Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. Humanitarian Act or Big Scam?
OK, the document I am getting my information from is this. They are using a "Judgement in the name of the Russian Federation" The questioner says that the document lists Magnitsky as dismissed. Is this not valid evidence? What is this document then?:
https://c1.100r.org/media/2017/10/Browder-Deposition-April-15-2015.pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTThe full section on the this goes like this:
3 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
4 --------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
5 Plaintiff,
6 VS. Case No. 1:13-CV-06326(TPG)
7 ECF CASE
PREVEZON HOLDINGS LTD.,
8 et al.,
9 Defendants.
--------------------------------X
13 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
14 OF
15 WILLIAM F. BROWDER
16 Wednesday, April 15, 2015
17 30 Rockefeller Plaza
18 New York, New York
19
18 Q. All right. Let me pull it out.
19 (Browder Exhibit 10, document
20 Bates stamped BrowderDepo0001408
21 through '470 was marked for
22 identification, as of this date.)
TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
Page 106
1 WILLIAM F. BROWDER (4/15/15)
2 along with the Russian in the back, a judgment
3 in the name of the Russian Federation. And if
4 you go to the end of it, it convicts you of
5 tax evasion, correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you have said many times that
8 Mr. Magnitsky was convicted posthumously.
9 You've said that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And on the first page it appears
12 that it's dismissed against Mr. Magnitsky,
13 correct?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Under paragraph 4 of Article 24 of
16 the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian
17 Federation.
18 Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So he wasn't convicted
21 posthumously, right? You were wrong about
22 that?
23 A. No. I don't -- I don't read it as
24 such.
25 Q. Let's see. Well, let's look at the
Case 1:13-cv-06326-TPG Document 281-1 Filed 05/13/15 Page 106 of 386
TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
Page 107
1 WILLIAM F. BROWDER (4/15/15)
2 sentence which is 28 of 30.
3 A. Where is that?
4 Q. Page 28 of 30. If you look at the
5 top, there are page numbers on the top.
6 I'd give you a Bates number, but
7 mine is not Bates-numbered. Just look at the
8 top of the page there.
9 All right. It says "Sentenced."
10 So on Bates No. 1434, the sentence only refers
11 to you, correct?
12 A. I see my name here.
13 Q. "William Felix Browder found guilty
14 of committing two crimes" and -- and then it
15 goes on, right?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And there's nothing about
18 Mr. Magnitsky being convicted of anything,
19 correct?
20 A. I'm not a Russian criminal lawyer,
21 so I couldn't make a judgment about this --
22 about this conviction.
23 Q. Well, it appears from these two
24 entries that you were wrong. That he was
25 never convicted posthumously, right?
Case 1:13-cv-06326-TPG Document 281-1 Filed 05/13/15 Page 107 of 386
TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
Page 108
1 WILLIAM F. BROWDER (4/15/15)
2 A. No.
3 Q. You -- your sticking to your
4 position even though the document says
5 otherwise?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Because you're not a Russian
8 lawyer?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. All right. But you have Russian
11 lawyers working for you, right?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. And they've reviewed this
14 conviction, and they've said there's somewhere
15 someplace in this conviction that it refers to
16 Mr. Magnitsky as being convicted of something?
17 MR. KIM: Objection. I think
18 communications with his lawyers are
19 topics that we should not answer.
20 MR. CYMROT: All right.
21 Q. So do you have any basis for saying
22 that Mr. Magnitsky is convicted of anything?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What's that?
25 A. Advice from my lawyers.
Case 1:13-cv-06326-TPG Document 281-1 Filed 05/13/15 Page 108 of 386
TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
Page 109
1 WILLIAM F. BROWDER (4/15/15)
2 Q. Okay. You know, he just claimed
3 privilege for you.
4 I'm reading the document. It says
5 "Case is dismissed. The individual decision
6 to dismiss the crime case on the basis of
7 paragraph 4 of Article 24."
