Hacked emails state dept.

Connor Parker
Connor Parker

https://www.rt.com/usa/396416-state-department-emails-hacking/

Perhaps you know that the U.S. State Department has a direct bearing on the agenda formation not only at home but throughout the world.
Now you can make sure it's true. Let me show you the correspondence between the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency Robert P. Otto and his colleagues, CIA officers and other intelligence agencies, as well as representatives of mainstream media, NGOs, international funds and think tanks.
With the respect for privacy I've deleted his correspondence with his wife and relatives. The rest of emails will give evidence of who is responsible for different information campaigns, the so-called mythmaking and essentially engaged in the promotion of "American values" throughout the world.

Archive:
Part1: https://mega.nz/#!tjYVzTgI!66bAnh0fTInWv8a6zh5ByzJJwtnW5w5cCq4QuDpoRkI
Part2: https://mega.nz/#!FvAjnSKT!aa5aE4vUjpphY-pndL3UkP-qUqFMyBA3iCNkcYziSWE
Part3: https://mega.nz/#!Vn5VyKoL!Qry1QqYv_K439QlsGagVjQON37PVqW_Ij4ie_ZeDthM
Pass:[email protected]

Mirror:
Part1: http://www.mediafire.com/file/45oc6d6hv3uea57/p1.zip
Part2: http://www.mediafire.com/file/0tcs5m6r8dz83n2/p2.zip
Part3: http://www.mediafire.com/file/18esr3lz04lru3o/p3.zip
Pass:[email protected]

Josiah Murphy
Josiah Murphy

https://www.rt.com/usa/396416-state-department-emails-hacking/

Emails belonging to a senior US State Department intelligence official involved in Russian affairs have been leaked, Foreign Policy (FP) reports. The official is said to have been particularly interested in Russian media and government reshuffling.
A hacker known as ‘Johnnie Walker’ leaked a batch of private correspondence of a US State Department intelligence official, whose work is focused on Russian domestic affairs, according to FP, citing the emails.

The emails, from a hacked nongovernmental account over a two-year period, were sent to “an unknown number of recipients,” the outlet – which reported on the story initially – notes. There is, however, no information on who exactly was among the recipients.

Although the leaks were received on Tuesday, according to the magazine, they did not gain widespread attention until Friday.

In a letter announcing the alleged hacking, Johnnie Walker said that the leak would provide evidence for establishing what was called “agenda formation in many countries worldwide, especially where the situation is insecure.”

The sender also reportedly claimed that the US State Department official was in contact with various intelligence agencies, including the CIA, as well as “mainstream media, NGOs, and international funds.”

Although the alleged hacking victim holds “a senior position in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research” and his name is public, according to FP, the outlet did not disclose the name, citing a request from the state department, which has so far neither confirmed nor denied the hack.

The alleged leaked correspondence was released online on Pastebin. Its authenticity remains unclear. The description to the three archives available for download also adds the name of the alleged agent.

Although the hacker’s nickname is not mentioned on Pastebin, some quotes from the description to the files partly coincide with those cited by FP.

“Perhaps you know that the U.S. State Department has a direct bearing on the agenda formation not only at home but throughout the world. Now you can make sure it’s true,” the description says.

The alleged hacker said he had “deleted his [the US State Department official] correspondence with his wife and relatives” due to “the respect for privacy.” A trove of internal documents of then-French presidential hopeful Emmanuel Macron was released on the same website just two days before the final round of the election.

Apart from the name of the hacker’s target, the content of the letters has not been published in the Western media. Russian newspaper Kommersant, however, claims it has access to the files.

The newspaper says that the intelligence official sent his colleagues links to articles from different Russian news outlets, including Novaya Gazeta, The New Times, Vedomosti, and RBK, among others.

Topics of the official’s particular interest were social media accounts of Russian officials, staff re-shuffling in governmental bodies, and the influence of some state officials, according to Kommersant.

The report also notes that it is unclear if it was a single leak or only one in a series of hacking attacks.

Landon Davis
Landon Davis

Any excerpts from the data showing what's in there? Want to know there's something good before downloading a CIA virus or something.

Carson Parker
Carson Parker

It's 12k emails in three zip files.

Most of them are copies of blog posts in russian. The clip in the last which mentions obama was number 18.

