The court's consideration of Alisher Usmanov's claim against Alexei Navalny took place within the normal process, without violations on the part of the court, and a person's desire to protect his honor and dignity from slander is a normal civilized practice. So commented FBA "Economy Today" today's trial lawyer Vyacheslav Kokurkin.
The Lublin Court of Moscow accepted the lawsuit of businessman Alisher Usmanov against opposition leader Alexei Navalny and the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) founded by him on April 17. At the same time, a conversation took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, where the court invited the parties to enter into a settlement agreement, but the parties did not reach an agreement. The first meeting within this process took place today.
During the meeting, Navalny petitioned to subpoena the “main witness” - Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. According to the plaintiff, since the prime minister appeared in the FBK investigation, he should be questioned as a witness. Afterwards, the defendant’s defense asked to summon Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov to court. But how exactly this could help in considering the slander against Usmanov was not clear to those present or to the judge, so she left all these petitions without consideration.
The court hearings were more like a show than a regular process. Navalny and his representatives demanded that requests be made to foreign courts, that an interview with the late oligarch Boris Berezovsky be included in the case, and that the plaintiff’s lawyers refute the arguments stated in the “FBK investigation.” “You tell me this, and I will listen. Show me, prove where you got it from, where you found it, whether you dreamed about it, and then you woke up and made this film,” Usmanov’s lawyer Genrikh Padva responded to Navalny’s demands. As a result, the judge rejected 16 requests from the defendant, after which Navalny also declared no confidence in the court.
“Navalny’s wave of petitions was needed to delay the process. And to show that the outcome court hearings supposedly it is a foregone conclusion and Themis is a priori on the side of the plaintiff - after all, all the petitions were left unsatisfied. The absolute helplessness and lack of ideas of Navalny’s team is shown by the attempt to challenge the judge on this basis. But the specialist sees: the requests are not satisfied with reason, and the process is carried out according to all the rules,” the lawyer notes.
How Navalny offended Usmanov
Alisher Usmanov filed a lawsuit against Navalny over FBK materials published in early March. It states that Usmanov, the founder of USM Holdings, allegedly donated a plot of land with a house in the village of Znamenskoye on Rublevsko-Uspenskoye Highway to the Sotsgosproekt foundation. The head of the supervisory board of this fund, as noted, is Ilya Eliseev, a classmate of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
Usmanov subsequently explained that he exchanged the estate in Znamensky for land of 12 hectares offered by Sotsgosproekt next to his country house on Rublevskoe highway. However, according to Navalny, the 12-hectare plot that Usmanov is talking about has nothing to do with Sotsgosproekt. FBK called this deal a bribe, for which Usmanov accused Navalny of slander.
At the same time, Usmanov’s press service counted at least three obvious mistakes of the oppositionist, who, in the businessman’s words, decided, out of “the envy of a loser,” like Moska, to “bark at an elephant.” In the lawsuit, the billionaire demands that the disseminated information be refuted; no demands for compensation are made.
What was refuted in court
Unlike Navalny's team, Usmanov's lawyers came to court with evidence. And they diligently refuted the statements of FBK and the defendant personally against their client point by point. For example, the court was provided with a certificate from the Federal Tax Service, from which it follows: Usmanov complies with his obligations to the legislation of the Russian Federation. Whereas the FBK claimed that the businessman is not a tax resident of the Russian Federation. The documents confirmed: Usmanov pays taxes annually in Russia, and not in other countries.
The documents also confirmed the legality of the transfer of the donation and the act of acceptance and transfer of property to the Sotsgosproekt foundation, that is, the evidence of an alleged bribe and violation of the law again remained in the words of the FBK. In addition, the court was presented with a certificate dated April 2017, from which it follows that there is no information about Usmanov’s criminal record. Also document from Supreme Court signed by the chairman, which states that the sentence against Usmanov was overturned due to the lack of corpus delicti in his actions. Let us remember that Navalny openly stated that the businessman was convicted of bribery and rape.
“The level of training of Navalny’s “lawyers” is clear from the trial. The defendant appeals to emotions. For example, he claims that transferring a house worth 5 billion to someone is in any case a bribe. The defendants are trying to get acquainted with the real documents right at the trial, although they are obliged "were doing this before the publication of the results of the "investigation". Navalny sounds like absolute demagoguery, while Usmanov's lawyers showed an example of the behavior of a real lawyer - he is thorough and consistent, asks questions on the merits and answers all questions," the expert notes.
