Few are surprised to learn that Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s and Planton Lebedev’s 14 year sentence was handed down from above. What was surprising was that Natalia Vasileva, the aide to Viktor Danilkin, the presiding judge in the second Yukos trial, actually went public and admitted the fix was in (original interview in Russia). Whistleblowing is rare in Russia. The risks are too high. Still, there has been a surge of whistleblowing of late. In 2009, there was Alexei Dymovsky, a former police officer who took to Youtube to denounce police corruption. There’s Alexei Navalny’s successful crusade against Transneft’s $4 billion fraud. Then there was that cardiologist who ratted out the Potemkin hospital Putin visited on the latter’s annual Q&A extravaganza. Most recently, there was Artyom Charukhin who came clean about falsifying police reports framing oppositionist Ilya Yashin for assaulting police. Lastly, inspired by Wikileaks, a Russian version, RUleaks.org, has begun. So far that site has been responsible for drawing attention to Putin’s $1 billion garish neo-Tsarist palace near the Black Sea.
Is this some kind of Wikileaks effect? Or have some brave souls just become too damn tired of it all and are stepping forward? Or, and I’m sure this theory is out there somewhere, Vasileva’s revelation, in particular, will pave the way for Medvedev to “pardon” Khodorkovsky by pointing to his favorite pet project: fighting corruption. Namely, this could be the first salvo from Medvedev’s camp for re-election 2012. You never know with Kremlin politics being akin to “bulldogs fighting under a rug” and all. For Vasileva’s part, when asked about her motivation, she said, “I don’t have any vested interests, I am disillusioned.”
Okay, I’ll go with her being sincerely disillusioned. But what has thus far made Vasileva’s whistleblowing fundamentally different from several of those cases above is that they either personally participated in said corruption or provided documents proving it. Vasileva doesn’t seem to have any of those besides her own observations, inter-office gossip and rumor, and personal interpretations all mixed in with a large dose of assertiveness. If she has any hard evidence like, I don’t know, some kind of paper trail, then she’s keeping that close to the chest.
Nevertheless, her interview with Gazeta.ru has produced shock waves. Everyone is talking about it. The gory details are that Judge Danilkin was repeatedly receiving instructions from the Moscow City Court on how to conduct the trial. Not only that, and this is the real scandal, Khodorkovsky’s and Lebedev’s sentence was handed to Danilkin from upon high.
Interviewer: Who wrote the sentence?
Vasilyeva: Danilkin started to write the sentence. I suspect that what was in the sentence did not suit a higher authority. And in connection with this, he received another sentence, which needed to be made public.
But since the (other) sentence was not finished by 15 December that is probably why the postponement period was extended so much.
Does this mean that the sentence that Danilkin wrote could have been read by someone before publication?
It was not read but simply, how can I explain this… When there is total control, there is no need to read it, you just need to ask what is in it.
. . .
You said that Danilkin had the sentence handed down to him from above. Who wrote it and who handed it to him?
I know absolutely for sure that the sentence was delivered from the Moscow City Court. And that this sentence was written by judges from the appellate court for criminal cases – that is, the Moscow City Court. That is obvious.
No-one apart from the Moscow City Court could have written it. And the corrections were due to this being a short stretch of time.
Who wrote the text at the Moscow City Court?
A source in Danilkin’s close entourage named the names of the judges to me, I know the names but I would prefer not to name them now.
To corroborate the assertions above, Vasileva’s claims that she repeatedly witnessed the magistrate fretting, upset and indignant over “the fact that he was being given instructions about what he had to do,” adding, “He did not like it at all, that is clear.” Moreover, Danilkin apparently understood that being the devil’s pawn put him on shakey ground as the whole ordeal began to take a physical and psychological toll on him. His day to day work was paralyzed by the whims of his handlers in the Moscow City Court. At one point he allegedly angrily interjected to Vasileva’s queries, “I cannot give you an answer to those questions because I do not know where I will be tomorrow, or what will happen to me.” Being a tool of higher-ups didn’t sit well with him. On his desk were a series of heart remedies: Corvalol, tincture, and valerian. Moreover, according to Vasileva, since the verdict Danilkin’s “psychological condition . . .has become very morose, he is constantly depressed, sad… Well, like when you understand that something bad is going to happen – that is the condition he is in. He is unsmiling, taciturn, he is sometimes very irritated.” Basically, Danilkin did what he was told and now he will probably have to take the fall for it.
