Posts Tagged ‘browder’
Case of the Day: Karpov v. Browder
International Judicial Assistance
The case of the day is Karpov v. Browder, [2013] EWHC 3071 (QB). The case arose out of the death of Sergei Magnitsky in a Russian prison in 2009. Magnitsky had been investigating a tax fraud committed in Russia. His death in custody was widely condemned, and in fact, the US enacted a new statute, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, which prohibits those Russian officials the US government considered to be responsible for Magnitsky’s abuse and death from entering the United States or accessing the banking system.
The defendants in the case were Hermitage Capital Management Ltd., its CEO, William F. Browder, a UK affiliate of the Fund, and a Russian law firm, Firestone Duncan (CIS) Ltd. Magnitsky, before his death, had worked for Firestone Duncan. He was investigating an allegation that the Klyuev Gang, apparently an organized crime group, had conspired to take control of some Hermitage Fund subsidiaries and thus to procure an illegal $230 million tax refund from the Russian government, which went to the conspirators. After Magnitsky’s death, the defendants pushed for accountability. Their efforts included, notably, English- and Russian-language websites that featured videos. Mr. Browder also gave an interview to the BBC and wrote an article in Foreign Policy. In all of these materials, Pavel Karpov, a Russian investigator, was named. Karpov claimed that the materials were defamatory insofar as they implied that he was guilty of Magnitsky’s murder, that he was party to the tax fraud, and that he had previously trumped up charges against another, Fedor Mikheev, in order to cover up the fact that he (Karpov) had kidnapped Mikheev in an attempt to extort money from him.
Read More →
Facebook
Twitter
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
del.icio.us
Google Bookmarks
Yahoo! Buzz
Tumblr
StumbleUpon
FriendFeed
NewsVine
Digg
High Court delivers blow to libel tourism in Magnitsky libel ruling
The High Court has thrown out a libel case by a retired Moscow policeman against a UK fund manager in a case that has been labeled a blow to libel tourism.
UK businessman Bill Browder instructed HowardKennedyFsi (HKFsi) partners Mark Stephens and Sue Thackeray to lead the defence of defamation claims by Pavel Karpov.
Karpov turned to Olswang partner Geraldine Proudler to lead the claim, which related to allegations on a campaigning website run by Browder about the death of his lawyer Segei Magnitsky.
Magnitsky died in a Russian jail in 2009 but he was convicted of tax evasion in June in a posthumous Russian trial. Browder and his UK-based fund Hermitage Capital claimed Karpov was complicit in the “torture and murder” of Magnitsky on a website, Russian Untouchables, and in TV interviews.
Matrix Chambers’ Antony White QC, appearing for Browder, applied for the court to strike out the claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process.
One Brick Court’s Andrew Cadecott QC, instructed by Proudler for Karpov, had said in written submissions that “all the allegations are very serious and in the claimant’s case false”.
Dismissing the claim Mr Justice Simon ruled: “The claimant cannot establish a real reputation within this jurisdiction ufficient to establish a real and substantial tort.”
Read More →
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Google Buzz
- LinkedIn
- del.icio.us
- Google Bookmarks
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Tumblr
- StumbleUpon
- FriendFeed
- NewsVine
- Digg
Libel tourism dealt blow as Russian case is thrown out
Libel tourism suffered a serious setback yesterday when a judge threw out a claim by a Russian against a British-based fund manager.
Bill Browder, who successfully led a campaign for sanctions against Russians involved in a $230 million fraud, had been accused by Pavel Karpov, 36, of ruining his reputation.
Mr Browder had alleged that the Russian was behind a large-scale fraud on the Russian taxpayer and linked to the death of Sergei Magnitsky, an anti-corruption activist.
The case has been described as one of the worst examples of libel tourism, in which foreign nationals with little connection to Britain make use of the High Court to settle disputes.
Striking out the action yesterday, Mr Justice Simon said: “The claimant’s connection with this country is exiguous.” Russia, he added, was “the natural forum” for the litigation.
Mr Karpov, a former policeman, was trying to sue over allegations on a campaigning website run by Mr Browder, 49, the chief executive of Hermitage Capital Management. Mr Browder has become a hate figure within the Russian establishment after he persuaded the US Congress last year to adopt the Magnitsky Act. This imposed sanctions on Russians — including Mr Karpov — alleged to have been involved in the $230 million fraud and also with the death of Mr Magnitsky, an accountant and auditor Mr Browder employed to investigate the fraud.
Read More →
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Google Buzz
- LinkedIn
- del.icio.us
- Google Bookmarks
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Tumblr
- StumbleUpon
- FriendFeed
- NewsVine
- Digg
Blow to libel tourism as court throws out claims of corruption and crime in Eastern Europe because judges believed they had little connection to Britain
The trend for foreigners to have libel disputes settled in Britain could soon be a thing of the past following a landmark High Court decision.
