politician Calls for Rendition of William Browder to Russia
28 January 2016 – Pro-Kremlin Russian nationalist politician, Eduard Limonov, has publicly called for the illegal rendition to Russia of UK-based Putin critic William Browder.
“The task of our special services is to catch Browder and bring him in a sack to Russia,” Eduard Limonov told to the pro-Putin news agency “Novy Den.” (http://newdaynews.ru/moskow/555722.html).
This is the second illegal rendition threat against Mr. Browder emanating from Russia. In the summer of 2014, Mr. Browder received a warning from the US Department of Justice of a similar Russian threat. The threat related to actions being put in place to “find” Mr Browder in London and “potentially return” him to Russia.
This most recent threat came just as Browder called on British Prime Minister Cameron to impose travel sanctions and asset freezes on senior officials in the Putin regime in response to the finding of the Russian state’s complicity in the Litvinenko murder which endangered lives of others in Britain.
In an open letter in the Guardian, William Browder said:
“You can’t undo an act of state-sponsored terrorism on British soil from 2006, but for the long-term safety and security of everyone in Britain you must act in a way that leaves no doubt that the UK government will not be cowed. You must stand firm and ensure serious consequences for anyone who dares to repeat such an atrocious act on British soil.”(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/26/litvinenko-report-punish-russia-cameron-bill-browder)
Last month, on 15 December 2015, Russian General Prosecutor Chaika lashed out against William Browder, accusing him of working with Western special services to destabilise Russia by producing a corruption expose against the Russian General Prosecutor.
“I have absolutely no doubts that this mendacious movie has been ordered by W. Browder and intelligence services who are standing behind him… There is a global purpose – to compromise the Russian Prosecutor General, his regional subordinates, and once again to denounce our country as… the country worthy of economic and other sanctions,” said Russian General Prosecutor Chaika. (http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2876887)
Mr Limonov has become an outspoken supporter of Russian President Putin. This week, he tried to dismiss the expose of corruption involving Vladimir Putin as “part of US war against Russia.” https://www.therussophile.org/limonov-accusations-of-corruption-against-putin-are-part-of-us-war-against-russia.html/
For more information, please contact:
Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Campaign
e-mail: info@lawandorderinrussia.org
Twitter: @KatieFisher__
www.facebook.com/russianuntouchables
US Appeals Court to Hear Emergency Motion on Disqualification of Lawyer John Moscow in the Magnitsky Case in New York
January 18, 2016
US Appeals Court to Hear Emergency Motion on Disqualification of Lawyer John Moscow in the Magnitsky Case in New York
18 January 2016 – The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has agreed to an emergency hearing to be held at 10 am on Friday, 22 January 2016, on an application from Hermitage Capital Management seeking to suspend the case of US vs Prevezon, to hear an appeal which will determine whether lawyers with a serious conflict of interest should be allowed to remain on the case.
Hermitage’s application arises out of U.S. law firm Baker Hostetler and its partner, John Moscow, switching sides in the Russian money laundering case from representing the victim – Hermitage, to representing the beneficiary of the crime – Prevezon Holdings.
Hermitage said in support of its motion for stay in the legal proceeding:
“A stay pending appeal is in the public interest. A lawyer’s obligation to preserveclient confidences “touches upon vital concerns of the legal profession and the public’s interestin the scrupulous administration of justice.”
Hermitage’s motion is supported by the US Department of Justice, who said to the Appeals Court that the conduct of Baker Hostetler represents an “unheard of”, “extremely rare” and “egregious” case of conflict of interest given that the law firm not only switched sides but went further by accusing Hermitage, its former client, of the crime of which Hermitage has been the victim.
“The egregious situation seen here, where an attorney for a victim attempts to switch sides to represent a beneficiary of the offense, is extremely rare, and it is unheard of that such attorney would go further and accuse his former client, the victim, of committing the offense. Accordingly, courts have seldom been called upon to rule on such an extreme conflict, often because it is simply not done,” said the US Department of Justice in their affirmation of Hermitage’s motion.
