Russian Wild West

[Papewaio]

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/justice-put-to-the-sword-by-greed-and-corruption-20130311-2fvux.html

Originally written in the The Telegraph, London by Boris Johnson:
"In Moscow on Monday, there begins the trial of a 37-year-old accountant by the name of Sergei Magnitsky. Mr Magnitsky is accused of tax offences dating back perhaps 10 years.

What is astounding about this case is that Magnitsky is not only innocent of all charges. He is also dead. He died in prison in November 2009, after almost a year in which he was kept in squalor, denied family contact and deprived of medical treatment - detention that culminated in a savage and fatal beating by his captors.

..."

An interesting article on $230 million being pilfered from tax and redistributed and how the whistle blower was beaten to death in prison.

My biggest surprise that I end up agreeing a lot with Boris Johnson. I thought he was typecast as the buffoon, but he comes across as eccentric but with good intentions... very English to say the least.

[Catiline]

Boris is very savvy. He has a very carefully cultivated persona as a public schoolboy buffoon, but he's incredibly sharp underneath.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21572766

[Husar]

I like Boris Johnson. I remember he was on the Daily Show once and left a good impression.

As for Russia, well yeah, it's a harsh place.
There's a lot of racism, corruption and so on. Of course that's present in all layers of society.
Reminds me of Ukraine as well, where they pile up more and more charges on Tymoshenko.
Even if she is guilty of some or all of them, I doubt the people opposing her are much better.
In the end it depends a lot on whether the people actually care I guess.

[Sarmatian]

I love unbiased journalism.

We have a journalist who decided by himself, with no outside help whatsoever, that a man is innocent. Not presumably innocent, not "there a good deal of reasonable doubt" innocent, not "there's overwhelming evidence to support his case" innocent, but just innocent, as a matter of fact. Period. No need for discussion. An infallible authority. Case closed.

Next, we have a shady investment fund that grew rich in the lawless Yeltsin era, supposedly by exposing everyone else corruption (common sense tingling moment if there ever was one).

Of course, there's hasn't really been a corrupt, sleazy, opportunistic investment fund in Britain or America that tried to get rich by exploiting chaos and general lawlessness in post-communist or third-world nations, so there's no need to look at the issue from that side.

[Greyblades]

We have a journalist who decided by himself, with no outside help whatsoever, that a man is innocent. Not presumably innocent, not "there a good deal of reasonable doubt" innocent, not "there's overwhelming evidence to support his case" innocent, but just innocent, as a matter of fact. Period. No need for discussion. An infallible authority. Case closed. Sounds like normal journalism to me!

[Montmorency]

This is Op-Ed, not journalism.

[InsaneApache]

I like Boris Johnson. I remember he was on the Daily Show once and left a good impression.

Here's one of Bozza in action just for you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA

:laugh4:

[Sir Moody]

I love unbiased journalism.

We have a journalist who decided by himself, with no outside help whatsoever, that a man is innocent. Not presumably innocent, not "there a good deal of reasonable doubt" innocent, not "there's overwhelming evidence to support his case" innocent, but just innocent, as a matter of fact. Period. No need for discussion. An infallible authority. Case closed.

Next, we have a shady investment fund that grew rich in the lawless Yeltsin era, supposedly by exposing everyone else corruption (common sense tingling moment if there ever was one).

Of course, there's hasn't really been a corrupt, sleazy, opportunistic investment fund in Britain or America that tried to get rich by exploiting chaos and general lawlessness in post-communist or third-world nations, so there's no need to look at the issue from that side.

1) Boris Johnson isn't a Journalist - hes Mayor of London and this is an Opinion piece

2) Google Sergei Magnitsky, his innocence is pretty much given at this point

3) yes there are plenty of sleazy Funds in the West however generally they arent government sponsored and don't use the police as storm troopers to protect their sleazy practices

[Sarmatian]

1) Boris Johnson isn't a Journalist - hes Mayor of London and this is an Opinion piece

2) Google Sergei Magnitsky, his innocence is pretty much given at this point

3) yes there are plenty of sleazy Funds in the West however generally they arent government sponsored and don't use the police as storm troopers to protect their sleazy practices

1) He can be the Pope for all I care. What he wrote is a piece of ****.