8 Do you see that?
9 It's at the beginning. Then at the
10 end, "Sentenced. Only Felix -- William Felix
11 Browder."
12 You're sticking by your position no
13 matter what, right?
14 A. Is there a --
15 MR. KIM: Objection to form.
16 A. My analysis is different than
17 yours.
18 Q. Do you have anything in the
19 document that you can point me to that
20 suggests he's convicted?
21 A. I'm not a lawyer.
22 Q. Well, you read English, right?
23 A. I do read English, but I'm not a
24 specialist on Russian law and Russian proc- --
25 criminal procedure.
Case 1:13-cv-06326-TPG Document 281-1 Filed 05/13/15 Page 109 of 386
TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
Page 110
1 WILLIAM F. BROWDER (4/15/15)
2 Q. So based upon what you've read
3 here, you might question what your lawyers
4 told you then?
5 A. Without a full analysis, I wouldn't
6 be able to make a judgment on this document.
7 Q. I see. But you would agree this is
8 the conviction? This is your conviction?
9 A. Apparently so.
10 Q. Right. And it says what it says,
11 so we'll let the judge or jury decide whether
12 Mr. Magnitsky was ever convicted of anything,
13 right?
14 A. I'm sorry?
15 Q. We'll allow the judge and jury to
16 decide whether Mr. Con- -- Mr. Magnitsky was
17 convicted of anything or whether you got it
18 wrong.
19 MR. KIM: Objection to form.
20 A. What -- what -- so is there a
21 question?
22 Q. Perhaps you got -- perhaps you got
23 it wrong. Can you consider that?
24 A. I don't think I got it wrong.
25 Q. You think you ever get anythingWILLIAM F. BROWDER (4/15/15)
2 wrong?
3 A. I get lots of things wrong.
4 Q. Okay. Good. It seems like you
5 might have gotten this wrong.
Hey, when Russia Today tells me that Magnitsky wasn't beaten to death but died of natural causes and that the Prosecutor General re-opened the case and found Magnitsky posthumously guilty of tax evasion, who am I to question them?
ridski said:
Hey, when Russia Today tells me that Magnitsky wasn't beaten to death but died of natural causes and that the Prosecutor General re-opened the case and found Magnitsky posthumously guilty of tax evasion, who am I to question them?
You make a good point but in one of your links (https://www.rt.com/politics/magnitsky-new-case-dismissal-511/) I found this:
Sergey Magnitsky died in custody, when Russian law enforcers were investigating a massive tax fraud, with his participation, involving Hermitage Capital Management. The case against the auditor was withdrawn after his death, but the fund’s head and founder, William Browder, has been charged in a similar case, and in July 2013 he was sentenced in absentia to nine years behind bars.
Edited to add: I'm doing three things at once today, so I did not look closely at your links before and I don't see where they say Mangnitsky was found guilty. It looks like they dropped the case because he died, but the relatives wanted it reopened to clear his name. He did not get his name cleared.
Ah yes, sorry about that. Link 3 in my post doesn't correspond to the quote I posted. Here's the link for that article.
https://www.rt.com/politics/magnitsky-court-moscow-browder-942/
The July 2013 conviction of Browder is the same court case, as mentioned in the link you quoted, from the end of the article:
As Sergey Magnitsky’s relatives continued to insist on his innocence, Russia re-opened the case against the auditor. Almost immediately, Hermitage Capital Management blasted the rehabilitation process as a “trial of a dead person” and Magnitsky’s relatives refused to participate in the hearings.
The second investigation and trial confirmed the initial suspicions, and in July 2013 the court officially refused to rehabilitate Magnitsky.