On 18 December 2015, the district court judge Thomas Griesa in the Southern District of New York granted Hermitage’s motion to disqualify Baker Hostetler and John Moscow, finding it would be improper for Baker Hostetler to continue to represent defendants Prevezon Holdings because of Baker Hostetler’s prior representation of Hermitage. However, on 8 January 2016, Judge Griesa reversed his decision ruling that Prevezon’s right to the choice of lawyers was more important than Hermitage’s right to not be betrayed by former counsel.
Prevezon Holdings is owned by the son of a senior Russian government official and, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit, has been involved in laundering proceeds from the US$230 million fraud uncovered by Hermitage’s late lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. The US Department of Justice, having traced proceeds stolen in Russia to Prevezon’s real estate properties in Manhattan, filed a civil lawsuit seeking money laundering fines and forfeiture of US$14 million in Prevezon’s US assets. After the assets were frozen, Prevezon sought the services of John Moscow and Baker Hostetler. In spite of the obvious conflict of interest, John Moscow and Baker Hostetler agreed to represent alleged beneficiaries of the US$230 million crime – ignoring the fact that they had been previously hired by Hermitage to identify and bring to justice perpetrators and beneficiaries of this crime.
On 13 January 2016, Hermitage filed an emergency motion to suspend the proceedings in the asset forfeiture case against Prevezon until the issue of John Moscow and Baker Hostetler’s disqualification is resolved.
In supporting the Hermitage’s motion, the US Department of Justice stated:
“After taking almost $200,000 of Hermitage’s money to attempt to prevent Hermitage from being accused of committing the fraud, [Baker Hostetler’s partner] Moscow is now taking the money of an alleged beneficiary of the very same fraud to himself accuse Hermitage of committing the fraud.”
“Allowing the trial to take place in this fashion, and to expose Hermitage to such irreparable injury at the hands of its former counsel, would be a miscarriage of justice setting a precedent that would severely harm crime victims’ interests and could chill the cooperation of victims with law enforcement,” said the US Justice Department in its filing.
The US$230 fraud and money laundering case was uncovered by Hermitage’s Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who was tortured and killed in Russian police custody after he had given testimony implicating Russian government officials in the scheme. To perpetrate the US$230 million fraud, the Russian criminal organisation stole three Russian companies belonging to the Hermitage Fund and then sought an illegal refund of US$230 million of taxes previously paid by those companies.
When Hermitage’s Russian lawyers reported the officials involved, the lawyers themselves became subject of retaliation from Russian authorities. In 2008, Hermitage hired Baker Hostetler’s partner John Moscow to protect Hermitage and its lawyers and executives from the retaliation. Mr. Moscow had previously been a specialist in combating Russian organised crime and corruption in the New York District Attorney’s office. He assisted Hermitage with the identification of the beneficiaries of the US$230 million fraud and liaising with the US law enforcement in bringing those beneficiaries to justice. Several years later the US Department of Justice traced some of the US$230 million proceeds to Manhattan properties owned by Prevezon and filed a lawsuit in which John Moscow and Baker Hostetler appeared for Prevezon.
The hearing will take place in New York in the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 17th floor, Room 1703 later this week, on 22 January 2016.
For more information, please contact:
Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Campaign
+44 207 440 1777
e-mail: info@lawandorderinrussia.org
www.lawandorderinrussia.org
Twitter: @KatieFisher__
www.facebook.com/russianuntouchables
New York Judge Allows Lawyer Who Betrayed Victims in the Magnitsky Case to Switch Sides and Defend the Alleged Beneficiaries of the Same Crime
January 11, 2016
New York Judge Allows Lawyer Who Betrayed Victims in the Magnitsky Case to Switch Sides and Defend the Alleged Beneficiaries of the Same Crime
11 January 2016 – On 8 January 2016, New York district court judge Thomas Griesa reversed his previous decision to disqualify lawyer John Moscow and New York law firm Baker Hostetler.
The new decision allows Baker Hostetler and John Moscow to continue acting as defence counsel for Prevezon, a Cyprus company owned by the son of a senior Russian government official, accused by the US Justice Department of acquiring Manhattan properties with the proceeds from the $230 million fraud uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky, Hermitage’s murdered Russian lawyer. Baker Hostetler previously represented Hermitage as a victim of the same crime.
The judge’s decision came three weeks after he had disqualified John Moscow and Baker Hostetler on the same set of issues, concluding it would be improper for them to continue as defence counsel given the violation of New York Rules of Professional Conduct and Baker Hostetler’s duty to their former client, Hermitage.
The US government’s case against Prevezon seeks the forfeiture of New York property and bank accounts worth US$14 million and money laundering fines. In their complaint, the government highlights millions of dollars in payments received by Prevezon from shell companies from the $230 million Russian fraud, that were falsely described as payments for over 500 Italian bath tubs and auto spare parts – goods that Prevezon never delivered to anyone.
The series of disqualification motions filed by Hermitage came as a result of Baker Hostetler and John Moscow switching from assisting Hermitage in 2008-2009 with identifying perpetrators of the US$230 million fraud and bringing its beneficiaries to the US Department of Justice, to representing the alleged beneficiaries of the same fraud against the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit four years later.
In 2008, Hermitage hired New York lawyer John Moscow and his law firm Baker Hostetler after Hermitage’s Russian lawyers who exposed the Russian government complicity in the US$230 million fraud came under attack from the Russian authorities.
John Moscow was a recognized expert in fighting Russian organised crime and money laundering from his previous work in the New York District Attorney’s Office. Together with his new firm, Baker Hostetler, he developed a strategy of issuing requests for information to US banks and seeking legal action from the US Department of Justice, including the forfeiture of U.S. assets of perpetrators and beneficiaries.
As a result of the work of John Moscow and subsequent work by other Hermitage lawyers, in September 2013, the US Justice Department launched a US forfeiture case in relation to Denis Katsyv’s company Prevezon in the New York district court.
Baker Hostetler and John Moscow then switched sides and began to work as defence counsel for the alleged money launderers after previously helping the victim of the same crime. Most recently, as one of defence strategies Baker Hostetler and John Moscow accused Hermitage of committing the same $230 million fraud which John Moscow was helping to defend them against in 2009.
The US Government who supported Hermitage’s motion to disqualify John Moscow and Baker Hostetler said:
“The egregious situation seen here, where an attorney for a victim attempts to switch sides to represent a beneficiary of the offence, is extremely rare, and it is even rarer that such attorney would go further and accuse his former client, the victim, of committing the offence.”
On 15 December 2015, Hermitage filed a motion with New York district court seeking to disqualify Baker Hostetler and John Moscow for breaching the duty of loyalty to Hermitage as former client, citing the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.
On 18 December 2015 judge Griesa approved Hermitage’s request to disqualify John Moscow and Baker Hostetler.
The judge then changed his mind, and last Friday reversed his decision. To justify his new decision, judge Griesa concluded that the right of Prevezon to their choice of counsel is greater than the right of Hermitage to not be betrayed by their former lawyers.
“Perhaps most importantly, disqualification would mean depriving Prevezon of its right to the counsel of its choice. While this right is not absolute, it imposes a high burden on the party seeking disqualification. The balance of the relevant factors tips toward denying the motion to disqualify,” said judge Thomas Griesa in his opinion.
In filings supporting Hermitage’s motion to disqualify Baker Hostetler, the U.S. Department of Justice warned of the chilling effect that a negative decision could have on future cases.
“Victims considering retaining attorneys to represent their interests will be aware that their counsel can be paid to accuse them of committing that very offence and to defend the perpetrator. This precedent will understandably have a “chilling effect,”… deterring crime victims from retaining attorneys to investigate and to inform the Government of offences, as those attorneys will be permitted to be turned against them by well-resourced perpetrators,” said the U.S. government.
Hermitage intends to appeal the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the thirteen United States Courts of Appeals which has appellate jurisdiction over New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
For more information, please contact:
Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Campaign
+44 207 440 1777
e-mail: info@lawandorderinrussia.org
www.lawandorderinrussia.org
Twitter: @KatieFisher__
www.facebook.com/russianuntouchables
For more information please visit