InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

scion

11/06/18 4:52 AM

#32679 RE: scion #32678

Going After the Enablers

CHARLES DAVIDSON & BILL BROWDER Published on: November 5, 2018
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/11/05/going-after-the-enablers/

We sat down with Bill Browder to talk about how many Western lawyers, bankers, and financiers—the enablers of foreign kleptocrats and human rights abusers—have a lot to worry about with the passage of the Global Magnitsky Act.

Charles Davidson for The American Interest: Bill, it’s great to see you again. This will be the third interview you’ve granted The American Interest, and I hope not the last. You’ve come to focus more on the issue of Western enablement of kleptocracy, and I was wondering if you could comment on how the Global Magnitsky Act could, or should, be used to sanction those in the West who are complicit in hiding the money of the “bad guys.”

Bill Browder: Well, before we even get into that, we should talk about who are the Western enablers and what are they doing in different categories. In the Magnitsky case, we’ve had an opportunity firsthand, to see how the Western enabling system works, because as the Russians have tried to cover up the murder of Sergei Magnitsky, and cover up legal liability, and cover up the money laundering, they’ve engaged a bunch of people from the West.

The most interesting examples are connected to Natalia Veselnitskaya and Prevezon. Prevezon received proceeds of the crime that Sergei Magnitsky had uncovered. They were prosecuted by the Department of Justice, and as part of their trying to wiggle out of their legal liability, they spent a vast amount of money on Westerners to help them. The most interesting story was the story of lawyers that they chose. Natalia Veselnitskaya chose an American lawyer with a very curious name, John Moscow. You actually couldn’t make up such a name for a story like this. John Moscow . . . but what made John Moscow so particularly interesting in our story was that John Moscow had actually been the lawyer for us, in finding the dirty money, and in introducing us to the Department of Justice. And then, once the money was found, and once we got the Department of Justice to open a criminal case, John Moscow then switched sides and became a lawyer for the Russians.

It’s a perfect example of how people in the West will sacrifice their values, their legal obligations, in order to make money for the Russians. John Moscow wasn’t the only enabler that joined the Veselnitskaya team. You also had Glenn Simpson, the opposition researcher who was an anti-corruption activist . . . or, he claimed to be a Russian anti-corruption activist prior to this whole series of events, and then he started taking money directly from the Russians to try to cover up the legal liability of Prevezon, and to try to blame me for all of the problems.

TAI: Well Bill, you’ve certainly had your experiences with Western enablement, and you’ve certainly had your experiences with kleptocracy, so this is certainly on point. I’m familiar with this story, and know a lot of these people.

Now, I’d like to jump in this regard, to the Global Magnitsky Act, specifically section 1263, paragraph four—the language regarding the authorization of imposition of sanctions on intermediaries, which refers to someone who “has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of” either human rights abusers or various acts of corruption. Who should be worried by this language? What does this mean?

BB: So the Global Magnitsky Act is really an unbelievably powerful tool. It does several things. The Global Magnitsky Act goes after human rights violators, those people who had been involved in torture and killing of people. It goes after people who are involved in high level corruption, so kleptocrats, people who are stealing massive assets from their governments. And then, most importantly, it goes after two categories of people: People who are acting as nominees for these people, their agents. That’s the first category. And then, it goes after people who have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, or technological support or goods and services, for those people I’ve just mentioned.

TAI: That sounds pretty interesting. What exactly does this mean?

BB: This comes right back to the issue of the Western enablers. Basically, one could sanction, let’s say, a Nicaraguan general, who is involved in this thing, but one, in theory, could also sanction a British lawyer who is hiding the assets of the Nicaraguan general. These powers haven’t been used yet. There have been a number of Global Magnitsky designations which have been focused on the horrific human rights abusers. But I suspect, and certainly I will be involved in, advocating for the use of the Global Magnitsky Act against the enablers in the West.

It doesn’t take many cases of a lawyer, or some type of financier, to get caught in this thing, to create an absolute terror and panic among the entire Western enabler community. Right now, there are a lot of people in the West who choose, consciously, to amorally assist very bad people, who have done very bad things, in exchange for money. They view their situation as having very little downside, and only financial upside. What the Global Magnitsky Act does, particularly paragraph four of section 1263—it goes after the enablers. All it takes is a few of these stories, and we’ll see a sea change in the risk/reward calculus for these people.

TAI: If we look at the Global Magnitsky Act, or what’s now called GLOMAG—I mean, this thing is becoming so ubiquitous that it’s got its own shorthand amongst its proponents and advocates—there’s a bill that’s passed in the UK, I understand that the Baltics have passed something. I’m wondering: How do these other GLOMAG bills compare to the U.S. legislation?

BB: Well, first of all, I should say I hate the acronym. I hate it for one simple reason.

TAI: Good, I do too. It’s inelegant. It doesn’t sound good.

BB: Well, it doesn’t sound good, but also, the whole purpose from my perspective of the Magnitsky Act was to name it after Sergei Magnitsky, the victim. And to sort of bastardize that is very unappealing to me. People in government and elsewhere should continue to call it the Global Magnitsky Act.
...
MUCH MORE
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/11/05/going-after-the-enablers/