Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. Humanitarian Act or Big Scam?
nan said:
Yes, but it's not true. That's what Browder said happened. I posted the evidence given under oath.
You should read the article, because if you're correct, and it's not true, then the details it describes would have to be a result of a pretty large alleged conspiracy of family members and witnesses who saw it happen.
nan said:
Yes, but it's not true. That's what Browder said happened. I posted the evidence given under oath.
So, all of these news outlets reporting on Magnitsky's conviction aren't correct? You do realize that none of the news outlets depended upon Browder as their source that Magnitsky was convicted?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/sergei-magnitsky-russia-trial-verdict-tax-fraud
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23265423
cramer said:
nan said:So, all of these news outlets reporting on Magnitsky's conviction aren't correct? You do realize that none of the news outlets depended upon Browder as their source that Magnitsky was convicted?
Yes, but it's not true. That's what Browder said happened. I posted the evidence given under oath.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-magnitsky/russia-convicts-lawyer-magnitsky-in-posthumous-trial-idUSBRE96A09V20130711
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/sergei-magnitsky-russia-trial-verdict-tax-fraud
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10174167/Sergei-Magnitsky-conviction-Moscow-thumbs-its-nose-to-the-West.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23265423
It's a vast conspiracy.
South_Mountaineer said:
nan said:You should read the article, because if you're correct, and it's not true, then the details it describes would have to be a result of a pretty large alleged conspiracy of family members and witnesses who saw it happen.
Yes, but it's not true. That's what Browder said happened. I posted the evidence given under oath.
If you want to prove it true, you have to show the actual court document--cause the guy in the deposition I linked to did that.
cramer said:
nan said:So, all of these news outlets reporting on Magnitsky's conviction aren't correct? You do realize that none of the news outlets depended upon Browder as their source that Magnitsky was convicted?
Yes, but it's not true. That's what Browder said happened. I posted the evidence given under oath.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-magnitsky/russia-convicts-lawyer-magnitsky-in-posthumous-trial-idUSBRE96A09V20130711
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/sergei-magnitsky-russia-trial-verdict-tax-fraud
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10174167/Sergei-Magnitsky-conviction-Moscow-thumbs-its-nose-to-the-West.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23265423
All of these news outlets also support Browder's story without question. It's not a conspiracy, it's just bad reporting.
nan said:
South_Mountaineer said:If you want to prove it true, you have to show the actual court document--cause the guy in the deposition I linked to did that.
nan said:You should read the article, because if you're correct, and it's not true, then the details it describes would have to be a result of a pretty large alleged conspiracy of family members and witnesses who saw it happen.
Yes, but it's not true. That's what Browder said happened. I posted the evidence given under oath.
No, I'm going to read the articles, which mention their sources, including apparently eyewitnesses.
Jaime,
Here is some evidence about Magnitsky's testimony about the report of December 2007. Let me know if this is what you are looking for because I'm still confused:
Radio Free Europe’s latest support for the Browder Hoax
https://www.thekomisarscoop.com/2017/12/radio-free-europes-latest-support-for-the-browder-hoax/
Magnitsky was not a whistle-blower. That would refer to Browder’s claim of Magnitsky’s alleged revelations in June 2008 of a December 2007 $250-million fraud against the Russian Treasury. But Magnitsky says in his own June testimony that on 3 April 2008, Kommersant published an article which, referring to the law-enforcement authorities, reported Browder’s three companies had allegedly used “tax evasion schemes» and that criminal proceedings were launched to prosecute those at fault. Kommersant April 3, 2008 and April 4, 2008
nan said:
jamie said:Not my answer to everything and not even accurate: The US is worse than Russia.
Nan’s answer to everything- US is as bad as Russia- Magnitsky died under great conditions in prison- Putin is unfairly treated because of what Browder singlehandedly did to Russia. Oh and Hillary is bad - Bernie is great.
after all my research I’m convinced of 2 things:
1) Magnitsky knows the truth
2) Magnitsky should NOT be dead
Jamie, may I respectfully request that this thread, at the very least, be moved to the sub-thread with Paul's opus. It has become an embarrassing spewing of vile, uninformed hatred by the OP, regardless of the facts thrown in her face. And we can't get away from it. Please ??
jamie said:
after all my research I’m convinced of 2 things:
1) Magnitsky knows the truth
2) Magnitsky should NOT be dead
I would agree with those also. Did you read the Oleg Lurie testimony about his meetings with Magnitsky in prison? That provides evidence that indicates that Browder abandoned Magnitsky when he could have helped him.