There’s only one problem with all Vasileva’s assertions. She doesn’t really have any hard evidence. Sure we’d like to believe that Khodorkovsky’s trial was fixed. Even I, who thinks that MBK is nothing but a crook and deserves what he gets, understands that his trial is political and nothing short of show trial. My problem is that the trial isn’t political enough and there aren’t more oligarchs, including those sitting in the Kremlin, in the dock with him. Still, even though Vasileva tickles our hot spot, shouldn’t we nevertheless demand something more than her observations of an irritated and worried Danilkin or seeing him on the phone with the City Court? Shouldn’t her assertions that Danilkin didn’t write the verdict be based on more than “indirect” aspects of the text like: “secretaries amending the electronic form of the sentence” to remove “technical errors – the odd paragraph, commas, incorrect line spacing.” I don’t mean to piss on everyone’s collective jubilation over the Kremlin finally got busted for something we all assumed already, but shouldn’t such allegations be based on more than Vasileva getting information from colleagues of colleagues and her own self-assurance that:
I know absolutely for sure that the sentence was delivered from the Moscow City Court. And that this sentence was written by judges from the appellate court for criminal cases – that is, the Moscow City Court. That is obvious.
No one apart from the Moscow City Court could have written it.
How is she “absolutely sure” and how is it “obvious”? Um, like, some actual evidence would be nice? But then again, Vasileva might not have the burden of proof since she’s already telling us what we already think and/or want to hear. Right?
{ 28 comments }
Hi Sean,
Yes, quite a surprise that Natalia Vasileva decided to speak ‘out of school’. It’s unusual for someone in her position, even if all this happened in the United States. Of course, an appearance of impropriety isn’t proof of any impropriety, so we will have to see how this all plays out.
May I respectfully suggest that, if you truly think that MBK is nothing but a crook who deserves what he gets, Natalia Vasileva’s statement should prompt you to reconsider? She is so obviously telling the truth! – “hard evidence” is not required, not for me and not for the wider majority of observers of the persecution of MBK at the instigation of VVP.
The small minority of MBK’s enemies, of whom you are obviously one considering your unsupported statement that MBK is a crook, could benefit from seeing the new documentary about him premiered at the film festival in Berlin this week. You probably know, there was an attempt to suppress the film by a theft from the director’s studio.
In my opinion – having seen the Berlin premiere of the film – there is one very clear, even probable, motive for the theft of the film. It has to do with the clip of Igor Yurgens, referred to in the film as being an adviser to President Medvedev, talking to camera and describing the famous meeting which occurred in February 2003 at which Mikhail Khodorkovsky accused Putin to his face of personal corruption and involvement in a theft of state assets. Yurgens criticised Khodorkovsky’s arrogant manner in addressing the then President in a television broadcast, but in an extraordinarily frank conclusion added: “But it [the corruption allegation] was all true!” An astonishing, but of course absolutely believable, statement from a highly-placed official who was in a position to know.
Putin is aware that he is personally vulnerable, should corruption charges be brought against him after he leaves office – and, this being the case, the short but dramatic confirmation by Yurgens of Putin’s personal complicity in the theft of state assets indicates who possessed the most powerful motive for the theft and suppression of the film. “A thief should sit in jail” – apt words, when applied correctly. Putin is the only crook in the case. His subversion of Russia’s judicial system to keep MBK in jail is so obvious, so utterly blatant, that I wonder at your naive persistence in mistaking the bad guy.
I’ll just say this much. First, it doesn’t surprise me that someone who works for an investment company to be a partisan for Khorodkovsky. When it comes to generating fictitious capital, MBK is one of the gods in the investment pantheon.
Second, to quote myself from above: “My problem is that the trial isn’t political enough and there aren’t more oligarchs, including those sitting in the Kremlin, in the dock with him.” Basically, I don’t fit into your Khodorkovsky v. Putin, go(o)d v. evil binary. If anyone is naive here it’s your belief that MBK is some kind of saint, or in your words “an honourable man” who didn’t lie, swindle and possible kill to get the wealth that made Yukos.
