Skip to comments.A Whistleblower in Moscow--And we don't mean Edward Snowden.
Posted on 07/13/2013 4:43:17 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
A day before, Mr. Snowden's protectors offered a lesson in modern Russia's respect for human rights. A court in Moscow convicted Sergei Magnitsky, who had exposed a $230 million embezzlement scheme run by Russian officials, on tax fraud charges. He received no prison term, but not because the Moscow judge had gone soft. Beaten and suffering from pancreatitis, Magnitsky died in agony four years ago while in pre-trial police custody. He was a brave whistleblower who exposed abuses and sought no glory for himself.
This was the first posthumous prosecution in modern Russian history, complete with an empty steel cell in the courtroom for Magnitsky. Stalin killed his victims after a show trial, but Magnitsky in his afterlife has brought a lot of grief to Vladimir Putin, and the Russian leader doesn't forgive or forget.
Magnitsky was a lawyer for William Browder, a hedge fund manager in Moscow. For years, Mr. Browder lobbied Congress to adopt a law that bars Russian rights violators, starting with Magnitsky's killers, from banking and travelling in the U.S.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Why dont they mention that Browder was a Soross associate? There are strong rumors that Browders enterprise was tied to Bernard Madoff as well and it was about stealing billions from Russian government via phony tax returns. A timeline between busting the scheme by Russian authorities and Madoffs insolvency adds credibility to these rumors.
All of these people including deceased lawyer couldnt really do it without any help from some corrupt Russian officials but it doesnt make themselves any innocent. The problem is theyve chosen a line of defence poorly. Being busted themselves, theyve started their “whistle blowing”, accusing their unfortunate helpers in government as if themselves are just a simple observers.
As for Magnitskys death he seems to be a long time alcoholic, he has developed undiagnosed pancreatitis and numerous alcohol related issues before being imprisoned and certainly could die anyway if he was to continue his lifestyle ignoring doctors. He was actually first diagnosed in prison and died shortly after.
Why there is so much interest about Magnitsky? Hundreds of people dies in prison in Russia, US and elsewhere. There are other examples of alleged mistreating American businesses in Russia, US and elsewhere. Why Hermitage Capital, Browder and Magnitsky are more equal than other animals?
Because it is irrelevant, even if true?
Why is it irrelevant?
Maybe it makes sense for Russians to sanction US DOJ officials over Susan Atkins death as well?
Nothing is funnier than watching Russians, when they mess up, yell "But Soros did it!" like some four-year-old brat.
OK, let’s imagine Soros has nothing do do with that.
What exactly makes Magnitski a martyr?
I’m not sure if I’d call him a martyr, but he exposed the graft, corruption, and general lawlessness of the Czar and his minion.
>>>Im not sure if Id call him a martyr, but he exposed the graft, corruption, and general lawlessness of the Czar and his minion.<<<
Czar was involved too?:-) I’d like to see a link too!
I meant that slimy KGB weasel . . . what’s his name again, Gasputin?
OK, in other news Obama has personally murdered Susan Atkins.
I appreciate your attempt to change the subject, but it’s not gonna’ work.
In fact I’m not.
There, there . . . of course you are not. Just go ahead and make up anything you wish if it makes you feel better.
Normal people realize how insane it is to try people in posthumo.
I did enjoy Snowden's egomaniacal press conference, though.
"I had a family!" (Were they all assassinated or something, Eddie? Or is a live-in stripper girlfriend of a few months a "family" now?)
"I lived in great comfort!" (You sacrificed a sublet in Hawaii for four star hotels in Hong Kong and Moscow, Eddie. You made that sacrifice for us all.)
"I had the power to intercept everyone on earth's personal conversations! All of your communications!" (Uh huh. Sure you did, omniscient genius. But even if you did, did you have legal permission to do so? No. Which is kind of the point and which completely undermines your whole argument.)
It would've been hilarious to get the guy who says, "But Russia builds churches!" and then proceeds to post a photo of one from Bulgaria.
>>>>1r, cf has an ongoing Soros obsession and is a huge Putin fanboy.<<<<
I’m not a fan of Putin. I know who he is. I’m not a fan of Assad in Syria as well. But I’m much less a fan of Russian communists and Al-Qaeda and for that exact reason I prefer both Putin and Assad in place and dislike blatant propaganda aimed at these people.
And I’m not a fan of Soros as well.
>>>>Normal people realize how insane it is to try people in posthumo.<<<<
I appreciate your ignorance, FRiend, it is clear you have little to none background in foreign law.
In Russia they are limited to four various major grounds to close a criminal case (there are two more but they are implemented for specific crimes and can’t be legally used in Magnitsky’s case):
1) if it is established there is no criminal act at all (for example if a death was considered suspicious but autopsy indicates cancer or heart attack).
2) if it is established there is an act damaging objects and relations protected by the criminal code but person may not be charged under that exact circumstances (for example killing in self-defence).
3) Expiry of certain period of time since the criminal act (exact period depends on specific crime, ranging from 2 to 15 years).
4) Death of a suspect or an accused is a ground to close his case as well.
Normally, people aren’t tried posthumo, and initially this case was closed in November 2009 under 4th ground.
The problem is there was a ruling of a Russian Constitutional Court on July 14, 2011 in unrelated case. An idea of this ruling was that people have a right for a legal protection of their deceased relatives’ honor and indiscriminate using of 4th ground to close criminal cases ruled unconstitutional as a kind of extrajudicial activity (because a detective presumes a person was guilty if a case is closed after is/her death using it as a ground).
There was an amendment and using 4th ground during pre-trial investigation was allowed only under consent of deceased’s relatives and their attorney.
Prosecutor’s office reopened a case under this amendment and handed it back to police. Apparently there were no cooperation from defence attorney and a case wasn’t closed but went to court to finally find who is right and wrong.
I guess authors of this article could mention it as well instead of painting a picture of ridiculous “insane” trial over dead individual.
I wish poor Magnitsky RIP but Browder’s version stinks to high heaven. It contradicts an obvious timeline of events. He is protecting his reputation in the first place.