New interview with the director of the film came out today. The film is getting wider distribution now finally.
nan said:
jamie said:Ok, I'm a bit confused about your question on the December 2007 report. What was the source of that question? Magnitsky had been working for Browder as an accountant for a long time before Bowder claimed him as a lawyer in his book and he helped set up Browder's shell companies. What do you think he was doing?
It's been said that Magnisky uncovered a lot of the details that led to the December 3rd, 2007 report. Do you have proof that this isn't true?
Can you explain what Magnitsky was ultimately found guilty of - along with the proof?
What would you say to his wife and son today - are they Browder puppets?
Anyway, Magnitsky was never found guilty because he died. Browder was found guilty and sentenced to 9 years in prison, but he was already out of the country and spinning his story over here. He also lied and said Magnitsky was found guilty after death. For evidence of this see the Krainor book I sent you (might want to read it!). On page 150 Browder is questioned under oath and presented with evidence and he still just lies:
Browder suggests that Putin was creating legal history through this process. The last time, “a dead person had been prosecuted in Europe,” explains Browder, “was in AD 897, when the Catholic Church convicted Pope Formosus posthumously, cut of his papal fingers and threw his body
into the River Tiber.” You see, Putin’s prosecution of Browder and Magnitsky was just that insanely scandalous and medieval. Browder again ventures to interpret for us the evil tyrant’s twisted logic: “In Putin’s mind, if he had a court judgment against Sergei and me, his officials could then visit all the European governments who were considering their own version of the Magnitsky Act and say, ‘How can you put a piece of legislation in place that is named after a criminal convicted in our court? And how can you listen to his advocate, who has been convicted of the same crime?’ ”“... Sergei and me,” cries Browder... the evil Russians convicted two innocent lambs of “the same crime...” Except this is not exactly what happened: the only person convicted of the crime was Bill Browder.
Hiding behind the deceased Magnitsky and pretending to be “his advocate,” was just another one of Browder’s deceptive three-card montes. When Mr. Cymrot produced a copy of his conviction with an English translation, the following exchange ensued:
Mr. Cymrot: You have said many times that Mr. Magnitsky was convicted posthumously. You’ve said that?
Browder: Yes
Mr. Cymrot: And on the first page it appears that it’s dismissed against Mr. Magnitsky, correct?
Browder: No.
Mr. Cymrot: Under paragraph 4 of Article 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Do you see that?
Browder: Yes.
Mr. Cymrot: So he wasn’t convicted posthumously, right? You were wrong about that?
Browder: No. I don’t – I don’t read it as such.
Mr. Cymrot: ... It says “sentenced.” ... The sentence only refers to you, correct?
Browder: I see my name here.
Mr. Cymrot: “William Felix Browder found guilty of committing two crimes” and – and then it goes on, right?
Browder: Correct.Mr. Cymrot: And there’s nothing about Mr. Magnitsky being convicted of anything, correct?Browder: I’m not a Russian criminal lawyer, so I couldn’t make a judgment about this – about this conviction.Mr. Cymrot: Well, it appears from these two entries that you were wrong. That he was never convicted posthumously, right?This exchange goes on another few pages in the transcript as Mr. Cymrot presses Browder to explain what exactly substantiates his claim that Mr. Magnitsky was convicted of anything. Browder can’t substantiate it because he is “not a Russian criminal lawyer,” but he insists nevertheless, thatAs for Magnitstky's family, I have no idea what they are doing. They don't sound sincere. It's possible they were paid off, as there is evidence that Browder has offered lots of money to get people to change their stories (see the Oleg Lurie testimony I posted before). The interviewer does not ask them any challenging questions and is very sympathetic. Or maybe they are delusional or maybe it's easier for them to think of Magnistky in a positive way--it does seem to work out well for them. We don't have enough evidence.
Magnitsky was in fact posthumously convicted and refuses to acknowledge that he could be wrong. Mr. Cymrot then changes tack, continuing to challenge Browder’s credibility from a different angle:
a) Do you know who Mr. Cymrot was representing here?
b) Would a video of the courtroom where Magnitsky was tried posthumously help?
c) $2 billion was found to have been wired to Putin's childhood friend, Sergie Roldugin (Panama Papers) making Putin a direct target of the Magnitsky Act.
d) Why do you keep defending Putin and blaming a dead man's family?
dave said:
nan said:a) Do you know who Mr. Cymrot was representing here?
jamie said:Ok, I'm a bit confused about your question on the December 2007 report. What was the source of that question? Magnitsky had been working for Browder as an accountant for a long time before Bowder claimed him as a lawyer in his book and he helped set up Browder's shell companies. What do you think he was doing?