Britain is a popular destination for so-called libel tourism because complainants believe they have more chance of winning a case in our legal system.
But yesterday, two libel cases involving allegations of corruption and crime in Eastern Europe were thrown out by judges because they were deemed to have little connection to Britain.
The decisions were hailed as a victory against libel tourism, which has become an embarrassment to Britain after a number of US states introduced laws enabling their courts to refuse to enforce defamation judgements handed down here.
One of the two cases was brought by a former Moscow policeman against City fund chief William Browder, chief executive of Hermitage Capital Management, who said he had covered up a £150million fraud by causing the torture and murder of a prisoner.
But Mr Justice Simon said that the policeman, Paul Karpov, had no established reputation in Britain and so could not have suffered harm from the allegations. ‘The connection with this country is limited to the presence of some of the parties and it being the place where some of the defamatory material was, and continues to be, published,’ he said.
Read More →
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Google Buzz
- LinkedIn
- del.icio.us
- Google Bookmarks
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Tumblr
- StumbleUpon
- FriendFeed
- NewsVine
- Digg
Magnitsky, the libel courts, and sanctions
On 16 November 2009 Sergei Magnitsky died in prison in Russia. Shortly before his arrest and imprisonment he had been investigating a substantial tax fraud committed against the Russian Federation by a criminal gang. I shall refer to this tax fraud as the Hermitage Fund fraud.
Beyond this short summary, many of the facts in issue between the parties are unknown or controversial, and are subject to stark divisions of opinion…
So began Mr Justice Simon’s judgment in Pavel Karpov v William Felix Browder & Hermitage Capital Management Limited & others on Monday. And the rest is very much worth reading.
The High Court judge ultimately threw out the libel claim made by Karpov (a Russian ex-cop and Magnitsky List member) against Browder — largely because of “exiguous” grounds to link the case to the UK. Simultaneously, Mr Justice Simon said that there were “inadequate particulars to justify the charge that the claimant was a primary or secondary party to Sergei Magnitsky’s torture and murder”.
The “exiguous” point alone will probably see the case feted as a turning point for ‘libel tourism’, even beyond the Defamation Act which is just coming into force in the UK. Perhaps even for overseas litigants making use of English courts in general. So, here are key bits of the judgment on this stuff:
For these reasons, I am satisfied that the Claimant had no connection with, and had no reputation to protect within, the jurisdiction; and therefore cannot establish a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction. His reputation exists in Russia and the damage to his reputation (which is presumed as a matter of English law) is in Russia. The contrast with the facts of Berezovsky v. Michaels (see above) is stark…
His connection with this country is exiguous and, although he can point to the continuing publication in this country, there is ‘a degree of artificiality’ about his seeking to protect his reputation in this country. This is an important, but not determinative, consideration on the Defendants’ application to strike out the claim…
But there’s more to it. For one thing, an end to libel tourism or not, the case’s legal bill sounds pretty big: Monday’s ruling refers to the “substantial costs” if Karpov’s claim had reached a full trial.
Read More →
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Google Buzz
- LinkedIn
- del.icio.us
- Google Bookmarks
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Tumblr
- StumbleUpon
- FriendFeed
- NewsVine
- Digg
Russia: London libel case against Browder distracts attention from truth about Magnitsky’s death in detention – See more at: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37179/en/russia:-london-libel-case-against-browder-distracts-attention-from-truth-about-magnitsky%E2%80%99s-death-in-detention#sthash.B9dwAWc1.dpuf
Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian whistleblower, who died in pre-trial detention in 2009, was recently found guilty, posthumously, of tax fraud offences. Despite clear objections by his family, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office put Magnitsky on trial posthumously under special provisions in Russian law. This week, his colleague, William Browder, who was tried and convicted in the same trial, is contending libel allegations in the High Court in London. ARTICLE 19 is concerned that the libel case against Browder deflects attention from finding the truth about Magnitsky’s death.
“The libel case against William Browder is adding insult to injury. It is absolutely reprehensible that William Browder should be pursued in this fashion in the High Court of England and Wales. ARTICLE 19 calls on the judge to dismiss the case in the strongest terms possible,” stated Dr Agnes Callamard, Executive Director, ARTICLE 19.
On 16 November 2009, whistleblower Sergei Magnitskiy died in pre-trial detention under suspicious circumstances, indicating that this was the result of torture or other ill-treatment. In 2007, Magnitsky uncovered a £150m (220m USD) tax fraud scheme run by officials from the Russian interior ministry. However, he was later arrested and charged with running the fraud himself. Sergei was then investigated by the exact same police official against whom the allegations had been made.
“To date, the circumstances of Magnitky’s death and the arbitrary criminal charges brought against him have not been effectively and impartially investigated by the Russian authorities,” added Callamard. ”We are extremely concerned that Russian officials are not focusing on investigating the circumstances of Magnitsky’s death and bringing those responsible to justice, but rather on those speaking out about his case and those involved in it.”