I don’t know if Vasileva is telling the truth or not. Maybe she is. I’m just asking for evidence. But I guess that doesn’t matter to you since she’s saying what you and apparently many others already believe. However, if we’re going by public opinion then maybe we should privilege the majority of Russians who believe MBK is getting what he deserves regardless of the motivations behind it. He’s one of their own and it was their wealth he expropriated, and have to live the consequences that comes with MBK’s trials.
But wait a second, isn’t the lack of evidence of exactly what those partisans for MBK constantly throw at the Kremlin? I find you’re indifference to Vasileva’s lack thereof quite a double standard.
I haven’t seen the MBK film yet. I will when it comes to the US just our of curiosity. But I hope it’s better that piece of shit Death of a Dissident. I dropped $14 on that trash and I’ve been regretting it ever since.
Knowing of the anti-Khodorkovsky prejudices which have been embraced by some blogosphere commentators I don’t normally enter your arena (not liking its lack of objectivity), and did so on this occasion only because your piece about Natalia Vasileva achieved more publicity than it deserved as a result of the regrettable decision by David Johnson (whose objectivity is sometimes doubtful) to include it in his broadcast. I still have hopes that you will change your mind before long considering all of the evidence (including Vasileva’s brave statement) which, you are well aware, has by now been accepted by virtually one hundred percent of the world’s mainstream media as demonstrating the falsity of the verdict in the recent mock trial of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, leaving Putin’s fan club in the blogosphere in an uncomfortable minority. You did not respond specifically to my remark that Putin has subverted Russia’s judicial system to keep MBK in jail, and I suppose you do not disagree with my view on that minor point. Do you?
Yes, MBK is an honourable man and a true Russian patriot. Whether or not the majority of the Russian people share that opinion is actually not what matters. What matters is the truth. Your charges that MBK lied, swindled and “possibly” murdered are untrue and without substantiation and I invite you to withdraw them. But perhaps you have more pressing matters to attend to?
Jeremy Putley wrote:
“I still have hopes that you will change your mind before long considering all of the evidence (including Vasileva’s brave statement) which, you are well aware, has by now been accepted by virtually one hundred percent of the world’s mainstream media as demonstrating the falsity of the verdict in the recent mock trial of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, leaving Putin’s fan club in the blogosphere in an uncomfortable minority.”
Mark Twain wrote:
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
I think I’ll take the latter!
A late, but necessary comment:
If you are as ill-informed about MBK´s business as you are about Mr Putley´s, you should not say anything at all in public about the whole affair. From my own experience I can tell you that Jeremy Putley´s personal integrity is beyond all doubt and that his professional work has nothing at all to do with “generating fictitious capital”. I am quite sure about the complete lack of evidence for this kind of libel.
Maren Koop
There is no requirement that Khodorkovsky be regarded as an angel for Vasileva’s claims to be taken seriously. Menatep was without question a much-feared player, admittedly among several feared players, in the Russian oil sector in the 1990s. That Khodorkovsky and his confederates were not alone in committing all sorts of awful misdeeds is obviously not a defence.
But did the two trials of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev represent due process in any commonly understood sense of that phrase? The absolute best that can be said is that they represented a form of rough justice perhaps. But to pretend the proceedings conformed to anyone’s notion of formal justice, with appropriate protections for the two accused, is pure propaganda, a whitewash.
Vasileva’s public acknowledgment of this, as an insider and former spokesperson for the court, is strong evidence with respect to the second trial. As a mid-ranking support person in a court, she would have been immersed in the court’s culture and sensibilities, no doubt sharing them for much of the time. Whatever her motives in breaking ranks, the likely consequences to her for having done so point to a high degree of sincerity.
Any defence lawyer would love to have her as a witness in seeking a mistrial. Her testimony would not be enough of course. The doubts it would raise would then need to be supported by phone records, textual analysis (to check the authorship of the sentencing document) and other testimony, by subpoena where necessary. And the “other side” would obviously be entitled to challenge all this, and to put forward its own evidence, including the testimony of the judge himself.
Now THAT would be due process. I would love to see it happen, in some form. I very much doubt that it will.