2) Google is a search engine, not a court of law.

3) Excuse me? Have you not read or heard anything about the last several centuries?

[Kralizec]

I've first read about this magnitsky fellow around the end of last year; when the USA passed this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_bill), and when Russia announced it retalliation by banning adoption of Russian kids by US citizens.

I don't know enough about him or the company he worked for to say for a fact that he was innocent of any crime. But considering the circumstances of his imprisonment (allmost a year without a formal trial, for simple tax charges) and death (caused witholding medical care, and possibly maltreatment by guards) I think it's safe to say that the case brought against him was entirely bogus.

[HoreTore]

"Unbiased journalism" is nonsense. Can't be done, neither would we want it to.

The best we can do is a bias completely out n the open, like an opinion piece from Boris Johnson. Or Oliver Stone's wonderful series on american history, to give anther example. Biased as hell, but it's actually a good thing because it's so openly done.

[HopAlongBunny]

Oh those Russians. How quaint; they actually have to hide financial malfeasance. It just shows how barbaric and backward their economic system really is.

[Brenus]

I heard (on RT) the answer from Putin considering this case. Not that I am a Putin lover but what he said was (roughly): Russia has no lesson to be given by Country that re-legalized torture, keeps without trial chained prisoners in a complete isolation, bombs and invades countries, kidnaps or kills whoever it wants without any respect for international laws. I find it funny… Sort of…:sweatdrop:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I heard (on RT) the answer from Putin considering this case. Not that I am a Putin lover but what he said was (roughly): Russia has no lesson to be given by Country that re-legalized torture, keeps without trial chained prisoners in a complete isolation, bombs and invades countries, kidnaps or kills whoever it wants without any respect for international laws. I find it funny… Sort of…:sweatdrop:

It would have landed more square is Boris was Mayor of New York.

In any case - we should not allow our own political failings to in any way diminish the Russian ones.

[Husar]

Next, we have a shady investment fund that grew rich in the lawless Yeltsin era, supposedly by exposing everyone else corruption (common sense tingling moment if there ever was one).

Of course, there's hasn't really been a corrupt, sleazy, opportunistic investment fund in Britain or America that tried to get rich by exploiting chaos and general lawlessness in post-communist or third-world nations, so there's no need to look at the issue from that side.
When I read that part about the fund it actually did sound to me like they were just exploiting the change in Russia and are now heartbroken about it. However, that does not change anything I said about Russia being pretty corrupt and generally being a harsh place. It's not even that I dislike Russians, quite the contrary. But their politics are pretty barbaric, similar to american republican pipe dreams. ~;)


Here's one of Bozza in action just for you.

:laugh4:
Thanks, he seems to be good at rugby.


I heard (on RT) the answer from Putin considering this case. Not that I am a Putin lover but what he said was (roughly): Russia has no lesson to be given by Country that re-legalized torture, keeps without trial chained prisoners in a complete isolation, bombs and invades countries, kidnaps or kills whoever it wants without any respect for international laws. I find it funny… Sort of…:sweatdrop:
Putin gives that answer every time the USA criticize Russia and while he is right that they aren't much better, that doesn't make what he does any better either. For example the killing without regard for international laws, there was something about that, let me remembers...why don't you have some of this glowing tea while I try to remember what this was all about...

[Papewaio]

Always read from multiple sources and hopefully reputable ones with opposite bias. So say Fox and BBC and Al Jazeera. That way the middle ground between them is going to be more true... scales of truth after all require more then one side.

As for my take on this, it is bad, very bad.

Worse is that in my dotage I am starting to agree with conservatives more and more. So this isn't a West vs East bash, it is I'm becoming a grumpy old conservative. Old can't be avoided, grumpy has always been my nature... but conservative? That's just insult to injury... so that was why my question wasn't "Russia Wild West more Pussy Riot antics" it was "So this conservative guy, what's he like?".

[HopAlongBunny]

Despite my snark regarding the issue, I rather like Boris. Although, I would keep one hand on my wallet and an eye on him while being sold something, ... at least until I was quite sure what exactly I was being sold.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Always read from multiple sources and hopefully reputable ones with opposite bias. So say Fox and BBC and Al Jazeera. That way the middle ground between them is going to be more true... scales of truth after all require more then one side.

As for my take on this, it is bad, very bad.

Worse is that in my dotage I am starting to agree with conservatives more and more. So this isn't a West vs East bash, it is I'm becoming a grumpy old conservative. Old can't be avoided, grumpy has always been my nature... but conservative? That's just insult to injury... so that was why my question wasn't "Russia Wild West more Pussy Riot antics" it was "So this conservative guy, what's he like?".

As Winnie said, "If you are not a liberal at 20 you have...."

[Sir Moody]

1) He can be the Pope for all I care. What he wrote is a piece of ****.

pretty accurate piece of ****


2) Google is a search engine, not a court of law.

yes but there are these things call news articles which come up - you read them and then form your own opinion - or we could just try people after murdering them and claim what ever we want in court - that work for you? :laugh4:

[Sarmatian]

pretty accurate piece of ****

Ok. you have this spotless investment fund, that decided to invest in Russian Wild West in the nineties, where business was done with guns, where corruption was rampant and oligarchs were controlling the state. First of all, no serious investment fund, which does everything according to law, would do that. That was the reason serious investors stayed out of Russia then, even though the potential profit could have been immense.

Secondly, during all that time, while oligarchs were pulling the strings in Russia, controlling most of the system, that fund made huge amount of money by exposing corruption.

And you're telling me you're perfectly fine with that story? There's nothing to make you wonder?

Because, I'm somehow more inclined to believe that the fund in question was one of many shady and corrupt "investment funds" that played vulture in the nineties, hoping to get their hands on something worth millions or billions for the price of McDonald's Happy Meal, and now, when it's not so easy and someone's actually investigating their practice, they're crying foul with the help of powerful lobby firms.



yes but there are these things call news articles which come up - you read them and then form your own opinion - or we could just try people after murdering them and claim what ever we want in court - that work for you? :laugh4:

Yes, but there's also this thing called common sense, which you use and come to conclusions - 2+2=4, and not a million news articles can convince me it's 5.

[Sir Moody]

you may have a point except it is on record the Company in question was CLOSED before the MASSIVE fraud which occurred happened.

Did you read the article before "disbelieving" it?

Order of Events:
1) Investment Fund is set up in 90's
2) Investment Fund grows big by exposing fraud and corruption in competitors
3) The Biggest Oligarch is arrested for corruption and fraud mostly exposed by Investment Fund
4) Business climate in Russia changes and the owner of the investment fund is "forced" to call it quits - Investment fund is closed and Tax is paid in full

If this is the part you disagree with then I hate to break it you - this part is actually irrelevant apart from 4

5) Without old owners knowledge the fund is reopened and "handed" to an ex-con who is released after only 4 years serving a murder charge
6) With Manipulated accounts the "new" owners "prove" the Fund was bankrupt when the tax in step 4 was paid - this leads to all the money being rebated (and almost immediately vanishing)
7) Old owner finds out his supposedly closed company is in the courts and hires an accountant to find out what is going on
8) Accountant uncovers the massive fraud and hands details to authorities
9) Accountant is arrested for minor tax charges and imprisoned for over a year with no Trial before being killed in custody
10) Accountant is tried postmortem <- we are now here

where exactly are you having problems with this? if the problem is with the idea the Old owner could run a Fund in Russia without being corrupt during the 90's you may be right but it is actually UTTERLY irrelevant to the actual fraud

[Sarmatian]

you may have a point except it is on record the Company in question was CLOSED before the MASSIVE fraud which occurred happened.

Did you read the article before "disbelieving" it?