This is not the first time that FBK has gotten into trouble due to false accusations.
A few days ago, FBK published another anti-corruption “investigation” - a video by Kira Yarmysh entitled “Putin’s friend, who owns ALL television.” It contained so many factual errors that the authors had to remove it immediately. In particular, according to the investigation, Gazfond, which is managed by Yuri Kovalchuk's Leader Management Company, owns a controlling stake in Gazprombank, the sole shareholder of Gazprom-Media. But Leader Management Company has not belonged to Kovalchuk since 2014, and Gazfond’s share in the bank was smaller controlling stake shares
The video also claimed that the National Media Group (NMG) controls Channel One, however, NMG only has a 25% stake in Channel One. In addition, the video indicates that Kovalchuk appointed Yuliana Slashcheva, loyal to him, to STS, who is the co-head of the Mikhailov and Partners agency, but Slashcheva has not managed STS for a year and is no longer the president of Mikhailov and Partners. In addition, FBK showed the largest Russian cable operator Tricolor TV as part of the assets of Gazprom-Media, although it is not part of Gazprom-Media.
And on May 24, Alexei Navalny was caught getting likes on Usmanov’s video response. In this video, the head of FBK announced that the businessman is engaged in “winding up likes” for his video messages. But Internet users noticed that literally in a matter of minutes after the video was published, tens of thousands of “likes” and views appeared. Bloggers stated that all of Navalny’s videos show signs of the use of paid services to get “likes” and views.
Navalny lost to Usmanov in advance
Experts stated: if earlier Alexei Navalny hurled accusations against the abstract “Russian government” and flaunted that no one was answering him, now the situation has changed. And in the case of direct accusations against Usmanov, the head of FBK will have to answer for lies and insults not against abstract “authorities,” but against a specific person.
Usmanov, having published a second video message to Navalny, Once again called on the oppositionist to apologize for the slander against him. He still doesn’t want to do this to this day. Although litigation in this situation could well have been avoided. However, there is a completely plausible version that it is precisely the high-profile lawsuits surrounding own name Navalny is doing just that - for the sake of self-PR and accusing Russian courts of bias.
“This process is, in principle, simple and, from a legal point of view, extremely clear and simple. It might not have stood out in any way if it had not included famous people, and the trial was not preceded by a loud sensation on the Internet. It’s just a normal process for civilized countries in which a person tries to clear his name and reputation from the attacks of “experts” from the Internet who spread false information.
If a decision is made in favor of the plaintiff, Navalny will be required to delete all posts and publish a refutation. However, it will remain possible to appeal this decision in appeal and cassation. I am sure that Navalny’s team will play the card of bias and partiality of the court. It's too obvious. However, such accusations will again be for a specialist - any lawyer with minimal experience will understand that all this is just a political game by the defendant,” concludes Vyacheslav Kokurkin.
Photo EPA, collage NV
Usmanov was outraged by the accusations of Navalny and FBK more than a month after the publication of the investigation
Photo EPA, collage NV
On May 31, the Lublin Court of Moscow ordered oppositionist Alexei Navalny and the Anti-Corruption Foundation to remove the investigative film He's Not Dimon about the luxurious lifestyle of Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev
This decision judge Marina Vasina accepted, satisfying the claim on protecting the honor and dignity of oligarch Alisher Usmanov.
However, Navalny himself has already stated on his Twitter page that he is not going to delete his investigation.
FBK employee Georgy Alburov confirmed that the Foundation will not delete and social networks publications that mention Usmanov.
NV recalls how the conflict between Russian oppositionist Alexei Navalny and Anti-Corruption Foundation and Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov and how he developed.
Usmanov in the film He's Not Dimon for You
March 2, 2017 Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny published an investigation Anti-Corruption Foundation about the corrupt empire of Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
The investigation was framed as a film called He's not Dimon for you and published on the FBK website and YouTube channel Alexei Navalny.
About Medvedev's Rublev estate in the Moscow region, which was donated to a structure associated with the Russian prime minister by Alisher Usmanov, in the film we're talking about from 8 min. 54 seconds
According to FBK, formally, Medvedev’s property belongs to a network of charitable and non-profit foundations organized by his proxies and relatives. These funds receive "donations"from oligarchs and banks under state control and spend funds on the purchase of palaces, yachts and vineyards in Russia and abroad.