It's been said that Magnisky uncovered a lot of the details that led to the December 3rd, 2007 report. Do you have proof that this isn't true?
Can you explain what Magnitsky was ultimately found guilty of - along with the proof?
What would you say to his wife and son today - are they Browder puppets?
Anyway, Magnitsky was never found guilty because he died. Browder was found guilty and sentenced to 9 years in prison, but he was already out of the country and spinning his story over here. He also lied and said Magnitsky was found guilty after death. For evidence of this see the Krainor book I sent you (might want to read it!). On page 150 Browder is questioned under oath and presented with evidence and he still just lies:
Browder suggests that Putin was creating legal history through this process. The last time, “a dead person had been prosecuted in Europe,” explains Browder, “was in AD 897, when the Catholic Church convicted Pope Formosus posthumously, cut of his papal fingers and threw his body
into the River Tiber.” You see, Putin’s prosecution of Browder and Magnitsky was just that insanely scandalous and medieval. Browder again ventures to interpret for us the evil tyrant’s twisted logic: “In Putin’s mind, if he had a court judgment against Sergei and me, his officials could then visit all the European governments who were considering their own version of the Magnitsky Act and say, ‘How can you put a piece of legislation in place that is named after a criminal convicted in our court? And how can you listen to his advocate, who has been convicted of the same crime?’ ”“... Sergei and me,” cries Browder... the evil Russians convicted two innocent lambs of “the same crime...” Except this is not exactly what happened: the only person convicted of the crime was Bill Browder.
Hiding behind the deceased Magnitsky and pretending to be “his advocate,” was just another one of Browder’s deceptive three-card montes. When Mr. Cymrot produced a copy of his conviction with an English translation, the following exchange ensued:
Mr. Cymrot: You have said many times that Mr. Magnitsky was convicted posthumously. You’ve said that?
Browder: Yes
Mr. Cymrot: And on the first page it appears that it’s dismissed against Mr. Magnitsky, correct?
Browder: No.
Mr. Cymrot: Under paragraph 4 of Article 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Do you see that?
Browder: Yes.
Mr. Cymrot: So he wasn’t convicted posthumously, right? You were wrong about that?
Browder: No. I don’t – I don’t read it as such.
Mr. Cymrot: ... It says “sentenced.” ... The sentence only refers to you, correct?
Browder: I see my name here.
Mr. Cymrot: “William Felix Browder found guilty of committing two crimes” and – and then it goes on, right?
Browder: Correct.Mr. Cymrot: And there’s nothing about Mr. Magnitsky being convicted of anything, correct?Browder: I’m not a Russian criminal lawyer, so I couldn’t make a judgment about this – about this conviction.Mr. Cymrot: Well, it appears from these two entries that you were wrong. That he was never convicted posthumously, right?This exchange goes on another few pages in the transcript as Mr. Cymrot presses Browder to explain what exactly substantiates his claim that Mr. Magnitsky was convicted of anything. Browder can’t substantiate it because he is “not a Russian criminal lawyer,” but he insists nevertheless, thatAs for Magnitstky's family, I have no idea what they are doing. They don't sound sincere. It's possible they were paid off, as there is evidence that Browder has offered lots of money to get people to change their stories (see the Oleg Lurie testimony I posted before). The interviewer does not ask them any challenging questions and is very sympathetic. Or maybe they are delusional or maybe it's easier for them to think of Magnistky in a positive way--it does seem to work out well for them. We don't have enough evidence.
Magnitsky was in fact posthumously convicted and refuses to acknowledge that he could be wrong. Mr. Cymrot then changes tack, continuing to challenge Browder’s credibility from a different angle:
b) Would a video of the courtroom where Magnitsky was tried posthumously help?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-magnitsky/russia-convicts-lawyer-magnitsky-in-posthumous-trial-idUSBRE96A09V20130711
c) $2 billion was found to have been wired to Putin's childhood friend, Sergie Roldugin (Panama Papers) making Putin a direct target of the Magnitsky Act.
d) Why do you keep defending Putin and blaming a dead man's family?
If you watch the film that stuff about the money going to Putin's friend is discredited.
Putin is NOT to blame for this one. Watch the movie. Read the book. Listen to the interviews. Learn the history. You will not get accurate information on this from the mainstream media. Browder is a con man and he is allowed to get away with this because his anti-Russia narrative helps out those who want to promote the Cold War.
By the way, that article is full of wrong information--it's clear there was very little research done.
nan - are you saying Magnitsky was NOT convicted posthumously? Could you point to similar cases where this has happened?
Fine, you have your film and I have sworn depositions, money trails and Congress. Good luck.
jamie said:
nan - are you saying Magnitsky was NOT convicted posthumously? Could you point to similar cases where this has happened?
Did you not read my post? It's unusual to have a dead person convicted. Browder said he was to make it seem like a big deal. Here is a re-post of part of it:
Browder suggests that Putin was creating legal history through this process. The last time, “a dead person had been prosecuted in Europe,” explains Browder, “was in AD 897, when the Catholic Church convicted Pope Formosus posthumously, cut of his papal fingers and threw his body into the River Tiber.” You see, Putin’s prosecution of Browder and Magnitsky was just that insanely scandalous and medieval. Browder again ventures to interpret for us the evil tyrant’s twisted logic: “In Putin’s mind, if he had a court judgment against Sergei and me, his officials could then visit all the European governments who were considering their own version of the Magnitsky Act and say, ‘How can you put a piece of legislation in place that is named after a criminal convicted in our court? And how can you listen to his advocate, who has been convicted of the same crime?’ ”
dave said:
Fine, you have your film and I have sworn depositions, money trails and Congress. Good luck.
I have the film, book, investigation reports and also have been posting sworn depositions and money trails. Congress is clueless and motivated to reignite the Cold War.
When it comes to money trails, Browder has friends in high places:
Browder: the Cyprus investigation. What is he hiding?
https://www.thekomisarscoop.com/2017/11/browder-the-cyprus-investigation-what-is-he-hiding/
excerpt:
William Browder has blocked the Russians from investigating how he may have used shell companies in offshore Cyprus to fraudulently move assets out of Russia. He filed a request to a court in Cyprus asking an emergency injunction on transfer of any data about his activities to Russia. Then 17 of his loyal supporters in the European Parliament asked the Cyprus government not to cooperate with Russia in its investigation into how Browder might have used his offshore companies in tax evasion, illicit share purchases and fraudulent bankruptcy.
William Browder is also a fan of Cyprus secrecy. Cypriot shells Glendora and Kone were part of his offshore network “owned” by an HSBC Private Bank Guernsey Ltd trust. The real owner was Browder’s Hermitage Fund. Assets (stocks and money) went from Russia to Cyprus and then to parts unknown. Republic International Trust, registered by Mossack Fonseca of Panama Papers fame and listed on the Glendora document, was in the offshore network of Republic National Bank owner Edmond Safra, an early investor who then held 51% of Hermitage Fund shares.
The Russians are looking to chase down those “parts unknown.” They think that Browder used the Cyprus shells to move assets from Russia to evade taxes, cover up fraudulent stock buys and bankrupt his Russian companies to prevent assets being seized. They want to know where such illegitimate profits landed.
They were recently awarded $20 million in a Russian bankruptcy fraud case against HSBC, reduced from an initial $30 million. (Numbers vary based on currency rates.) They want some $50 million more, which Russian criminal court evidence shows Browder illicitly obtained.
They wanted cooperation from Cyprus. This is standard between countries investigating fraud and corruption.
I would like to point out that it is possible to be against Putin, to think he is a crook even, and to still see Bill Browder as a fraud. Browder has set himself up as "Putin's #1 Enemy" but that is PR for his image, making him the good guy against the bad guy. But they are both bad.
In this 2014 article about Browder (https://100r.org/2014/05/russian-sanctions-highlight-role-of-western-enablers/) written by Lucy Komisar, who investigates offshore financial crimes, she says:
As United States and European governments impose sanctions on bankers, businessmen and officials close to Vladimir Putin to pressure him over Crimea, the asset freezes will lead investigators not to the Kremlin alone, but to the western-built offshore system that has helped the Russian leader and his friends loot their country and consolidate their power.
Russian Sanctions Highlight Role of Western Enablers
excerpt:
Browder had gone to Moscow in 1996 to take advantage of the privatization of state companies by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. He founded Hermitage Capital Management, a Moscow investment firm registered in offshore Guernsey in the Channel Islands, and its subsidiary Hermitage Fund, with Republic National Bank of New York as major shareholder. For a time, it was the largest foreign investor in Russian securities. In 1997, Browder traded his American citizenship for a British passport, avoiding U.S. taxes on his investment gains. (The U.K. doesn’t tax offshore profits.)
Speaking at Columbia University in November, Browder said, “I started out as an investor in Russia, and when I was investing, I discovered that a lot of the companies I was investing in were having money stolen – large amounts of money stolen by the management – so I became the first shareholder activist in Russia.”
However, documents in a little-known case suggest that Browder did what he decried at Columbia — stole profits. Letters, affidavits and other court documents show that Browder and his fellow investors obtained funds that were diverted via an Isle of Man shell from a Russian enterprise in which they had purchased a controlling interest.
The company, AVISMA (Aviation Special Materials), produced titanium sponge for a product used by Boeing airplanes. With partners Kenneth Dart, American billionaire and Dart cup heir, and Francis Baker, C.E.O. of the Andersen Group, a publicly-traded New York manufacturing and investment firm, Browder bought into AVISMA.
At the time of the American investors’ purchase, a large portion of AVISMA’s profits were being siphoned-off to the controlling stockholders through a “transfer pricing” scheme, documents in a subsequent court case show. A shell company sold raw material to AVISMA at inflated costs and purchased the finished product at below-market prices. The shell company then resold the products on the world market, collecting the difference for the majority stockholders. Browder and the other investors knew about the scheme; their lawyer in an affidavit later said it was what made the AVISMA transaction profitable.
nan said:
jamie said:Did you not read my post? It's unusual to have a dead person convicted. Browder said he was to make it seem like a big deal. Here is a re-post of part of it:
nan - are you saying Magnitsky was NOT convicted posthumously? Could you point to similar cases where this has happened?
Browder suggests that Putin was creating legal history through this process. The last time, “a dead person had been prosecuted in Europe,” explains Browder, “was in AD 897, when the Catholic Church convicted Pope Formosus posthumously, cut of his papal fingers and threw his body into the River Tiber.” You see, Putin’s prosecution of Browder and Magnitsky was just that insanely scandalous and medieval. Browder again ventures to interpret for us the evil tyrant’s twisted logic: “In Putin’s mind, if he had a court judgment against Sergei and me, his officials could then visit all the European governments who were considering their own version of the Magnitsky Act and say, ‘How can you put a piece of legislation in place that is named after a criminal convicted in our court? And how can you listen to his advocate, who has been convicted of the same crime?’ ”
Yes, Nan is saying Magnitsky wasn''t convicted posthumously, regardless of the EU and Amnesty International condemning Russia's action and contemporaneous reporting of the conviction from Moscow by Reuters.
"Amnesty International called Magnitsky’s prosecution - Russia’s first posthumous trial - “deeply sinister”, saying it “set a dangerous precedent that could open a whole new chapter in Russia’s worsening human rights record.”
The European Union said the trial sent “a disturbing message to those who fight corruption in Russia”. The U.S. State Department said it was “disappointed by the unprecedented posthumous criminal conviction against Sergei Magnitsky.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-magnitsky-idUSBRE96A09V20130711
cramer said:
nan said:Yes, Nan is saying Magnitsky wasn''t convicted posthumously, regardless of the EU and Amnesty International condemning Russia's action.
jamie said:Did you not read my post? It's unusual to have a dead person convicted. Browder said he was to make it seem like a big deal. Here is a re-post of part of it:
nan - are you saying Magnitsky was NOT convicted posthumously? Could you point to similar cases where this has happened?
Browder suggests that Putin was creating legal history through this process. The last time, “a dead person had been prosecuted in Europe,” explains Browder, “was in AD 897, when the Catholic Church convicted Pope Formosus posthumously, cut of his papal fingers and threw his body into the River Tiber.” You see, Putin’s prosecution of Browder and Magnitsky was just that insanely scandalous and medieval. Browder again ventures to interpret for us the evil tyrant’s twisted logic: “In Putin’s mind, if he had a court judgment against Sergei and me, his officials could then visit all the European governments who were considering their own version of the Magnitsky Act and say, ‘How can you put a piece of legislation in place that is named after a criminal convicted in our court? And how can you listen to his advocate, who has been convicted of the same crime?’ ”
"Amnesty International called Magnitsky’s prosecution - Russia’s first posthumous trial - “deeply sinister”, saying it “set a dangerous precedent that could open a whole new chapter in Russia’s worsening human rights record.”
The European Union said the trial sent “a disturbing message to those who fight corruption in Russia”. The U.S. State Department said it was “disappointed by the unprecedented posthumous criminal conviction against Sergei Magnitsky.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-magnitsky-idUSBRE96A09V20130711
But what do you expect of someone who thing the US is worse than Russia.
Based on foreign policy, the US is the worst country in the world. Our military budget is larger than the next ten countries combined. No one else has the bandwidth to be as bad as us.
As far as your sources go, I don't know where they got their information from. My information was from a deposition in a court case where Browder was shown the outcome of the trial and he alone was sentenced to 9 years. I could be wrong, but to show that you need to show the actual court document, not an article from supposedly reputable press. The reputable press accepts Browder's story without challenge. Congress enacted sanctions against a country just based on this shady character's story. Meanwhile, when he gets supoenad, he runs away. Literally:
"Sergei Magnitsky sketch: empty cage a reminder of bizarre trial"
"Nowhere to stand?" asked one of the six black-clad special forces officers with pistols and batons at their waists as visitors came through the door. He pointed through the bars of the defendants' cage.
"I'll open it up, if you like. Plenty of room in there." The cage was indeed empty: a reminder that for a country that once endured Stalinism, this was one of the most bizarre prosecutions Russia has ever seen.
Such was the scene in a packed Moscow courtroom on Thursday as a judge prepared to find two men – one deceased, one absent – both guilty of tax evasion."
About 40 television cameramen and reporters packed into the sweltering room on the third floor of Tverskoy Court, to hear Judge Igor Alisov read his verdict.
The two court-appointed defence lawyers decided to dress down for the solemn occasion. One wore a Hawaiian shirt and yellow-tinted sunglasses."
cramer said:
"Sergei Magnitsky sketch: empty cage a reminder of bizarre trial"
"Nowhere to stand?" asked one of the six black-clad special forces officers with pistols and batons at their waists as visitors came through the door. He pointed through the bars of the defendants' cage.
"I'll open it up, if you like. Plenty of room in there." The cage was indeed empty: a reminder that for a country that once endured Stalinism, this was one of the most bizarre prosecutions Russia has ever seen.
Such was the scene in a packed Moscow courtroom on Thursday as a judge prepared to find two men – one deceased, one absent – both guilty of tax evasion."
About 40 television cameramen and reporters packed into the sweltering room on the third floor of Tverskoy Court, to hear Judge Igor Alisov read his verdict.
The two court-appointed defence lawyers decided to dress down for the solemn occasion. One wore a Hawaiian shirt and yellow-tinted sunglasses."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10174441/Sergei-Magnitsky-sketch-empty-cage-a-reminder-of-bizarre-case.html
In the face of eye witness reporting, Nan still insists that Magnitsky wasn't convicted posthumously.
Unbelievable.
OK, you have that and I have this done in a court of law under oath:
Mr. Cymrot: You have said many times that Mr. Magnitsky was convicted posthumously. You’ve said that? Browder: Yes Mr. Cymrot: And on the first page it appears that it’s dismissed against Mr. Magnitsky, correct? Browder: No. Mr. Cymrot: Under paragraph 4 of Article 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Do you see that? Browder: Yes. Mr. Cymrot: So he wasn’t convicted posthumously, right? You were wrong about that? Browder: No. I don’t – I don’t read it as such. Mr. Cymrot: ... It says “sentenced.” ... The sentence only refers to you, correct? Browder: I see my name here. Mr. Cymrot: “William Felix Browder found guilty of committing two crimes” and – and then it goes on, right? Browder: Correct.
Mr. Cymrot: And there’s nothing about Mr. Magnitsky being convicted of anything, correct?
Browder: I’m not a Russian criminal lawyer, so I couldn’t make a judgment about this – about this conviction.
Mr. Cymrot: Well, it appears from these two entries that you were wrong. That he was never convicted posthumously, right?