Parker Wilson
Parker Wilson

Thanks op. Will download. Don't know how useful it will be on it's own, but hoping it wil pair up with some of the other leaks we have seen

Alexander Bennett
Alexander Bennett

it's fucking nothing

Jace James
Jace James

You dont think that the correspondence between the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency Robert P. Otto and his colleagues, CIA officers and other intelligence agencies, as well as representatives of mainstream media, NGOs, international funds and think tanks….. all russian experts, for the period of the election campaign, could be of interest? Kill yourself

Ryder Price
Ryder Price

So this John B. Dunlop sends a lot of russian email hack news to Robert Otto. Notable as j b Dunlop seems confident to blame the russians.

Senior Fellow, Emeritus
Biography:
John B. Dunlop is an emeritus senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is an expert on Soviet and Russian politics from 1985 to the present, Russia’s two wars in Chechnya, ethnic Russian nationalism, and the politics of religion in Russia. His current research focuses on the origins of the Putin regime in 1998–99.

David Lewis
David Lewis

Albright a jerk, and Clinton is incompetent. (I know, hardly news)

Juan Myers
Juan Myers

That John P Williams has another email address … [email protected]

Zachary King
Zachary King

Okay, this is really weird, and potentially of interest…corruption?

From: Brian D Taylor <[email protected]>
To: Robert Otto <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: paper
Thread-Topic: paper
Thread-Index: AQHRB1oUA/cyMCpQhk+t6Cw/MTWh6Z5s6ucA//+9YyaAAEQTAP//vwrC
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:21:06 +0000

I guess the otkat is po ponyatiyem – I'm sure that isn't in the contract.

From: Robert Otto <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 11:13 AM
To: Brian D Taylor
Subject: Re: paper

My boss says that after the outfit gets the paperwork from you, it contacts us for verification. We will, of course. And then you get $$$$.

I will send you later the number for my Cayman Isle account……….

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Brian D Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

Bob,

Thanks. I knew that info was there, but wondered if I needed something more formal than an email from you. I guess not! I will start the process, and let you know if I have any questions.

From: Robert Otto <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 11:07 AM
To: Brian D Taylor
Subject: Re: paper

I suck.

I was supposed to tell you – and do so now – the following:

There's info in your contract about what steps you should take to initiate payment.

Sorry for the delay.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Brian D Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

Bob,

Just FYI, I haven't heard from anyone about that paper. I know things are busy with Russia these days, but it did occur to me today that nothing has changed since our last exchange.

Brian

Jaxson Green
Jaxson Green

Cancel that, i think it's an academic paper, and a joke.

Brian Taylor

Professor and Chair, Political Science

Brian_Taylor

Contact Information
[email protected]

531 Eggers Hall
(315) 443-3713
Curriculum Vitae
Brian Taylor CV
Degree

Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1998

Specialties

Comparative politics, Russian politics

Nathaniel James
Nathaniel James

Shit, this has details on the case that the honeypot russian lawyer was working on.

Mr. Trump appeared to be referencing reports about Veselnitskaya's efforts to enter the U.S. to represent a Russian client in a New York lawsuit in late 2015. Denied a visa, a frustrated Veselnitskaya was eventually able to secure permission from the Justice Department to enter the country outside the normal visa process under a designation known as "immigration parole," court records show.

Putin critic: Russian lawyer wouldn't have been in U.S. without Kremlin's OK
In October 2015, Veselnitskaya represented Denis Katsyv in a money laundering suit against his company, Prevezon. The U.S. government had accused Katsyv of using $230 million in stolen funds to buy real estate. Veselnitskaya's application for a visa to travel to the U.S. to work on the case was denied, she said in a later court filing.

Instead, the Department of Justice granted Katsyv and Veselnitskaya immigration parole. In later arguments before a federal judge, a government attorney described immigration parole as "a discretionary act that the statute allows the attorney general to do in extraordinary circumstances.

Justin Gutierrez
Justin Gutierrez

These are files from C P <[email protected]>
2016 03 21 UK Money Laundering Final REDACTED Smaller file size.pdf 68 page report detailing corruption network within russia, and links to bank accounts in the UK.
$US230 million missing

Second file, the email subject "Here are the docs the Russians gave Rohrabacher"
Also a 94 page pdf called MX-C402SC_20160426_133538.pdf

Parker Bennett
Parker Bennett

http://archive.org/pdf/res/700.html

Lucas Young
Lucas Young

Email thread part 1/2
Just fyi…

From: Fried, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:29 PM
To: Williams, John P; Flaherty, Daniel R; Ciaccia, Sarah J; Otto, Robert; Curry, Dennis L; Reynolds, Nathaniel L; Hollas, Richard J
Subject: RE: Magnitsky case
Expect you are right. I think we should examine the movie and the NBC allegations if these emerge (and Browder’s rebuttal) using original source material, i.e., I don’t want us accepting anything Browder says at face value. Trust or not, and verify.

rom: Williams, John P
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:22 PM
To: Flaherty, Daniel R; Fried, Daniel; Ciaccia, Sarah J; Otto, Robert; Curry, Dennis L; Reynolds, Nathaniel L; Hollas, Richard J
Subject: RE: Magnitsky case

The Nekrasov film, by the way, appears to be full of easily rebuttable accusations, a real hack job. No doubt the purpose, though, is to obfuscate and perhaps draw attention away from other embarrassing revelations, including the Panama Papers.

From: Williams, John P
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:19 PM
To: Flaherty, Daniel R; Fried, Daniel; Marcos, Miliette; Ciaccia, Sarah J; Otto, Robert; Curry, Dennis L; Reynolds, Nathaniel L; Hollas, Richard J
Subject: RE: Magnitsky case

The talking points look accurate from our point of view, with the caveat that much of the information comes from Browder’s website. The quotations appear accurate including those from Magnitsky’s written testimony.

From: Flaherty, Daniel R
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 11:02 AM
To: Fried, Daniel; Marcos, Miliette; Williams, John P; Ciaccia, Sarah J; Otto, Robert; Curry, Dennis L; Reynolds, Nathaniel L; Hollas, Richard J
Cc: Flaherty, Daniel R
Subject: Magnitsky case

Ambassador Fried: INR says Russia’s Investigative Committee (headed by Bastrykin) dropped the investigation into Magnitskiy’s death in 2013, a couple of years after Russia’s Presidential Human Rights Council concluded Magnitskiy had been beaten while in prison.

INR colleagues: Please see the ask below.

John: reporter’s name is Ken Dilanian.

From: Marcos, Miliette
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 10:11 AM
To: Flaherty, Daniel R
Subject: FW: Following up - Magnitsky

Hi Dan,

Dan asked if INR could verify the TPs put together by Kyle Parker below. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

M

Miliette Marcos

D/CSP

Telephone: + 202.736.7118

Levi Cruz
Levi Cruz

email thread pt2/3

From: Bartlett, Sean (Foreign Relations) [http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:56 AM
To: David Kramer <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Calingaert <[email protected]>
Subject: Following up - Magnitsky
i David,

Thanks for taking my call just now. The reporter from NBC, Ken Dilanian, has your phone number and I told him you were free after lunchtime today. Daniel, he also has your email address and knows you’re in Kiev.

Below are what I think extremely helpful bullets that Kyle Parker put together that go through the allegations the reporter laid out in his initial note. Hopefully these are helpful to you both as well.

Best,

Sean

Sean Bartlett

Communications Director, Democratic Staff

U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Phone: 202.224.4651

Email: [email protected]

“Magnitsky was not a lawyer, as Browder calls him”

Magnitsky was indeed a lawyer, who represented the Hermitage Fund and many other clients in court. We have viewed court documents evidencing this.

Furthermore, in Sergei Magnitsky's testimony to Russia’s Investigative Committee on 5 June 2008, he confirmed his profession as a lawyer: “Based on my professional activity I provide advisory services on matters of Russian law.”

Finally, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said at a press conference on December 20, 2012: “Mister Magnitsky, it is known, was not some rights defender, he did not fight for human rights. He was Mister Browder’s lawyer.”

Just to be clear, Magnitsky was not a barrister, and therefore could not represent clients in criminal court, but did represent clients in civil court.

“there is no evidence he was beaten in prison”

There is overwhelming evidence that Sergei Magnitsky was beaten in prison.

Photographs of his beaten body were available to us, which show physical evidence of him having been beaten.

We reviewed the detention center protocol, which reports that Magnitsky was beaten with rubber batons by guards on the evening of November 16, 2009—the night he died.

In July 2011, Russia’s Presidential Human Rights Council referred to the beating of Magnitsky and his injuries in their report: “As a result, Magnitsky was completely deprived of medical care before his death. In addition, there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the death was triggered by beating Magnitsky: later his relatives recorded smashed knuckles and bruises on his body.”

Magnitsky's Death Certificate refers to a cerebral cranial injury.

The forensic postmortem conducted by Russian state experts refers to injuries on Magnitsky's body consistent with the use of rubber batons.


“it’s clear from police and court records that he wasn’t detained because he blew the whistle on an alleged fraud scheme”

The documents that we have show that Sergei Magnitsky was arrested by subordinates of Russian police officer Artem Kuznetsov whom he had implicated after testifying against Kuznetsov for involvement in the fraud against his client Hermitage and the Russian state.

On June 5, 2008, Magnitsky gave a sworn statement to Russia’s Investigative Committee in which he specifically named Russian police officer Artem Kuznetsov and Russian investigator Pavel Karpov.

On October 7, 2008, Sergei Magnitsky made an additional sworn statement to Russia’s Investigative Committee in which he described the theft of 5.4 billion rubles (~230 million U.S. dollars) of Russian tax revenue by the same group he had described in his initial testimony of June 5, 2008 about the fraud against his client.

On November 21, 2008, officer Kuznetsov was assigned to detain Magnitsky.

On November 24, 2008, Kuznetsov’s subordinates arrested Magnitsky.

Elijah Thompson
Elijah Thompson

email thread part 3/3

On October 14, 2009, Magnitsky gave further testimony to Russia’s Interior Ministry, in which he reiterated his previous testimony naming Kuznetsov and other police officers stating his belief they were complicit in the fraud against his client and in the theft of 5.4 billion rubles of state funds.

“He was detained over tax evasion by Browder’s companies”

The tax evasion charge was a pretext used for detaining Sergei Magnitsky after his testimonies implicating government officials. This is referenced in the U.S. Department of State’s 2009 County Reports on Human Rights Practices, which states, “After Magnitsky gave testimony in court in 2008 against Kuznetsov and Karpov, officials charged and arrested him on tax evasion charges that many observers believed were fabricated.”

“In fact, there are credible allegations in court documents that Browder and his associates are suspects in the fraud – and that Browder concocted the whistleblower story to cover that up.”

The U.S. Department of Justice rejects this position in the government's filing with the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court about this case:

“…for the avoidance of doubt, Baker & Hostetler’s accusations are false. Hermitage is a victim—not a perpetrator— of the Russian Treasury Fraud… In any event, there is no question here that the [US Government] complaint alleges Hermitage is a victim of the Russian Treasury Fraud.26 That fraud resulted in, among other things: a law enforcement raid on the offices of Hermitage and its law firm (A. 312-13 (Compl. ¶¶ 24- 25)); the theft of three Hermitage Fund corporations (A. 313-14 (Compl. ¶¶ 26-28)); the fraudulent imposition of hundreds of millions of dollars of fictitious liabilities upon them (A. 314-17 (Compl. ¶¶ 29-37)); the use of these stolen companies to perpetrate a theft from Russian taxpayers (A. 317-20 (Compl. ¶¶ 38-45)); the need for extensive legal action to remediate the fraud (A. 322-23 (Compl. ¶¶ 55-56, 59)); and the institution of retaliatory criminal proceedings against Hermitage agents who reported the fraud (A. 323-25, 327 (Compl. ¶¶ 58, 61-68, 72))… Indeed, Baker & Hostetler itself, in connection with its prior representation of Hermitage, has explicitly recognized that Hermitage is a victim of the Russian Treasury Fraud.” “Case 16-132, Document 118, 02/16/2016.”

“All the supposedly independent reports about this in the media and, for example, by the Council of Europe, got their key information from Browder or from people who trace back to Browder”

Of course, we have communicated with the victims, which include Sergei Magnitsky’s family, Bill Browder, and other representatives of Hermitage. We also communicated with representatives of the Government of Russia and the European Union.

The Magnitsky Act is the culmination of exhaustive investigation including open source and classified materials, public debate, and political negotiations spanning two Congresses.

As for the Council of Europe report, the Rapporteur described their information gathering in the following manner:

“In order to allow the Russian authorities to give me their official views on the different aspects of the case, I went to Moscow first, between 13 and 16 February 2013. Next, from 25 to 27 April, I travelled to London in order to meet both the competent British authorities and Sergei Magnitsky’s former client, Bill Browder. Already on 7 January, I met with the Swiss Prosecutor General and his Deputy and, on 29 and 30 April, with the competent Cypriot authorities. Finally, on 20 and 21 May 2013, I returned to Moscow in order to hear the Russian authorities’ response to the issues raised by all the other interlocutors since my first visit.”

As for the Russian filmmaker you mention, I assume you mean Andrei Nekrasov. If so, Nekrasov may have been a Putin critic at one time, but his recent track record suggests a possible change of heart. In or about 2010, Nekrasov made a film on Belarus, which was pro-Lukashenko. While Lukashenko isn’t Putin, he is certainly a kindred spirit and it’s unusual for someone associated with Russia’s democratic opposition to flatter another regional dictator.

I hope this background is helpful and, if you decide to run the story, the following quote may be attributed to Senator Cardin,

"Attempts to defame Sergei Magnitsky are as old as the crime he uncovered. One need only look to the posthumous prosecution and conviction of Magnitsky to understand the lengths Putin's violent kleptocracy is willing to go to keep its crimes hidden from the Russian people. Sergei Magnitsky may be gone, but his legacy of courageous patriotism remains an inspiration to those in Russia, and around the world, who work for a better future. And I am proud to stand with them."

Lincoln Hernandez
Lincoln Hernandez

Accusation from NBC reporter to William.Browder CEO of hermitagefund.com that the story of the Magnitsky affair was a fraud

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-russia-russiagate-magnitsky-affair-linked-again-w492290

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Magnitsky Act, formally known as the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, is a bipartisan bill passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Obama in November–December 2012, intending to punish Russian officials responsible for the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow prison in 2009.

From:[email protected]

Sent:25 April 2016 2:12 pm

To:[email protected]

Cc:[email protected]

Subject:RE: request for an interview

Mr. Browder, could you please let me know whether you are willing to answer our questions? As I am sure you know by now, there are allegations in court documents, and in a new film, that you concocted the story of Magnitsky as a whistleblower to cover up your own alleged tax fraud. We intend to report on those allegations. Our own analysis has found that English translations of certain documents on sites linked to you do not match the original Russian on some key points. And we have found, for example, no evidence that Magnitsky was severely beaten just before his death as you have described. If you could just let me know one way or another whether you are willing to discuss this, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Ken Dilanian

National Security Reporter, Investigative Unit

Gabriel Campbell
Gabriel Campbell

More questions from NBC reporter to Hermitage Capital CEO
he answered them in a word document, not attached
==Part1

From: Dilanian, Ken (NBCUniversal) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 12:30 PM
To: William Browder
Subject: NBC questions

Bill, Here are some questions. Our plan is to publish tomorrow morning. Thanks a lot. Ken Dilanian (202) 821 5197

You have repeatedly called Sergei Magnitsky your lawyer, but according to court records and interviews with some of his associates, he was an accountant who never went to law school and was not licensed to practice law. Can you explain why you call him a lawyer?

You have repeatedly stated that you hired Magnitsky in 2007 to investigate the theft of Hermitage-related companies, calling Magnitsky the best young lawyer you could find. But it appears that Magnitsky had been working for Hermitage and its affiliated entities since 2006, if not earlier. When did Magnitsky first start doing work for Hermitage or its affiliated entities? Wasn’t he working on some of the tax benefits in Kalmykia that led to the imposition of civil judgments?

You have repeatedly said Magnitsky was beaten with rubber batons just before his death by eight guards for more than an hour.

“Eight riot guards with rubber batons beat him for an hour and 18 minutes until he died,” you said on MSNBC on February 5th, 2015.

The report by Russia’s Public Oversight Commission for Human Rights, which has been widely cited as a definitive account of Magnitsky’s treatment, makes no mention of beatings, and says there were no marks on Magnitsky’s body other than handcuff bruises. What is the evidence that he was beaten by eight riot guards for 78 minutes before he died? If that happened, why would there be no bruises or other marks on his head and torso?

You have said that Magnitsky was detained because he testified that the police were involved in the $230 million fraud. The original language documents NBC News has examined from the Russian untouchables web site (which you testified was your web site) say he was detained in a tax fraud case involving your companies. They show he did not accuse the police until 2009.

For example, the Russian transcript of Magnitsky’s testimony of June 5, 2008 shows that he did not accuse the police of doing anything other than conducting an investigation. He even discusses his understanding that Karpov offered to return the corporate seals.

Also, it’s been reported in the Russian news media –and was repeated on a former Hermitage website, according to court records– that Rimma Starova reported the theft of the budget funds to the Russian authorities in April 2008 – before Magnitsky knew about it.

How could Magnitsky have been detained in retaliation for an allegation he didn’t make until after he was in police custody? How could he have been a whistleblower about something that was first reported by somebody else?

As you know, the filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov and the lawyers for Prevazon have accused you of mischaracterizing what the documents say. How do you respond?

Nekrasov has been a critic of Russian human rights violations who says he set out to make a film celebrating Magnitsky. Why do you think he is now accusing you?