A very good and thoughtful comment. It was good to see those initials again: FH!
You don’t have to believe that Khodorkovsky was an honest businessman to feel repugnance at way the legal proceedings against him were (and are) conducted.
Good to hear from you too Kolya.
Or alternatively, you can believe MBK was not an honest business *and* not give a damn about the unctuousness of the legal proceedings against him.
In fact, you can believe – like Sean – that the major problem is that not all of Russia’s oligarchs were treated in a similar way. Or, for that matter, the offshore robber banksters now looting the Anglo-Saxon world with impunity, as bought out politicians cannot lift a finger against them.
“Khodorkovsky and his confederates were not alone in committing all sorts of awful misdeeds” – what were these allegations of wrongdoing,can you be specific? Or perhaps you don’t know?
To quote Sean: “I’m just asking for evidence”. Sean however has not (yet) found it possible to answer.
I wrote that Sean’s serious allegations “that MBK lied, swindled and “possibly” murdered” are untrue and without substantiation. If he cannot substantiate these charges he should admit that he is in the wrong.
Prime minister Putin is not averse to alleging – on national television – that MBK issued instructions for the murder of certain persons. Is it your position that because Putin said so, it must be true?
Or what do you believe, and on what grounds?
As I’m neither a fan nor, to use your term, an enemy, I have no reason to engage in that sort of discussion. Sorry to disappoint. I would say that he and his ilk enriched themselves at the expense of the Russian state and population in ways which surely would have led to prosecution anywhere else. Sadly, much the same can be said of their successors.
My issue here is with Sean’s view that Vasileva’s statements are immaterial as they are either undocumented or are second (or third or fourth) hand. I believe she would be an extremely important witness for Khodorkovsky’s legal team in the (highly unlikely) event they had an opportunity to mount a proper legal challenge.
Let me state a few things that will hopefully clear up my position on this.
1) I’m not doubting Vasileva’s sincerity. I don’t think she’s lying, nor do I actually doubt her claims. It is certainly within the bounds of the Russian government to hand down a verdict from above. I just want to see more evidence besides her own testimony. If these allegations are going to get any traction beyond the Russian liberal press, then more proof is needed. That is all.
I’m also with Joera’s comment below that I wouldn’t be surprised that despite Vasileva’s sincerity, there might be others behind her. I don’t have any proof of this, but if I was going to make the claims she’s making in Russia I would want to have a big patron behind me first. She’s taking big risks and I applaud her for that, but if she doesn’t want anything more than her eyebrows missing, she better make sure someone with actual influence has her back.
2) On Khodorkovsky’s theft and possible involvement in murder. It’s funny. Before MBK was crushed by Putin, the Western press had no illusions about his antics. In 1997, the NY Times accused MBK of looting funds from the Bank of New York. From reading David Hoffman’s account of how MBK wrestled control of Yukos through setting up shell companies and offshore accounts it seems clear that he was a swindler. But now that MBK is a victim of Putin, that past has been whitewashed, and now no Western paper would dare besmirch his good name.
As for murder, see David Satter’s account (in Darkness at Dawn, 107-11) of the murder of Vladimir Petukhov, the mayor of Nefteyugansk. Let’s see Petukhov wages an anti-Yukos campaign and then ends up dead. Hmmm . . . Everyone in Nefteyugansk weren’t under any illusions who offed Petukhov: Yukos. Now, Jeremy, I know you buy Litvineko’s testimony that Petukhov was killed by the FSB, but please, less coincidence has been used to allege Putin’s involvement in murder.
The thing I don’t understand about the whole MBK thing is why he’s the alpha and omega. Why does he get so much attention? Yeah, sure he was targeted by Putin and remains so. I get that. But why has MBK been turned into some kind of saintly martyr? Why does he, of all people, generate so much passion? And yes one can be outraged at both the conduct of the trial against MBK and how he got his money. I just wish that that outrage at the system revolved around a more sympathetic figure, or at least one I think got his comeuppance.
Also, please stop putting me in the Putin v. MBK binary. It’s just annoying. There are no saints in this game. I don’t believe Putin any more than I do MBK, and frankly would one day like to see both of them sitting in prison cells across from each other.