The case of Sergei Magnitsky is the highest profile example of what can happen to someone who blows the whistle about corruption and wrong-doing by the Russian authorities. It is absurd that the Russian authorities continue with their campaign to punish Sergei for his allegations even after his death.
Read More →
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Google Buzz
- LinkedIn
- del.icio.us
- Google Bookmarks
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Tumblr
- StumbleUpon
- FriendFeed
- NewsVine
- Digg
Libel tourism dealt blow as Russian case is thrown out
Libel tourism suffered a serious setback yesterday when a judge threw out a claim by a Russian against a British-based fund manager.
Bill Browder, who successfully led a campaign for sanctions against Russians involved in a $230 million fraud, had been accused by Pavel Karpov, 36, of ruining his reputation.
Mr Browder had alleged that the Russian was behind a large-scale fraud on the Russian taxpayer and linked to the death of Sergei Magnitsky, an anti-corruption activist.
The case has been described as one of the worst examples of libel tourism, in which foreign nationals with little connection to Britain make use of the High Court to settle disputes.
Striking out the action yesterday, Mr Justice Simon said: “The claimant’s connection with this country is exiguous.” Russia, he added, was “the natural forum” for the litigation.
Mr Karpov, a former policeman, was trying to sue over allegations on a campaigning website run by Mr Browder, 49, the chief executive of Hermitage Capital Management. Mr Browder has become a hate figure within the Russian establishment after he persuaded the US Congress last year to adopt the Magnitsky Act. This imposed sanctions on Russians — including Mr Karpov — alleged to have been involved in the $230 million fraud and also with the death of Mr Magnitsky, an accountant and auditor Mr Browder employed to investigate the fraud.
Read More →
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Google Buzz
- LinkedIn
- del.icio.us
- Google Bookmarks
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Tumblr
- StumbleUpon
- FriendFeed
- NewsVine
- Digg
Judges dismiss wealthy foreigners’ libel cases
Lawyers have proclaimed the “death knell” of libel tourism after High Court judges threw out two cases brought by wealthy foreigners concerning claims published abroad.
London has been named “the libel capital of the world” due to the number of claims brought by foreign nationals complaining about allegations in non-British publications that have been viewed just a handful of times in the UK.
But two rulings have led lawyers to suggest that judges are seeking to curb such a use of the English courts.
One of the libel claims was brought by a Serbian tobacco distributor, Stanko Subotic. He brought the case over allegations published outside the UK and written in Serbian and Montenegrin, which suggested that he was a criminal mastermind linked to murder.
Mr Justice Dingemans threw out the case, describing the two-year libel claim as an “abuse of process”.
Mr Justice Dingemans rejected Mr Subotic’s claim because the articles had been read by very few people in the UK, adding that it “really has nothing to do with his reputation in England and Wales and everything to do with his reputation in the Balkans”.
The judge said that dismissing a libel case as an abuse of process was a “draconian” step used only in exceptional circumstances. However, he said that allowing the case to proceed risked “disproportionate and unnecessary interference with freedom of expression”.
Mr Subotic was attempting to use London’s High Court to sue Ratko Knezevic, a former Montenegrin trade official, over allegations that appeared in five Serbian or Montenegrin-language publications. Hard copies were not officially circulated in England and Wales.
Read More →
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Google Buzz
- LinkedIn
- del.icio.us
- Google Bookmarks
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Tumblr
- StumbleUpon
- FriendFeed
- NewsVine
- Digg
The verdict that finally goes against libel tourism: Fatal blow for individuals with little or no link to UK trying to bring claims
The use of the English courts by individuals with little or no link to the United Kingdom to bring expensive libel proceedings was dealt a likely fatal blow yesterday after judges threw out two defamation suits brought by foreign claimants.
Bill Browder, the millionaire hedge fund owner who has led the campaign for justice over the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, won the dismissal of the case brought against him by a former Russian police officer accused of playing a part in the 2009 death of the tax adviser while in custody.
Mr Justice Simon, sitting in the High Court, struck out the lawsuit brought by Pavel Karpov, a retired interior ministry investigator, after ruling that he “cannot establish a reputation” in England which would justify his claim that he was libelled by Mr Browder being heard in this country.
Lawyers said the ruling, which accompanied a separate judgment throwing out a defamation suit brought by a Serbian tobacco magnate on similar grounds, sets a precedent which will make it far more difficult for litigants who are unknown in Britain to use the courts to seek libel damages.
The practice of so-called “libel tourism”, under which international claimants have been able to file cases in London for alleged libels principally committed outside the UK, was already due to become more restricted when the 2013 Defamation Act comes into force.
Read More →
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Google Buzz
- LinkedIn
- del.icio.us
- Google Bookmarks
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Tumblr
- StumbleUpon
- FriendFeed
- NewsVine
- Digg