Isaiah Baker
Isaiah Baker

More questions from NBC reporter to Hermitage Capital CEO
he answered them in a word document, not attached
Part2

The lawyers also say in court recordds there is evidence that you are your associates carried out the $230 million fraud. How do you respond?

According to court records, to re-register a company in Russia at the time, one did not need the original seals and other original documents. Does that undermine the notion that the police stole the seals to re-register the companies?

You have said publicly that Magnitsky accused Lt Col Kuznetsov and Major Karpov, two men who ended up on the Magitstky sanctions list. In his October 7, 2008, according to the Russian untouchables web site, he “confirmed his testimony from 5 June 2008 about his discovery of crime against Hermitage Fund and the involvement in this crime of Artem Kuznetsov and Pavel Karpov. In addition, he mentioned the names of other participants of the crime involved in the theft of budget funds.”

However, the Russian version of that testimony shows he did not mention Kuznetsov and Karpov. How do you account for that discrepancy?

On the Russian untouchables site, there is an English translation of a statement by Magnitsky to a Russian interior ministry official on October 13, 2009, a month before his death. In that English version, Magnitsky accuses interior ministry officials in the “theft of 5.4 billion rubles from the State Treasury,” and it added that these men “were extremely interested in suppressing my activity relating to assisting my client in investigating the circumstances connected with these criminal offences.”

That language does not appear in the Russian version of the document, according to an NBC News translation.

How do you account for that discrepancy?

Your public statements and the website state that investigations into Hermitage and its affiliated entities started in 2007 – so that the police could commit a theft. But according to documents in the U.S. court record, Sergei Magnitsky was questioned as early as 2006 concerning the tax payments of Hermitage-affiliated entities.

That would appear to contradict your account; how do you respond?

Documents and testimony seem to indicate that tax-related civil lawsuits were entered against some of Hermitage’s affiliated entities as early as 2004.

When did investigations into the taxes paid by Hermitage and its affiliated entities begin?

You testified that they had been closed, but you could not say who told you that. What is the specific evidence that Magnitsky was detained not over tax evasion, but because he had blown the whistle?

Ken Dilanian

Hudson Kelly
Hudson Kelly

It appears that the Magnitskiy, killed in a russian prison was the subject of an disinformation film sponsored by green party from european parliment.

http://lawandorderinrussia.org/2016/magnitsky-family-blasts-the-green-party-in-the-european-parliament-for-hosting-premiere-of-a-false-and-offensive-film-about-sergei-magnitsky-by-andrei-nekrasov/

The film by Andrei Nekrasov and pro­ducer Torstein Grude of Piraya Films (Nor­way) is designed to per­pet­u­ate a Russ­ian gov­ern­ment dis­in­for­ma­tion cam­paign about the Mag­nit­sky case for a West­ern audi­ence. The film claims that Sergei Mag­nit­sky was not beaten in cus­tody, was not a lawyer, did not tes­tify against Russ­ian offi­cials, did not inves­ti­gate the US$230 mil­lion fraud, but instead com­mit­ted it him­self.
These false claims are con­tra­dicted by numer­ous doc­u­ments. In par­tic­u­lar, the claim that he wasn’t beaten is refuted by the pho­tos of his injuries from the state autopsy; his death cer­tifi­cate stat­ing he had a sus­pected cere­br­ial cra­nial injury; cer­tifi­cates from the deten­tion cen­ter where he died record­ing the appli­ca­tion of rub­ber batons; the Russ­ian state foren­sic opin­ion find­ing that Sergei Magnitsky’s injuries were con­sis­tent with blunt force trauma.
Magnitsky’s pro­fes­sion as a lawyer is demon­strated by his role in rep­re­sent­ing his mul­ti­ple clients in court, pro­vid­ing them legal advice, and his own tes­ti­mony iden­ti­fy­ing him­self as a lawyer.

Magnitskiy accused two MVD officers, Karpov and Kuznetsov, of stealing budget funds to the tune of $230 million…It became clear that the whole Magnitskiy-as-hero story was based on a lie, a story that was used as an alibi for Magnitskiy’s colleagues…Nekrasov then deconstructs the Magnitskiy story by making claims like this one: Magnitskiy and his colleagues supposedly warned the Prosecutor’s office and the Investigative Committee for three weeks that an illegal tax rebate scheme was in the works, but another versiya is that they complained about the theft of companies (Comment: As a reminder, Magnitskiy reported that officials, including officials in the tax service, were operating a scam for receiving tax rebates. Part of the Magnitskiy affair was a story that MVD officers raided companies Magnitskiy represented and seized official documents and other items that they could then use to “steal” those companies)—there was a complaint made about attempts to steal money from those companies, but Browder himself told me those companies didn’t have any money (Comment: I recall that Magnitskiy was supposed to have registered a number of shell companies—I think those were the entities that were “stolen”)…Nekrasov goes on to bash Browder and says he regrets having called a couple of the people on the “Magnitskiy list” “scoundrels”…

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/reports-claim-putin-ally-roldugins-offshore-tied-to-magnitsky-case/567431.html

Sebastian Myers
Sebastian Myers

Note from NBC reporter to US treasury dept relating to targeting of sanctions

"What constitutes "credible information," and who decided it was credible? The reason I am asking is that we are working on a story that is going to say that what the world thought it knew about the Magnitsky affair has been seriously called into question. As we and others have dug into this, and peeled back the layers, it's clear the key parts of the story came from Bill Browder, and much of it simply isn't supported. No one disputes that Magnitsky died after medical neglect in a rotten Russian jail system. But, for example, Magnitsky was not a lawyer, as Browder calls him; there is no evidence he was beaten in prison, as Browder has alleged; and it's clear from police and court records that he wasn't detained because he blew the whistle on an alleged fraud scheme. He was detained over tax evasion by Browder's companies. In fact, there are credible allegations in court documents that Browder and his associates are suspects in the fraud - and that Browder concocted the whistleblower story to cover that up. All the supposedly independent reports about this in the media and, for example, by the Council of Europe, got their key information from Browder or from people who trace back to Browder. A Russian filmmaker who has been critical of Putin set out to make a film about Magnitsky, and as he started digging into the story, he concluded it was a fraud. A New York law firm defending a Russian company in a civil forfeiture case has concluded the same thing, and has uncovered tons of evidence through discovery that appears to support it."

Julian Gray
Julian Gray

Someone from the State dept helped write this….
https://globalvoices.org/2013/03/12/propaganda-mystery-in-russias-browder-magnitsky-case/

Dominic Harris
Dominic Harris

Some answers to those questions part1

“Magnitsky was not a lawyer, as Browder calls him”

Magnitsky was indeed a lawyer, who represented the Hermitage Fund and many other clients in court. We have viewed court documents evidencing this.

Furthermore, in Sergei Magnitsky's testimony to Russia’s Investigative Committee on 5 June 2008, he confirmed his profession as a lawyer: “Based on my professional activity I provide advisory services on matters of Russian law.”

Finally, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said at a press conference on December 20, 2012: “Mister Magnitsky, it is known, was not some rights defender, he did not fight for human rights. He was Mister Browder’s lawyer.”

Just to be clear, Magnitsky was not a barrister, and therefore could not represent clients in criminal court, but did represent clients in civil court.

“there is no evidence he was beaten in prison”

There is overwhelming evidence that Sergei Magnitsky was beaten in prison.

Photographs of his beaten body were available to us, which show physical evidence of him having been beaten.

We reviewed the detention center protocol, which reports that Magnitsky was beaten with rubber batons by guards on the evening of November 16, 2009—the night he died.

In July 2011, Russia’s Presidential Human Rights Council referred to the beating of Magnitsky and his injuries in their report: “As a result, Magnitsky was completely deprived of medical care before his death. In addition, there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the death was triggered by beating Magnitsky: later his relatives recorded smashed knuckles and bruises on his body.”

Magnitsky's Death Certificate refers to a cerebral cranial injury.

The forensic postmortem conducted by Russian state experts refers to injuries on Magnitsky's body consistent with the use of rubber batons.

“it’s clear from police and court records that he wasn’t detained because he blew the whistle on an alleged fraud scheme”

The documents that we have show that Sergei Magnitsky was arrested by subordinates of Russian police officer Artem Kuznetsov whom he had implicated after testifying against Kuznetsov for involvement in the fraud against his client Hermitage and the Russian state.

On June 5, 2008, Magnitsky gave a sworn statement to Russia’s Investigative Committee in which he specifically named Russian police officer Artem Kuznetsov and Russian investigator Pavel Karpov.

On October 7, 2008, Sergei Magnitsky made an additional sworn statement to Russia’s Investigative Committee in which he described the theft of 5.4 billion rubles (~230 million U.S. dollars) of Russian tax revenue by the same group he had described in his initial testimony of June 5, 2008 about the fraud against his client.

On November 21, 2008, officer Kuznetsov was assigned to detain Magnitsky.

On November 24, 2008, Kuznetsov’s subordinates arrested Magnitsky.

On October 14, 2009, Magnitsky gave further testimony to Russia’s Interior Ministry, in which he reiterated his previous testimony naming Kuznetsov and other police officers stating his belief they were complicit in the fraud against his client and in the theft of 5.4 billion rubles of state funds.

Angel Wright
Angel Wright

Some answers to those questions part2

“He was detained over tax evasion by Browder’s companies”

The tax evasion charge was a pretext used for detaining Sergei Magnitsky after his testimonies implicating government officials. This is referenced in the U.S. Department of State’s 2009 County Reports on Human Rights Practices, which states, “After Magnitsky gave testimony in court in 2008 against Kuznetsov and Karpov, officials charged and arrested him on tax evasion charges that many observers believed were fabricated.”

“In fact, there are credible allegations in court documents that Browder and his associates are suspects in the fraud – and that Browder concocted the whistleblower story to cover that up.”

The U.S. Department of Justice rejects this position in the government's filing with the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court about this case:

“…for the avoidance of doubt, Baker & Hostetler’s accusations are false. Hermitage is a victim—not a perpetrator— of the Russian Treasury Fraud… In any event, there is no question here that the [US Government] complaint alleges Hermitage is a victim of the Russian Treasury Fraud.26 That fraud resulted in, among other things: a law enforcement raid on the offices of Hermitage and its law firm (A. 312-13 (Compl. ¶¶ 24- 25)); the theft of three Hermitage Fund corporations (A. 313-14 (Compl. ¶¶ 26-28)); the fraudulent imposition of hundreds of millions of dollars of fictitious liabilities upon them (A. 314-17 (Compl. ¶¶ 29-37)); the use of these stolen companies to perpetrate a theft from Russian taxpayers (A. 317-20 (Compl. ¶¶ 38-45)); the need for extensive legal action to remediate the fraud (A. 322-23 (Compl. ¶¶ 55-56, 59)); and the institution of retaliatory criminal proceedings against Hermitage agents who reported the fraud (A. 323-25, 327 (Compl. ¶¶ 58, 61-68, 72))… Indeed, Baker & Hostetler itself, in connection with its prior representation of Hermitage, has explicitly recognized that Hermitage is a victim of the Russian Treasury Fraud.” “Case 16-132, Document 118, 02/16/2016.”

“All the supposedly independent reports about this in the media and, for example, by the Council of Europe, got their key information from Browder or from people who trace back to Browder”

Of course, we have communicated with the victims, which include Sergei Magnitsky’s family, Bill Browder, and other representatives of Hermitage. We also communicated with representatives of the Government of Russia and the European Union.

The Magnitsky Act is the culmination of exhaustive investigation including open source and classified materials, public debate, and political negotiations spanning two Congresses.
As for the Council of Europe report, the Rapporteur described their information gathering in the following manner:

“In order to allow the Russian authorities to give me their official views on the different aspects of the case, I went to Moscow first, between 13 and 16 February 2013. Next, from 25 to 27 April, I travelled to London in order to meet both the competent British authorities and Sergei Magnitsky’s former client, Bill Browder. Already on 7 January, I met with the Swiss Prosecutor General and his Deputy and, on 29 and 30 April, with the competent Cypriot authorities. Finally, on 20 and 21 May 2013, I returned to Moscow in order to hear the Russian authorities’ response to the issues raised by all the other interlocutors since my first visit.”

As for the Russian filmmaker you mention, I assume you mean Andrei Nekrasov. If so, Nekrasov may have been a Putin critic at one time, but his recent track record suggests a possible change of heart. In or about 2010, Nekrasov made a film on Belarus, which was pro-Lukashenko. While Lukashenko isn’t Putin, he is certainly a kindred spirit and it’s unusual for someone associated with Russia’s democratic opposition to flatter another regional dictator.

I hope this background is helpful and, if you decide to run the story, the following quote may be attributed to Senator Cardin,

"Attempts to defame Sergei Magnitsky are as old as the crime he uncovered. One need only look to the posthumous prosecution and conviction of Magnitsky to understand the lengths Putin's violent kleptocracy is willing to go to keep its crimes hidden from the Russian people. Sergei Magnitsky may be gone, but his legacy of courageous patriotism remains an inspiration to those in Russia, and around the world, who work for a better future. And I am proud to stand with them."

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page