On a final note, I’m with Sublime O, in that at least the Russian government has done something against the people who robbed the state, however authoritarian and selective that something is. The same can’t be said of the US government.
“I’m with Sublime O, in that at least the Russian government has done something against the people who robbed the state, however authoritarian and selective that something is.”
Oh, come on, Sean. The reason Khodorkovsky is in jail is because he was too arrogant with respect to Putin. Most billionaires (and other very very rich) who robbed the state but didn’t challenge or angered Putin are still free.
I certainly would have liked to see several Wall Street financiers prosecuted and there are plenty of inequities in the US legal system. As bad as it is, though, it is ludicrous to suggest that the Russian justice system is not much much worse.
I don’t disagree with you on why MBK got it and others didn’t. MBK got the shaft because he didn’t play by the rules. But from my political perspective, the ends justifies the means. I don’t know how many times I have to reiterate that I recognize that MBK’s case is political and that my only regret is that more aren’t sharing the docket with him.
Where did I suggest that the Russian legal system is better than the American? Now you’re putting words into my mouth.
Sean, I thank you for your reply to my post a couple of days ago. I note that you have not given an answer to my direct question, “… Putin has subverted Russia’s judicial system to keep MBK in jail, and I suppose you do not disagree with my view on that minor point. Do you?” and I’m curious about your reluctance to do so. You no doubt recognize that, after all, it is a very significant (not “minor”) point, bearing on the fitness of the present prime minister for his office. So I repeat my question.
Regarding my other requests to you to explain your accusations, I note that your description of MBK as a swindler relies on the David Hoffman book. There are other books which cast things in a different, fairer light. I will just say that your choice of “lied and swindled” really isn’t justified by an objective examination of the facts. I don’t want to abuse the hospitality of your blog by entering into a lengthy discussion of the point, so I guess I will have to agree to differ at this stage.
But your very serious, hostile allegation that MBK is possibly a murderer is worth another look. As explained by David Satter: “The police did not share the conviction of the crowd that Yukos was responsible for the murder of Petukhov. They gave greater credibility to the possibility that Petukhov had been assassinated for his action in closing the city market ….” This could very well be the explanation of why MBK has not been charged with involvement in the murder. Btw I do not favour the Litvinenko narrative that Petukhov was murdered by the FSB over the alternative theory advanced in the Martin Sixsmith book, “Putin’s Oil”, that the murder was the work of gangsters who were aggrieved by Petukhov’s failure to pay them promised money. I would only say that there are several narratives which are more credible than that the murder was ordered by MBK. From which it follows that your allegation that MBK is possibly a murderer is tendentious, specious, unsupported by facts, and unworthy of being repeated.
Your blog is a place where people irresponsibly throw around allegations which they are either unable or unwilling to explain or justify. As such it is deficient as an academic resource and I hope your students get that.
Jeremy, we’re not in court here.
Sean is entitled to say MBK is a crook and probably responsible for quite some murders. Me too. David Johnson should be able to reprint everything he wants without you criticizing his objectivity.
You seem to want to surpress opinions other than yours, claiming that such opinions can only be stated with sufficient proof. Like I said, we’re not in court. And even if we were, you are acting as if you are the defense lawyer and the judge at the same time. Do you like mr. Khodorkovsky. Fair enough. Go and write wonderful things about him, but let the reader decide for him or herself and don’t attack people who disagree with you.
All the best to you and Maren Koop and your Committee to Free Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev.
Agreeing to disagree is where I’m at on this too Jeremy. You clearly have your own agenda concerning MBK as part of an organization to free him. I just have my opinions and no stake in the matter. When it comes down to it I really don’t care about MBK’s fate, and I’m certainly not interested in engaging in a mock trial about him.
You can call me or my blog academically “deficient” all you want. I’ve been called a lot worse on this and other forums.
Sean,
Sloppy stuff, Mr. “Historian.”
It wasn’t 1997 when the Times published reports about Khodorkovsky, it was 1999. And the Times clearly pointed out that Khodorkovsky was no different than Jay Gould, who was never arrested by the U.S. government of course (did you know that, Sean?).
What’s more, in 2003, many months before Khodorkovsky was arrested by the Kremlin, the Times prominently reported how Khodorkovsky was leading the charge to implement Western-style honesty and transparency in Russian corporate life. So it’s perfectly clear why the West was appalled by his clearly political arrest and his neo-Soviet show trial.