Order of Events:
1) Investment Fund is set up in 90's
2) Investment Fund grows big by exposing fraud and corruption in competitors
3) The Biggest Oligarch is arrested for corruption and fraud mostly exposed by Investment Fund
4) Business climate in Russia changes and the owner of the investment fund is "forced" to call it quits - Investment fund is closed and Tax is paid in full

If this is the part you disagree with then I hate to break it you - this part is actually irrelevant apart from 4

5) Without old owners knowledge the fund is reopened and "handed" to an ex-con who is released after only 4 years serving a murder charge
6) With Manipulated accounts the "new" owners "prove" the Fund was bankrupt when the tax in step 4 was paid - this leads to all the money being rebated (and almost immediately vanishing)
7) Old owner finds out his supposedly closed company is in the courts and hires an accountant to find out what is going on
8) Accountant uncovers the massive fraud and hands details to authorities
9) Accountant is arrested for minor tax charges and imprisoned for over a year with no Trial before being killed in custody
10) Accountant is tried postmortem <- we are now here

where exactly are you having problems with this? if the problem is with the idea the Old owner could run a Fund in Russia without being corrupt during the 90's you may be right but it is actually UTTERLY irrelevant to the actual fraud

1) Ok
2) No, the fund exposed corruption in the companies it owned, partly or fully.
3) Khodorovsky is arrested, I didn't know HCM had much to do with it. I'll check but I don't see how it's relevant for our discussion either way.
4) No, the fund is alive and well. Its Russian offices were closed, supposedly.
5) According to HCM
6) According to HCM
7) According to HCM
8) According to HCM
9) For less than a year
10) Yes

Ok, let's see what we do know really. We have a newly set-up investment fund, with headquarters in London but which is doing business in Yeltsin's free-for-all era Russia, making unbelievable profits, supposedly by exposing corruption, thus raising the share prices. Besides, those offices, the fund keeps office also in Cayman Islands. Those are the facts, more or less.

Everything else we know was actually coming from Browder or his attorneys. According to them, they closed their offices, paid their taxes and left. Someone else opened companies in their name, "proved" they were unprofitable and took the money. Browder says it was done without his knowledge. So, this is the defense trying to portray their side of the story as facts, and you're buying it. While it may or may not be true, keep in mind that most of what we know aren't facts - it's the defendant's side of the story.

Now, I have my doubts about the fund in question. Most real, law-abiding investors steered clear of Russia in the nineties, precisely because of lawlessness. You didn't get far by doing things according to law. HCM not only supposedly exposed corruption, but it made immense profits doing that, far, far, far bigger than usual for such funds. It made a fortune doing business in Yeltsin's Russia and the Cayman Islands, neither which improves their image in my book. I'm more inclined to believe according to this that HCM was a sleazy fund which was trying to do what many Russian and foreign crooks did - get rich quickly by exploiting corruption and general absence of law and state in Russia in the nineties. When they were finally brought to court for that, they're pulling old Putin-is-a-monster, Russia-is-a-mobster-state and human-rights-are-violated tricks which resonate so well with the typical western audience.

If HCM had offices and was doing business in Germany, USA, France, Japan, Australia... , with 2% of the success they had in Russia, I'd be much more inclined to believe their side of the story. But when someone makes 3000% profits in Russia in the nineties, the hell will freeze over before I believe it was legally acquired.

[Sir Moody]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree - personally the illegal police raids, beatings of Employees and Magnitsky death (which are documented facts) swing me in Browder's favor - even if he probably was corrupt (as you say pretty much everyone was in Russia during the 90's)

[Husar]

If HCM had offices and was doing business in Germany, USA, France, Japan, Australia... , with 2% of the success they had in Russia, I'd be much more inclined to believe their side of the story. But when someone makes 3000% profits in Russia in the nineties, the hell will freeze over before I believe it was legally acquired.

You see, I would never say that this investment company was doing perfectly fine business in Russia, it just seems like the government didn't really care about justice in this regard and committed it's own huge fraud. That's really the big problem, you can't seem to trust anyone powerful or rich there...

[gaelic cowboy]

I heard (on RT) the answer from Putin considering this case. Not that I am a Putin lover but what he said was (roughly): Russia has no lesson to be given by Country that re-legalized torture, keeps without trial chained prisoners in a complete isolation, bombs and invades countries, kidnaps or kills whoever it wants without any respect for international laws. I find it funny… Sort of…:sweatdrop:

Indeed I agree that Russia does NOT need to be shown by anyone how to invade, torture, kidnap or bomb countries/people etc etc.

They have been doing it no bother themselves for ages now

[Strike For The South]

Russia choking under the boots of tyrants

A drunk, backwards, and violent lot.

[Husar]

You forgot awesome.

Also this is related:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRIsC764Nn4