This exchange goes on another few pages in the transcript as Mr. Cymrot presses Browder to explain what exactly substantiates his claim that Mr. Magnitsky was convicted of anything. Browder can’t substantiate it because he is “not a Russian criminal lawyer,” but he insists nevertheless, that Magnitsky was in fact posthumously convicted and refuses to acknowledge that he could be wrong. Mr. Cymrot then changes tack, continuing to challenge Browder’s credibility from a different angle:
So, this is what I have to base my claim. I was not there.
That's a poor thing to base your claim on, as it's just Browder saying he's not familiar with Russian law and if you had included more of the excerpt Browder would expound further on what he considers his case to be and how the scam worked. It's 386 pages long, I've read it, and you should, too.
dave said:
That's a poor thing to base your claim on, as it's just Browder saying he's not familiar with Russian law and if you had included more of the excerpt Browder would expound further on what he considers his case to be and how the scam worked. It's 386 pages long, I've read it, and you should, too.
They are showing him the court document with the results of the trial. Can we get a copy of the court ruling? That would be the best proof. Also, what 386 page document did you read? If you read a 386 page court document, why won't you watch the movie or read the Krainor book? Clearly you have interest in the topic.
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ru/ru065en.pdf
4) death of the suspect or of the accused, with the exception of cases when the proceedings on the criminal case are necessary for the rehabilitation of the deceased;
From a Russia Today article: https://www.rt.com/politics/magnitsky-case-reopened-hermitage/
The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office has ordered that the case of Hermitage Capital lawyer Sergey Magnitsky, who died at a Moscow pre-trial detention center in 2009, be reopened.
The highly contentious case – which resonated across the international community and caused a visa raw between Moscow and Washington – was sent back to investigators, Kommesrant daily reported Tuesday.
The prosecutors’ decision to reopen the case is based on the Constitutional Court’s July 11 ruling to abrogate Criminal Procedure Code provisions which had allowed for investigations to be closed in the event that a suspect died before their completion.As investigations could previously be closed without the consent of the deceased relatives, the new provisions will be seen as a victory for those who would like to posthumously clear the names of their loved ones.
The Prosecutor General’s Office ruled that the investigative body’s decision to close the case was unconstitutional, as Magnitsky’s mother and wife have not agreed to its closure.
The high-profile case was sent to the Interior Ministry’s investigative department last week.Citing the department, the Kommersant paper writes that it is unlikely that the new investigation would take a lot of time since Magnitsky died at the final stage of the procedure – his defense team was in the process of examining the case materials.
The Magnitsky family lawyer, Dmitry Kharitonov, said that he had learned about the new twist in the case from the paper.
“It was not done on our initiative. Nevertheless, it is good news. We hope the investigation will lead to Sergey [Magnitsky’s] rehabilitation. No other result will suit us,” he told Kommersant. He added, though, that it is hard to imagine that investigators would suddenly acknowledge that “they had kept an innocent person behind bars for a year”, fearing that in the end, they would “do everything as usual”.
From a later Russia Today article: https://www.rt.com/politics/magnitsky-new-case-dismissal-511/
A district court in Moscow has ruled both the fugitive boss of the Hermitage Capital investment company and its late auditor guilty of tax evasion.
According to the verdict the two suspects failed to pay over 552 million rubles in taxes (about US$16 million).
At the same time, the court ordered to stop the case against Magnitsky in connection with his death. The former head of the investment fund, British citizen William Browder was sentenced to nine years in prison.
Browder was sentenced in absentia as he fled Russia when the probe into his activities just started and resides in UK, which has no extradition agreement with Russia.
The Magnitsky trial was the first against a deceased person in modern Russian history. The auditor died in a pre-trial detention center in Moscow in 2009. The cause of death was acute pancreatitis and heart condition and prison doctors were brought to justice in connection with this incident.
So we can end this part of the thread right? Magnitsky was tried posthumously and found guilty of fraud alongside Browder. He wasn't sentenced, because he's dead, but Browder was.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
Help Wanted
-
May 3, 2024 at 2:32pm
-
Cat Lovers - become part of our lovely Silver Hound Cat Sitter team
May 3, 2024 at 2:12pm
-
PT Driving mother’s Helper needed
May 1, 2024 at 10:31am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
Part-time Nanny in Scotch Plains
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
Full-time Nanny in Scotch Plains
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
Nanny Wanted Live in or Live out $1400-$1600
May 1, 2024 at 4:49am
Lessons/Instruction
Advertisement
Yes, but it's not true. That's what Browder said happened. I posted the evidence given under oath.