One of these funds - C otsgosproekt - belongs to Rublevsky residence in the Moscow region cost about 5 billion rubles ($87 million). The FBK investigation states that this residence was donated to the foundation by oligarch Alisher Usmanov.
The FBK investigation into Medvedev provoked mass protest rallies throughout Russia. After them, in Moscow alone, the police detained over a thousand participants. Navalny also announced a new action, which is scheduled to take place on June 12.
Late response
For more than a month, neither Medvedev nor Usmanov gave any comments about the FBK investigation.
Already on April 4, 2017 during communication with factory workers Tambov bacon, Dmitry Medvedev still commented on the film He's not Dimon for you, calling it “nonsense, dregs and compote.” At the same time, the Russian Prime Minister did not refute a single specific accusation against Navalny.
After this comment by Medvedev, oligarch Usmanov announced on April 11 that he would sue Navalny.
"I for a long time I didn’t pay attention to his false statements, so as not to create unnecessary PR for him, but in the case of the latest slander, he crossed the red line, accusing me of committing a crime. In this regard, I am filing a lawsuit against Navalny and will apply to law enforcement agencies", he told Russian media.
In response, Navalny noted that he was not going to renounce his accusations.
"I continue to accuse him and rely on documents. And I believe that he paid a bribe to this system charitable foundations, which belongs to Medvedev," he emphasized Russian oppositionist. Navalny added that the fact that Usmanov gave the estate on Rublyovka to Medvedev is a “legal fact.”
“Well, it doesn’t happen that they simply take and donate mansions to some incomprehensible foundations that do not publish reports. I think this is a bribe,” he concluded.
Fuck you! Video message from Usmanov to Navalny No. 1
On May 18, Usmanov unexpectedly recorded a video message to Navalny, in which accused the oppositionist of lying, calling him a “scoundrel,” and said that he supposedly had to “answer” to him.
“Lesha, please apologize, stop taking scattered facts out of context, building a picture that is beneficial to you. You would really apologize and live in peace... You will still have to answer to me, Lesha,” said, in particular, Russian oligarch.
At the same time, the oligarch did not provide any facts to refute the results of the FBK investigation in his video, but only recounted several episodes from his past.
“Your attempts to slander me are like a pug barking at an elephant. Fie on you, Alexei Navalny,” Usmanov also said.
Navalny published Usmanov’s video message in full on his YouTube channel, noting that he would certainly respond to the oligarch.
“Dear Alisher Burkhanovich Usmanov, of course I will answer and remind you point by point and tell everyone else what a swindler you are. And I assure you that my words will be more convincing. But so that there is no talk about that I am answering from a channel with a large number of subscribers, and you are a beginner video blogger, on my channel I want to publish in full the address of Alisher Burkhanovich Usmanov to me,” said the Russian oppositionist.
In addition, on the same day, May 18, during live broadcast on YouTube Navalny emphasized that he perceives the appeal of Usmanov, who offered to “answer” to him for “slander,” as a threat.
He also refused to apologize.
"We are not afraid, no one is in front of you [Usmanov] will not apologize,” Navalny said. The oppositionist added that he is not afraid to take part in debates with the Russian billionaire.
Fuck you again! Video message from Usmanov to Navalny No. 2
At the same time, the oligarch again stated that Navalny should apologize.
“And in general, take the first step - at least tell me if I was wrong. You will feel better, Alexey Poligrafovich Navalny. And in general, what kind of debate? You yourself made the debate between truth and lies. You and I will now have a debate in court, especially "that you try every day to give as many reasons as possible for this. That's where they will explain to you the difference between truth and lies. Fuck you again," Usmanov said in his video message.
On May 29, Navalny responded to this statement from Usmanov. In particular, he noted the boorish manner of video messages of the oligarch, who addresses him on a first-name basis.
“I understand perfectly well why you did this. You want to show, well, not even to me, but to everyone around, that you are the master of life and can talk in such a manner with any person who doubts that you have made your capital by honest way," says Navalny.
According to the oppositionist, Usmanov himself is used to groveling before everyone who is above him and to whom he pays billions in bribes, and about everyone else he believes that they can either be bought or intimidated.