So from all of this, I truly have no idea what document Prevezon's lawyer (whose name escapes me right now) had brought up in their defense, but Magnitsky, like Browder, was found guilty in a court of law, which means he was legally convicted.
ridski said:
Ah yes, sorry about that. Link 3 in my post doesn't correspond to the quote I posted. Here's the link for that article.
https://www.rt.com/politics/magnitsky-court-moscow-browder-942/
The July 2013 conviction of Browder is the same court case, as mentioned in the link you quoted, from the end of the article:
As Sergey Magnitsky’s relatives continued to insist on his innocence, Russia re-opened the case against the auditor. Almost immediately, Hermitage Capital Management blasted the rehabilitation process as a “trial of a dead person” and Magnitsky’s relatives refused to participate in the hearings.
The second investigation and trial confirmed the initial suspicions, and in July 2013 the court officially refused to rehabilitate Magnitsky.
So from all of this, I truly have no idea what document Prevezon's lawyer (whose name escapes me right now) had brought up in their defense, but Magnitsky, like Browder, was found guilty in a court of law, which means he was legally convicted.
The other RT articles don't say he was found guilty, only that he died and they were not continuing the case, and this one said this:
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.
So, it's possible that the final document said he was acquitted because of his death. I'm not sure how that works technically. It does not, however, show that Browder or Magnitsky is innocent and there are more charges listed for Browder:
Prosecutors pressed additional charges against Browder earlier this year, accusing him of illegally buying shares in the country’s natural gas monopoly Gazprom.
He's a long way from being cleared.
Okay, I'm reading it now. From what I'm reading, they find Magnitsky and Browder definitely worked together to avoid paying taxes, and that Magnitsky came up with the plan that they used, but yes - there is a rather convoluted line on page 1 of the judgement that reads:
"he negotiated with Magnitsky, S.L. in respect of whom the individual decision to dismiss the criminal case on the basis of Paragraph 4 of Article 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, who operated in the field of general audit and provided services for accounting and tax accounting to the customers of the branch of "Firestone Duncan Limited"..." and it goes on.
So Magnitsky's charge was dropped after his trial because he was dead (he is still listed as one of the accused on that first page). All the evidence against both Browder and Magnitsky was presented and then at some point it was decided that the two charges Magnitsky was on trial for would be dismissed.
It almost makes you wonder that if the Magnitsky family hadn't said that they want the trial to go ahead that perhaps Browder himself wouldn't have been convicted.
Here's a link to that judgement, BTW: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--13-cv-06326/United_States_of_America_v._Prevezon_Holdings_Ltd._et_al/731/6/
If you open it too many times, it will want you to log in and pay for it.
ridski said:
Okay, I'm reading it now. From what I'm reading, they find Magnitsky and Browder definitely worked together to avoid paying taxes, and that Magnitsky came up with the plan that they used, but yes - there is a rather convoluted line on page 1 of the judgement that reads:
"he negotiated with Magnitsky, S.L. in respect of whom the individual decision to dismiss the criminal case on the basis of Paragraph 4 of Article 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, who operated in the field of general audit and provided services for accounting and tax accounting to the customers of the branch of "Firestone Duncan Limited"..." and it goes on.
So Magnitsky's charge was dropped after his trial because he was dead (he is still listed as one of the accused on that first page). All the evidence against both Browder and Magnitsky was presented and then at some point it was decided that the two charges Magnitsky was on trial for would be dismissed.
It almost makes you wonder that if the Magnitsky family hadn't said that they want the trial to go ahead that perhaps Browder himself wouldn't have been convicted.
Browder was convicted at the same time, and then the family said they did not want to close the case. Magnitsky was a lower level employee. Maybe his family wanted all the blame shifted back to Browder. Also, from what I've read Browder and Magnitsky hardly knew each other. They were not friends as some people portray them.
Anyway, you can see how the western media reports on this. They focus on Magnitsky being convicted, but don't even mention that the charges were then dismissed and recorded as such on the official document.
edited to add: That was good detective work!
nan said:
dave said: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.
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.
Once you figure out the correct spelling -- Krainer, Krainor -- I'll consider it. You keep going back and forth between the two, which reflects your attention to detail in this discussion.
As for copies of Russian court rulings, I'm sure many versions could be produced. The entire system is corrupt and for sale, a fact you cannot seem to grasp.
dave said:
nan said:Once you figure out the correct spelling -- Krainer, Krainor -- I'll consider it. You keep going back and forth between the two, which reflects your attention to detail in this discussion.
dave said: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.
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.
As for copies of Russian court rulings, I'm sure many versions could be produced. The entire system is corrupt and for sale, a fact you cannot seem to grasp.
I often spell things wrong--I don't see well. It's Krainer, and it's been taken off Amazon again. But, I sent an electronic copy (pdf) to Jaime so he can give it to you or I can give a link for download (not free) The movie is now available on Vimeo now, don't know for how long (https://vimeo.com/ondemand/themagnitskyact). The publisher was able to put it on there for distribution. For now.
Anyway, I'm not saying Russia is not corrupt, but so is Bill Browder. He's a con and he's getting a free pass because if you say something bad about Russia people will automatically believe it. And even if they know it's BS, they will pretend to believe it because it serves their purpose.
Ridski found the document, BTW. You might try reading some of the posts in this thread for more information.
A detailed profile of Browder and why Putin is obsessed with punishing him. No one comes out looking like the good guy.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/20/how-bill-browder-became-russias-most-wanted-man
“Browder was convicted at the same time, and then the family said they did not want to close the case.“
That’s not right. The case was about to be closed and then Mag’s family said to keep it open, pursuant to the new law. The family didn’t show up to the posthumous trial, because they thought it was a sham trial and to an extent their fears were justified.
dave23 said:
A detailed profile of Browder and why Putin is obsessed with punishing him. No one comes out looking like the good guy.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/20/how-bill-browder-became-russias-most-wanted-man
I'd say Putin comes out looking 2% good guy and Browder comes out as 98% good guy. One murders people to protect a corrupt system. The other exploits legal tax loopholes to benefit his shareholders while going after the corrupt system and people hurting his investments.
Here's the crux of the reason for evasive answers by Browder to the creep Cymrot:
Browder’s tight-lipped answers were understandable, given his concerns for his safety. The kind of transparency required by a U.S. judicial process could also have exposed the identities of those who leaked crucial materials to Hermitage. A spokesperson for Browder said that “it was apparent that the requests posed by the Russians were for collateral purposes of the Russian government, not to assist with the litigation,” and that “Glenn Simpson’s activity on behalf of the Russian government has caused Mr. Browder and his family grave harm and has put his life at greater risk in the long term.” But Simpson, of Fusion GPS, testifying before the Senate, wondered whether there was something else Browder “was hiding about his activities in Russia.” Senator Cardin called Simpson’s [and nan's and paul's] insinuations about Browder’s past “irrelevant” to the law, describing any attempts to smear Browder’s reputation as “a distraction, and an effort being made to deflect responsibility from Mr. Putin.”
ridski said:
“Browder was convicted at the same time, and then the family said they did not want to close the case.“
That’s not right. The case was about to be closed and then Mag’s family said to keep it open, pursuant to the new law. The family didn’t show up to the posthumous trial, because they thought it was a sham trial and to an extent their fears were justified.
The case was closed for Magnistsky only. Browder was convicted. It was not a sham trial. They were most likely guilty. They were not investigating corruption, as Browder has claimed. There is no evidence for that.
dave said:
dave23 said:I'd say Putin comes out looking 2% good guy and Browder comes out as 98% good guy. One murders people to protect a corrupt system. The other exploits legal tax loopholes to benefit his shareholders while going after the corrupt system and people hurting his investments.
A detailed profile of Browder and why Putin is obsessed with punishing him. No one comes out looking like the good guy.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/20/how-bill-browder-became-russias-most-wanted-man
Here's the crux of the reason for evasive answers by Browder to the creep Cymrot:
Browder’s tight-lipped answers were understandable, given his concerns for his safety. The kind of transparency required by a U.S. judicial process could also have exposed the identities of those who leaked crucial materials to Hermitage. A spokesperson for Browder said that “it was apparent that the requests posed by the Russians were for collateral purposes of the Russian government, not to assist with the litigation,” and that “Glenn Simpson’s activity on behalf of the Russian government has caused Mr. Browder and his family grave harm and has put his life at greater risk in the long term.” But Simpson, of Fusion GPS, testifying before the Senate, wondered whether there was something else Browder “was hiding about his activities in Russia.” Senator Cardin called Simpson’s [and nan's and paul's] insinuations about Browder’s past “irrelevant” to the law, describing any attempts to smear Browder’s reputation as “a distraction, and an effort being made to deflect responsibility from Mr. Putin.”
This profile is more critical of Browder than I've seen before. Things may starting to fall for him. However, it is still basically flattering and believing of his story, not accusing him of fraud which he most likely committed (they may have been afraid of lawsuits) and still buying into typical anti-Russia assumptions. The author says
"Browder is obviously nothing like the cartoon villain that Putin portrays him to be, and yet his political influence means that his every move, past and present, has global reverberations. "
But, what has Putin really said about Browder, other than he is a crook who does not pay taxes, which he is. The author's profile of him indicates that as well. Supposedly, Putin also accused him of donating 400 million to Hllary Clinton, which he did not, but perhaps Putin thinks that will make Trump more likely to let him get Browder? And Browder did give a much smaller amount to Clinton and the DNC. Still makes him seem like a real villain, which he is. The phase should go more like this:
Putin is obviously nothing like the cartoon villain that Browder portrays him to be, and yet that image allows him to play into American hysteria about Russia and saves Browder's tax-avoiding butt"
Browder's re-ignition of the Cold War does have global reverberations. That's why it is important to out him as a fraud. He clearly has a lot of power on his side, cause this story is falling apart and in this article, things like lies about lawyers just hired versus long term employees, and critiques of people listed in the Panama Papers, which not not admitting self-inclusion are just treated as quirky personality flaws, not indications that this guy is full of BS on a deep level.
If I held a trial with one dead defendant and another in self-exile where I got to pick the lawyers for both defense and prosecution, you might imagine I’m tipping the scales of justice ever so slightly to my side.
nan said:But, what has Putin really said about Browder, other than he is a crook who does not pay taxes, which he is. The author's profile of him indicates that as well. Supposedly, Putin also accused him of donating 400 million to Hllary Clinton, which he did not, but perhaps Putin thinks that will make Trump more likely to let him get Browder? And Browder did give a much smaller amount to Clinton and the DNC. Still makes him seem like a real villain, which he is. The phase should go more like this:
Putin is obviously nothing like the cartoon villain that Browder portrays him to be, and yet that image allows him to play into American hysteria about Russia and saves Browder's tax-avoiding butt"
Browder's re-ignition of the Cold War does have global reverberations. That's why it is important to out him as a fraud. He clearly has a lot of power on his side, cause this story is falling apart and in this article, things like lies about lawyers just hired versus long term employees, and critiques of people listed in the Panama Papers, which not not admitting self-inclusion are just treated as quirky personality flaws, not indications that this guy is full of BS on a deep level.
You keep eating around what you want to avoid, which Putin's role in what you call the new Cold War (a gross exaggeration, imo). We probably disagree, but I don't think avoiding taxes is a reason for murder. Just as I don't think political opposition is a valid reason for murder. Putin's role is decidedly un-cartoonish.
How much and when did Browder donate to Hillary?
Invading the territory of a sovereign country is less "new cold war" than sanctions on some oligarchs?
This article in the New Yorker seemed to match up with what I had gleaned about Browder through prior media coverage. I mean, the guy's a hedge fund guy, so he's going to be an aggressive capitalist and he probably sees his running right into any gray areas as a way of keeping the system honest. I certainly don't see the world and my interaction in it in the same way, and that's a large part of why I'm not involved in any thing too capitalistic.
What seems most likely is that he is used to working in capitalist systems in the UK and US where while there is more than a fair share of gray areas, but there's likely more 'rules of the game' than existed in Russia. I think he thought he could make sure that some 'rules' got enforced based around Russia's laws and then he learned who was really making the rules and that he wasn't wanted. He would be made an example. Magnitsky would be made an example as well.
It's always seemed like Browder's interest in holding Russia accountable coincided with other Russia-related government concerns which led to the Magnitsky Act as opposed to Browder wanting to single-handedly reignite the Cold War.
The other versions of the story that are more Russia-positive don't pass the smell test for me.
ridski said:
If I held a trial with one dead defendant and another in self-exile where I got to pick the lawyers for both defense and prosecution, you might imagine I’m tipping the scales of justice ever so slightly to my side.
Have you seen the evidence? From the Krainer book, discussing the interview with Browder under oath. Under oath his story in his book seems to fall apart:
Framing the Russians for the $230 million tax fraud
Browder’s questioning then turns to June 2007 police raids on Hermitage and Firestone Duncan offices. Browder had alleged that Russian Interior Ministry seized corporate stamps, the original charters, tax certificates, registration certificates and seals of the three Russian firms through which Hermitage ran investment transactions. The fact that these documents were in the Interior Ministry’s possession when the firms were stolen is extremely important to Browder’s story because they represent the key link between the Ministry officials and the $230 million tax fraud effected through these firms. But in Browder’s deposition we find out that the seals that were seized by the Interior Ministry were not the same ones that were used to steal his companies. This was established through a forensic analysis of the seals. Browder’s right hand man, Vadim Kleiner, was apparently well aware of that fact. If Vadim was aware of it, Browder probably was too, but he claims
ignorance.
Mr. Cymrot: ... Mr. Kleiner never informed you that he was aware of a forensic analysis that showed that the same seals were not used?
Browder: Correct.
When Mr. Cymrot points out that those seals represent the key link tying the Interior Ministry with the fraud, Browder claims there are many other links, except he can’t actually point to any specific one and falls back on claiming incompetence: “I’m not a lawyer here...”
Mr. Cymrot: If the $230 million fraud were done with other documents, there is no tie between the $230 million fraud and the criminal investigation of you; isn’t that correct?”
Browder: No, no.
Mr. Cymrot: Why not?
Browder: You’re mischaracterizing the whole – you’re simplifying and mischaracterizing the – the whole story.
Browder then proceeds to read the text of his complaint where he implicates Interior Ministry’s Artem Kuznetsov in the fraud by claiming that “on or about 28 April 2007,” he flew to Cyprus on a private jet together with one Dmitry Klyuev, a convicted fraudster and owner of the Universal Savings Bank (through which part of the $230 million tax refund was recycled). Klyuev supposedly was the mastermind of the network that carried out the fraud. While in Cyprus, they also met with Pavel Karpov and two Russian lawyers, and some ten days later Klyuev met Olga Stepanova, the head of the Moscow Tax Office No. 28 (which paid out a major part of the $230 million refund).
So there you have it, the whole merry bunch of fraudsters met in Cyprus where they must have forged their evil plans. But when Mr. Cymrot asks Browder how he knew that Kuznetsov went to Cyprus with Klyuev, Browder replies that he’d seen copies of travel records, only he can’t remember how he got those records or from whom, only that this person (whom he couldn’t remember) was a whistle-blower.
Mr. Cymrot: I see. But that’s just a label [whistle-blower]. We don’t know the name, we don’t know the address ... and we don’t know whether the documents are real, right?
Browder: I don’t know.
Mr. Cymrot: But you relied upon it?
Browder: My team did.
Mr. Cymrot: And you ultimately went to the U.S. Attorney’s office and said, ‘This happened’?
As his deposition continued, Browder presented the same sterling quality of evidence about the meeting between Dmitiry Klyuev and Olga Stepanova: some anonymous someone told his team that this meeting took place. That was it. The fact that they couldn’t prove that the meeting actually took place or what Klyuev and Stepanova may have discussed didn’t seem to bother Browder. His further supporting evidence, consisting of money transfers that allegedly ended up in different individuals’ accounts or their purchases of expensive cars and apartments also turned out to be entirely useless. In Browder’s mind however, all these trips to Cyprus, meetings between the alleged fraudsters and their supposed wealth prove their involvement in the fraud conclusively enough to justify his making public accusations against them, destroying their reputations, and having them placed on the list ofsanctioned individuals under the Magnitsky Act. However, none of his allegations could stand up in a court of law. As Browder’s depositions shows,Olga Stepanova was almost certainly innocent of Browder’s malicious accusations against her. So, probably, was Major Pavel Karpov.
Browder’s complaint against the Interior Ministry omits another important detail in the story. Namely, in November and December of 2007, Pavel Karpov invited Firestone Duncan employee V. Y. Yelin to his office to retrieve documents and seals impounded during the June raids. Among these
were the documents pertaining to Hermitage’s stolen firms. But rather than getting their materials back, Browder’s employees Vadim Kleiner and Ivan Cherkasov instructed Firestone & Duncan not to retrieve them, as though they wanted the documents and seals to remain at the Interior Ministry. At
the very least, this little trick made it possible for Browder to continue to claim in his numerous speeches that the documents and the seals were still in the possession of the evil Interior Ministry.
Browder’s deposition covered further issues as Prevezon’s defense attorneys probed various aspects of Browder’s tale which he craftily arranged to implicate his accusers as the real criminals, to claim victimhood and exonerate himself of any wrongdoing. One by one, each of his claims proved to be highly problematic on closer analysis: many are based on his own say-so or information obtained from anonymous sources, dubious documents or testimony from various dodgy characters whose credibility Browder attempts to bolster by calling them whistle-blowers or human rights activists.
Browder himself comes across as the dodgiest character of them all. He claims that he can’t remember important details about his story at least 50 times and answers “I don’t know” fully 211 times. Moreover, he appears to lack expertise in just about every relevant subject: twenty six times he declined to concede straightforward assertions because he was not an expert on the subject matter, like a man who refused to confirm that 1 + 1 = 2 because he wasn’t a mathematician. In fact, Browder comes across as the diametrical opposite of the character he projects in the countless speeches he delivers around the world. On such occasions, and I’ve had the privilege to witness two of them, Browder comes across as a highly competent man with remarkable command of detail and nuance with which he builds up his gripping tales.
During his deposition however, bungling Browder did not hesitate to flaunt his expertise in one particular domain: geopolitics. When Mr. Cymrot asked him why he called the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry “Putin’s lapdog,” Browder explained that, “... in my opinion he’s following a policy of
appeasement towards Russia.” How exactly was Kerry appeasing Russia? To begin with, Kerry wasn’t a big fan of the Magnitsky Act, and after the Act was signed into law, Kerry blocked Browder’s efforts to keep adding more names to the list of sanctioned persons. He was also quite unhappy with Kerry’s lukewarm support of expanding the “sanctions policy [against Russia], more generally, arms to Ukraine, Syria, Iran etcetera.”
Apparently, Browder favors any measure that is adverse or hostile toward Russia, regardless of whether or not it has anything at all to do with the plight of Sergei Magnitsky or with the Interior Ministry supposed tax fraud. All this seems a bit perplexing coming from a man who claims to be merely fighting for “justice for Sergei.”
dave23 said:
nan said: But, what has Putin really said about Browder, other than he is a crook who does not pay taxes, which he is. The author's profile of him indicates that as well. Supposedly, Putin also accused him of donating 400 million to Hllary Clinton, which he did not, but perhaps Putin thinks that will make Trump more likely to let him get Browder? And Browder did give a much smaller amount to Clinton and the DNC. Still makes him seem like a real villain, which he is. The phase should go more like this:You keep eating around what you want to avoid, which Putin's role in what you call the new Cold War (a gross exaggeration, imo). We probably disagree, but I don't think avoiding taxes is a reason for murder. Just as I don't think political opposition is a valid reason for murder. Putin's role is decidedly un-cartoonish.
Putin is obviously nothing like the cartoon villain that Browder portrays him to be, and yet that image allows him to play into American hysteria about Russia and saves Browder's tax-avoiding butt"
Browder's re-ignition of the Cold War does have global reverberations. That's why it is important to out him as a fraud. He clearly has a lot of power on his side, cause this story is falling apart and in this article, things like lies about lawyers just hired versus long term employees, and critiques of people listed in the Panama Papers, which not not admitting self-inclusion are just treated as quirky personality flaws, not indications that this guy is full of BS on a deep level.
How much and when did Browder donate to Hillary?
What murder are you talking about? Magnitsky was not murdered. He died of neglect in prison. People in the us die of neglect all the time. No one calls it murder.
As for donating to Hillary, I found this on Politifact: (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/16/vladimir-putin/putins-pants-fire-claim-about-400-million-donation/)
Did Browder's associates send $400 million to Hillary Clinton's campaign?
No. We found $17,700 donated to Clinton and another $297,000 to the Democratic National Committee.
In the New Yorker article, Browder says he did not give any money to Clinton. So that's not true.
Putin later said he misspoke about the $400 million (https://theintercept.com/2018/07/18/putin-says-misspoke-withdrawing-claim-clinton-got-millions-stolen-russia/).
South_Mountaineer said:
Invading the territory of a sovereign country is less "new cold war" than sanctions on some oligarchs?
The US should not be doing sanctions based on a scam.
It's always convenient when Trump and Putin misspeak - interesting. They are fully aware that the correction never has the impact of the lie.
Interesting theory linking Putin citing $400,000 to politicians (Biden, Obama, McCain) to Russian Oligarch Khordakovsky to Browder to support for the Magnitsky Act. The plot thickens.
BREAKING: Did We Find the $400,000 Putin Talked About in Helsinki?
Continued here with Christopher Steele and Uranium 1.
For someone who is so interested in dismissing Russia as a narrative for past and future elections, you sure seem hell bent on keeping it at the very top of the discussion threads.
sbenois said:
For someone who is so interested in dismissing Russia as a narrative for past and future elections, you sure seem hell bent on keeping it at the very top of the discussion threads.
Because I want to warn people about the dangers of believing in Bill Browder's anti-Russian fantasy.
Here is a guy who thinks Browder is the most dangerous man in the world:
nan said:
sbenois said:Because I want to warn people about the dangers of believing in Bill Browder's anti-Russian fantasy.
For someone who is so interested in dismissing Russia as a narrative for past and future elections, you sure seem hell bent on keeping it at the very top of the discussion threads.
Here is a guy who thinks Browder is the most dangerous man in the world:
I feel comfortable in saying that I, and many (most?) others, don't give a flying youknowwhat about Browder or Magnitsky, or the manufactured controversy about them.
Exactly.
So one has to wonder what the motivation is. Perhaps to confuse Moose and Squirrel?
Dennis_Seelbach said:
nan said:I feel comfortable in saying that I, and many (most?) others, don't give a flying youknowwhat about Browder or Magnitsky, or the manufactured controversy about them.
sbenois said:Because I want to warn people about the dangers of believing in Bill Browder's anti-Russian fantasy.
For someone who is so interested in dismissing Russia as a narrative for past and future elections, you sure seem hell bent on keeping it at the very top of the discussion threads.
Here is a guy who thinks Browder is the most dangerous man in the world:
You don't have to care about him, but your views on Russia have probably been shaped by him without your being aware of that. That's why you should know about him and why he is dangerous.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
My wife's aunt recently had a dream in which her deceased husband had to call AAA. When he gave AAA his card, the person said "this card is expired," to which my wife's uncle responded "it should be, I'm dead."