Russian “history” according to Sean Guillory is a very surreal place indeed.
You are very truly Russian in your hypocrisy, though. You question Putley’s objectivity without stopping for a second to ask whether your own avowed Marxism disqualifies you from reliable commentary about a capitalist like Khodorkovsky. Hilarious, very Russian stuff there.
Nor do you, of course, recognize that the friends of Putin routinely demand allowances for abuse so he can help Russia to find a better place; yet they never give Khodorkovsky any such leeway, do they Sean? Do you?
Meanwhile, it’s genuinely shocking that even the likes of you could in any way seek to rationalize the crass manipulation of the Russian court system for political purposes. In doing so, you help Russians to continue down a path that leads only to failure and national collapse.
With “friends” like Sean Guillory, Russians need no enemies.
I would just like to add one thought to the nearly indigestible mush of ideas above: A person does not have to be able to present any evidence like written documents, e.g., in order to be an important eyewitness or earwitness, if there is no reason to doubt his or her credibility with respect to a certain case. “FH”, although not giving the impression of being a supporter of Khodorkovsky, rightly says that “the likely consequences [to Ms Vasileva for having made her declaration] point to a high degree of sincerity.” I can only hope that the truth of Ms Vasileva´s statement will be proven before too long by a legal re-evaluation of the Yukos case and not by an attack on her life.
Maren Koop
Just to add another option: Natalia Vasil’eva acts out of sincere concern for the state of the Russian court system AND her revelations were agreed upon with the defence team and well rewarded. No girl decides on such things alone.
To take it a bit broader: Many of Russia’s whistleblowers are given incentives and some form of protection: Dymovsky, Naval’nyi. This is how Russian politics works. You fabricate a case in the media and see how people react. On that basis you can estimate the effects of / support for potential reforms. Who organizes these things? Not necessarily the people on top, more likely the people that try to push the top people in a certain direction.
I know that Russia is a country that makes our mind boggle, but Russia is not a country where heroes fight with villains, it’s as mediocre and multilayered as our own societies.
Sorry, but if you want a hero to believe in go read some fiction …..
Poka, Joera
I have to contradict the prejudice that Ms Vasileva, as a “girl”, cannot be supposed to have decided on important matters alone. I do not contradict the idea that she may, possibly, have received a reward or some form of protection in connection with her statement. However, perhaps you agree that this would not falsify her revelation. If you are right, I hope – as a woman – that the support and protection she undoubtedly needs now will turn out to be sufficient.
Maren
My apologies. I should have written ‘young woman’
Re: “…Russia is not a country where heroes fight with villains, it’s as mediocre and multilayered as our own societies.”
Exactly. Couldn’t agree more.
BTW. For what it’s worth, the judge Danilkin denies Vasilyeva’s claims.
And Vasileva passed a polygraph saying that her claims are true.
And Aldrich Ames passed a polygraph test twice during the nearly 10 years he was a spy for the Soviet Union, while working for the CIA. Robert Hanssen passed regular polygraph tests during the 22 years he was a spy for the Soviet Union, while working for the FBI. The polygraph has never caught a real spy; not once. However, it has been instrumental in ruining the lives and careers of several people who had done nothing wrong, such as counterintelligence officer Mark Mallah and Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee.
It’s no coincidence that the polygraph was developed by the same man who invented the comic book character “Wonder Woman”, with her “magic lasso of truth”.
Nothing can be inferred about the truthfulness of Vasileva’s statements based on her having passed the polygraph.
All the polygraph proves is positive belief not fact and if this girl is correct then…so what?. MK was likely prosecuted in a legal gray area political manner, but then he was apparently in the process of committing high treason anyway. MK showed a clear identity and loyalty to foreign authority figures and to the detriment to the Russian public good. According to Putin, MK’s industrial security head is a convicted killer which implies involvement on the part of MK and his associates. In the US, the National Security Act, the Patriot Act, and RICO give the US government the authority to do exactly what the Putin admin did. Keep an eye on Citgo’s US fuel refining operations should the Obama admin decide to get really nasty with Hugo Chavez.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }