// Press Releases (in English)

US Government Sanctions Russian Officials Who Posthumously Accused Sergei Magnitsky in the US$230 Million Fraud He Had Uncovered

February 2, 2016

US Gov­ern­ment Sanc­tions Russ­ian Offi­cials Who Posthu­mously Accused Sergei Mag­nit­sky in the US$230 Mil­lion Fraud He Had Uncovered



2 Feb­ru­ary 2016 – The United States gov­ern­ment has announced visa bans and asset freezes on sev­eral Russ­ian offi­cials involved in the posthu­mous accu­sa­tion of Sergei Mag­nit­sky in the US$230 Mil­lion fraud that he had in fact uncovered.


“This is an impor­tant devel­op­ment in the con­tin­ued fight for jus­tice in the Sergei Mag­nit­sky case. In spite of inter­na­tional con­dem­na­tion, Russ­ian author­i­ties con­tinue to falsely accuse Sergei Mag­nit­sky in the $230 mil­lion theft from the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment that he uncov­ered and exposed. These sanc­tions show that it is not accept­able for the peo­ple involved in the crime to hide behind a man they killed,” said Bill Brow­der, leader of the Mag­nit­sky Jus­tice campaign.


The new Magnitsky-related sanc­tions list announced by the US Trea­sury includes four Russ­ian Inte­rior Min­istry offi­cials involved in posthu­mous pro­ceed­ings against Sergei Magnitsky:


1) Alexei Anichin, most senior Russ­ian offi­cial on the list, was (until June 2011) Deputy Inte­rior Min­is­ter and Head of the Inves­tiga­tive Com­mit­tee of the Inte­rior Min­istry of Rus­sia, which orga­nized the arrest and deten­tion of Sergei Mag­nit­sky, and pres­sured him to with­draw tes­ti­mony impli­cat­ing Russ­ian Inte­rior Min­istry offi­cials in the US$230 mil­lion fraud, with Alexei Anichin per­son­ally sign­ing a decree in those pro­ceed­ings in July 2008. After Sergei Mag­nit­sky died, the Anichin-led Inves­tiga­tive Com­mit­tee advanced false accu­sa­tions against Sergei Mag­nit­sky posthumously.


2) Pavel Lap­shov, Colonel of the Russ­ian Inte­rior Min­istry, served (until Octo­ber 2012) as Head of the Orga­nized Crime and Cor­rup­tion Direc­torate of the Inte­rior Ministry’s Inves­tiga­tive Com­mit­tee. He appeared at a press con­fer­ence in Decem­ber 2011 to advance false posthu­mous accu­sa­tions against Mag­nit­sky and exon­er­ate com­plicit offi­cials (http://www.novayagazeta.ru/news/52474.html).


3) Boris Kibis, inves­ti­ga­tor of the Russ­ian Inte­rior Min­istry, who dur­ing 2011 – 2012 was in charge of the posthu­mous pro­ceed­ing opened against Sergei Mag­nit­sky after his death. Kibis also issued mul­ti­ple sum­monses to Sergei Magnitsky’s mother and tried to remove her lawyer who chal­lenged the posthu­mous proceedings.


4) Oleg Urzhumt­sev, is a close asso­ciate of the crim­i­nal orga­ni­za­tion exposed by Sergei Mag­nit­sky. He was an inves­ti­ga­tor from the Russ­ian Inte­rior Min­istry put in charge of inves­ti­gat­ing the crim­i­nal con­spir­acy. In that role he exon­er­ated its key mem­bers, and posthu­mously accused Sergei Mag­nit­sky of the $230 mil­lion fraud that Mag­nit­sky had uncov­ered. While in charge of “inves­ti­gat­ing” the Magnitsky-uncovered crim­i­nal con­spir­acy, inves­ti­ga­tor Oleg Urzhumt­sev trav­eled with Andrei Pavlov and Yulia May­orova, the two key per­sons whose role in the crim­i­nal con­spir­acy he was sup­posed to inves­ti­gate, to Ukraine and back to Rus­sia dur­ing 8 – 10 July 2008 http://russian-untouchables.com/rus/docs/F13.pdf. He then ques­tioned them in the two fol­low­ing months, on 21 August and 21 Sep­tem­ber 2008, about the cir­cum­stances of the crim­i­nal con­spir­acy and found on wrong­do­ing in their actions. The con­nec­tion of Oleg Urzhumt­sev to Andrei Pavlov, a close asso­ciate of the leader of the crim­i­nal con­spir­acy, Dmitry Klyuev, who him­self had been pre­vi­ously sanc­tioned under the Mag­nit­sky Act, goes back as far back as 2005 based on the joint travel pat­tern http://russian-untouchables.com/rus/docs/F14.pdf.


“The Mag­nit­sky Act was intended to be an open-ended process, and we are reg­u­larly review­ing the sit­u­a­tion to see whether there are addi­tional des­ig­na­tions pos­si­ble,” said the US State Depart­ment official.


Explain­ing the new Magnitsky-related des­ig­na­tion, the US State Depart­ment offi­cial said:


“Alek­sey Anichin was the for­mer head of the Russ­ian inte­rior ministry’s inves­tiga­tive depart­ment. He was – he had autho­rized the crim­i­nal case under which Sergei Mag­nit­sky was orig­i­nally arrested. Pavel Lap­shov was the head of the inte­rior ministry’s inves­tiga­tive depart­ment of orga­nized crim­i­nal activ­ity. He was – his inves­tiga­tive unit con­cluded that Mag­nit­sky him­self was respon­si­ble for the con­spir­acy which Mag­nit­sky uncov­ered. Two of the oth­ers – that is, Urzhumt­sev and Kibis – were involved in the posthu­mous pros­e­cu­tion of Magnitsky.”


The new Magnitsky-related des­ig­na­tion offi­cially pub­lished on 1 Feb­ru­ary 2016, con­tains five indi­vid­u­als, bring­ing the total num­ber of per­sons sanc­tioned since the enact­ment of the “Sergei Mag­nit­sky Rule of Law Account­abil­ity Act,” to 39.


For more infor­ma­tion, please con­tact:


Jus­tice for Sergei Mag­nit­sky Campaign

+44 207 440 1777

e-mail: info@lawandorderinrussia.org


Twit­ter: @KatieFisher__




List of New Magnitsky-related Designations:


Annual Report on the Imple­men­ta­tion of the Sergei Mag­nit­skyRule of Law Account­abil­ity Act:


Brief­ing by Senior State Depart­ment Offi­cial ViaT­ele­con­fer­ence, Feb­ru­ary 1, 2016:




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

+44 207 440 1777

e-mail: info@lawandorderinrussia.org


Twit­ter: @KatieFisher__




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


Twit­ter: @KatieFisher__




Sergei Magnitsky’s Mother Demands Answers from Russia’s General Prosecutor Chaika About False Statements Against Her Son

December 22, 2015

Sergei Magnitsky’s Mother Demands Answers from Russia’s Gen­eral Pros­e­cu­tor Chaika About False State­ments Against Her Son


Yuri Chaika

22 Decem­ber 2015  – Sergei Magnitsky’s mother has demanded answers from Russ­ian Gen­eral pros­e­cu­tor Chaika over his hys­ter­i­cal let­ter con­tain­ing false infor­ma­tion about Sergei Mag­nit­sky pub­lished last week in Russ­ian news­pa­per Kom­m­er­sant. Chaika’s let­ter was a response to Russ­ian blog­ger Alexei Navalny’s explo­sive video about the cor­rup­tion and abuse of office involv­ing Chaika’s two sons and senior pros­e­cu­tors in the country.


In Chaika’s14 Decem­ber 2015 let­ter to Kom­m­er­sant, he claimed that Sergei Mag­nit­sky had never inves­ti­gated the $230 mil­lion theft from the Russ­ian budget.


In Sergei Magnitsky’s mother’s appli­ca­tion to the Gen­eral Prosecutor’s office which was filed at the end of last week, she refuted Chaika’s false state­ments and placed the respon­si­bil­ity on Chaika him­self for the cover up of the $230 mil­lion theft and its per­pe­tra­tors impli­cated by Sergei Mag­nit­sky in sworn testimony.


“The infor­ma­tion you have dis­sem­i­nated inflicts pain on a mother who lost her son, it is not based on facts, it has not been cor­rob­o­rated by courts, and it is refuted by doc­u­ments, includ­ing the crim­i­nal case files about Magnitsky’s death,” said Ms. Mag­nit­skaya to Pros­e­cu­tor Chaika.


“Thanks to Sergei Magnitsky’s inves­ti­ga­tion which he con­ducted on instruc­tion from his client — the Her­mitage Fund — the theft of 5.4 bil­lion rubles [$230 mil­lion] was uncov­ered, and reported to you on 25 July 2008 in an appli­ca­tion seek­ing to inves­ti­gate the fraud and pros­e­cute its per­pe­tra­tors. In response your senior aid Bumazhkin replied that the inves­ti­ga­tion had been ter­mi­nated …due to the lack of crime. Your aid also reported that the out­comes of this inves­ti­ga­tion were under con­trol of the Gen­eral Prosecutor’s Office,” said the appli­ca­tion from Ms. Magnitskaya.


“It fol­lows that under the con­trol and with knowl­edge of the Russ­ian Gen­eral Prosecutor’s Office headed by you, per­pe­tra­tors who com­mit­ted a grandiose theft of 5.4 bil­lion rubles from the bud­get, remained for a long time free, had oppor­tu­nity to destroy evi­dence of their crime and con­tinue it unhin­dered through laun­der­ing the pro­ceeds stolen from the Russ­ian peo­ple via bank wire trans­fers,” said Ms. Magnitskaya’s application.


Sergei Magnitsky’s mother’s appli­ca­tion asks Chaika whether the infor­ma­tion he had dis­sem­i­nated was his per­sonal opin­ion, or his offi­cial con­clu­sion as Gen­eral pros­e­cu­tor of Rus­sia tasked by Russ­ian pres­i­dent to per­son­ally over­see all cases con­nected to Sergei Mag­nit­sky. The reply from Pros­e­cu­tor Chaika to Magnitsky’s mother appli­ca­tion is yet not known.


For more infor­ma­tion please contact:                     


Jus­tice for Sergei Magnitsky


+44 207 440 1777

e-mail: info@lawandorderinrussia.org


Twit­ter: @KatieFisher__



New York Federal Court Disqualifies Lawyer John Moscow and BakerHostetler in Magnitsky Money Laundering Case

December 21, 2015

New York Fed­eral Court Dis­qual­i­fies Lawyer John Moscow and Bak­er­Hostetler in Mag­nit­sky Money Laun­der­ing Case


21 Decem­ber 2015 – The fed­eral court in New York has dis­qual­i­fied lawyer John Moscow and his firm, Bak­er­Hostetler, who rep­re­sented the alleged Russ­ian recip­i­ents of money laun­der­ing pro­ceeds from the US$230 mil­lion Russ­ian fraud that Sergei Mag­nit­sky uncov­ered, in a civil for­fei­ture case brought by the US Depart­ment of Jus­tice. The case alleges money laun­der­ing of pro­ceeds of Russ­ian fraud into multi-million dol­lar Man­hat­tan real estate by Pre­ve­zon, a com­pany owned by a son of for­mer Vice-premier of the Moscow Region and the cur­rent Vice-president of Russ­ian Rail­ways Pyotr Katsyv.


John Moscow and Bak­er­Hostetler had orig­i­nally worked for Her­mitage in 2008 to defend Her­mitage against unfounded accu­sa­tions relat­ing to the fraud, includ­ing (among other projects) by track­ing the stolen US$230 mil­lion and its recip­i­ents, and bring­ing the evi­dence of this com­plex Russ­ian fraud which vic­timised Her­mitage, to the US Depart­ment of Jus­tice. On Hermitage’s behalf, John Moscow per­son­ally pre­sented the find­ings from the Hermitage’s and Sergei Magnitsky’s inves­ti­ga­tions of the $230 mil­lion fraud to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.


On 25 Novem­ber 2008, one day after Sergei Magnitsky’s arrest by cor­rupt Russ­ian offi­cials on false charges, John Moscow also became involved in Hermitage’s legal actions to free Sergei Mag­nit­sky from Russ­ian deten­tion. Prior to his arrest, Sergei Mag­nit­sky gave tes­ti­mony to Russ­ian author­i­ties impli­cat­ing Russ­ian offi­cials in the theft of Hermitage’s Russ­ian com­pa­nies and of US$230 mil­lion the Hermitage’s com­pa­nies had paid to the Russ­ian government.


One year later, on 16 Novem­ber 2009, Sergei Mag­nit­sky was killed in Russ­ian police cus­tody before he could tes­tify in an open trial.


In 2013, John Moscow and Bak­er­Hostetler switched sides, and went from rep­re­sent­ing Her­mitage to rep­re­sent­ing Russian-owned Pre­ve­zon, an alleged ben­e­fi­ciary of the US$230 mil­lion fraud, that Sergei Magnitsky’s inves­ti­ga­tion had led to after his death. The US Depart­ment of Jus­tice has traced to Pre­ve­zon nearly US$2 mil­lion of the US$230 mil­lion fraud pro­ceeds and more funds in false and ques­tion­able trans­ac­tions.  The US court has frozen about US$14 mil­lion in Prevezon’s assets, includ­ing bank accounts and sev­eral Man­hat­tan properties.


In Novem­ber 2015, John Moscow and Bak­er­Hostetler made fil­ings on Prevezon’s behalf in which they explic­itly accused Her­mitage of com­mit­ting the US$230 mil­lion fraud that they orig­i­nally have been hired to defend against.


On 15 Decem­ber 2015, Her­mitage filed a motion to dis­qual­ify Bak­er­Hostetler and John Moscow.


In Judge Griesa’s opin­ion, issued on 18 Decem­ber 2015, the U.S. Court for South­ern Dis­trict of New York ordered:


“The court is now con­vinced that it would be improper for Bak­er­Hostetler and Moscow to con­tinue as coun­sel to defen­dants. …Hermitage’s motion to dis­qual­ify Bak­er­Hostetler and Moscow as coun­sel to defen­dants is granted.”


Her­mitage Capital’s rep­re­sen­ta­tive said of the dis­qual­i­fi­ca­tion of John Moscow and Bak­er­Hostetler:


“This dis­qual­i­fi­ca­tion is a stark reminder that lawyers can’t switch sides just because there is money being offered to them.”


Under Rule 1.9 of the New York Rule of Pro­fes­sional Con­duct, lawyers are not allowed to betray their for­mer clients. In par­tic­u­lar, the rule says:


“A lawyer who has for­merly rep­re­sented a client in a mat­ter shall not there­after rep­re­sent another per­son in the same or a sub­stan­tially related mat­ter in which that person’s inter­ests are mate­ri­ally adverse to the inter­ests of the for­mer client unless the for­mer client gives informed con­sent, con­firmed in writing.”


Her­mitage became the vic­tim of the US$230 mil­lion fraud in 2007 when a Russ­ian crim­i­nal organ­i­sa­tion, com­pris­ing FSB, Inte­rior Min­istry and tax offi­cials and headed by a con­victed fraud­ster Dmitry Klyuev, raided offices of Her­mitage and its law firm in Moscow, unlaw­fully seized statu­tory and finan­cial doc­u­ments for its cor­po­rate Russ­ian sub­sidiaries. Using those doc­u­ments, the Russ­ian crime group forged con­tracts and pow­ers of attor­ney, fraud­u­lently re-registered the stolen Her­mitage com­pa­nies to felons pre­vi­ously con­victed for vio­lent crimes, and through sham court pro­ceed­ings obtained about US$1 bil­lion judg­ments against the stolen Her­mitage com­pa­nies, in order to claim US$230 mil­lion in pur­port­edly “over­paid” taxes.


The fraud­u­lent US$230 mil­lion tax refund was granted by Russ­ian tax offi­cials, who were mem­bers of the crime group, in one day, and paid out two days later to two small Russ­ian banks, where fraud­sters had opened bank accounts, and then laun­dered through Russ­ian banks and around the world.


Through efforts of Her­mitage and law enforce­ment author­i­ties around the world, about US$40 mil­lion con­nected to the US$230 mil­lion fraud uncov­ered by Sergei Mag­nit­sky have been iden­ti­fied and frozen.


Bak­er­Hostetler is an “Am Law 100 law firm” with more than 900 attor­neys and 14 offices. John Moscow is a for­mer New York pros­e­cu­tor and a part­ner at Baker Hostetler.


For more infor­ma­tion please contact:                     


Jus­tice for Sergei Magnitsky

+44 207 440 1777

e-mail: info@lawandorderinrussia.org


Twit­ter: @KatieFisher__



« Previous PageNext Page »

  • Link

Hermitage TV

Visit “Stop the Untouchables” site

For more infor­ma­tion please visit http://russian-untouchables.com site..