Navalny also tells how Usmanov managed to get rich by selling Russian raw materials and a scheme involving the sale of shares to Gazprom, which at that time was headed by Dmitry Medvedev.
In addition, the Russian oppositionist explains how Usmanov evaded paying taxes in Russia with the help of offshore layer companies that belonged to him. Navalny also comments on Usmanov’s criminal past.
Court on the claim of Usmanov against Navalny
On May 30, the Lublin Court of Moscow began to consider the claim of oligarch Alisher Usmanov against FBK and its founder Alexei Navalny, who demands the removal of 12 publications of the oppositionist from the Internet.
At the trial Navalny’s defense and the Anti-Corruption Foundation asked to call Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev as a witness.
“I believe that without satisfying our petition, this process makes no sense. Through this process, Usmanov is trying to refute our investigation He's not Dimon for you", Navalny noted.
He also recalled that, in addition to the episode with a bribe in the form of an estate on Rublyovka worth 5 billion rubles, Usmanov and Medvedev are also connected by joint work at Gazprom.
At the same time, the judge did not resolve this petition on its merits and decided to first hear the parties and subsequently return to this issue.
In addition, FBK asked to summon Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov to court.
“The parts of the claim that concern Shuvalov cannot be considered without his interrogation,” Navalny emphasized.
The judge also did not make a decision regarding this request.
May 31 judge Marina Vasina satisfied the claim to protect the honor and dignity of oligarch Alisher Usmanov, obliging Navalny and FBK, delete 12 publications and publish a refutation.
Navalny responded by saying that this cannot be called a trial, because witnesses were not even questioned.
“If the system protects scammers and thieves in this way, then such a system needs to be fought even harder,” he commented on the court’s decision.
The fact that FBK and Navalny are not going to delete the film He's not Dimon for you and other publications related to Usmanov, the Russian oppositionist stated on his Twitter page.
In addition, FBK employee Georgy Alburov also said that the Foundation will not remove publications that mention Usmanov from all of its blogs and social networks.
Navalny also published a video refusing to remove materials about Usmanov on his YouTube channel.
On May 31, the Lublin Court of Moscow made a decision on the claim of Alisher Usmanov against Alexei Navalny and the Anti-Corruption Foundation. The court satisfied the businessman’s demands: it recognized the information disseminated by Navalny about Usmanov as unreliable and discrediting his honor and dignity, and ordered Navalny to remove the video materials from the network and publish a refutation. Lawyer Ilya Remeslo explains why the court made this decision, how strong the positions of the parties were, and what actions of Navalny and his defense led to this outcome.
Usmanov’s lawsuit against Navalny has become one of the most discussed topics in the media and blogosphere. However, no one has yet conducted a legal analysis of the case. Instead we observed a lot of online broadcasts of varying degrees of bias towards one of the participants in the process, as well as a lot of speculation.
The time has come to sort everything out in this story, which is what I plan to do, based on my own judicial practice for similar claims. Be patient - to properly understand what is happening, you should familiarize yourself with the legal basis and facts.
The essence of the dispute
To begin with, let me briefly recall what became the subject of dispute.
Alexei Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation published a film about Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and the property he allegedly controlled through charitable foundations.
Alisher Usmanov
Part of the investigation was devoted to Usmanov. It was said that he paid bribes to Medvedev and Shuvalov, censored Kommersant, was a criminal convicted of rape (in later videos) and embezzlement, underpaid taxes in Russia, and was involved in illegal privatization.
Usmanov demanded to refute this information in his lawsuit, pointing out that it discredits his honor and dignity and is unreliable.
Legal basis
To understand what norms the court and the parties to the dispute were guided by, I will briefly talk about the legislation applied in such cases.
Disputes about the protection of honor and dignity involving individuals regulated by a number of laws, including the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ( Civil Code), Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (Civil Procedure Code), as well as clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the application of laws.
“Defamatory, in particular, is information containing allegations of a violation by a citizen or legal entity current legislation, committing a dishonest act, wrong, unethical behavior in personal, social or political life."
It seems that Navalny simply did not read this document. Nor did Navalny’s lawyer Zhdanov see it, who said that this resolution “imposes on the plaintiff the obligation to prove that the information was disseminated in the form of a statement of facts.” Try to find at least something similar in the resolution at the link above. According to Zhdanov, allegations of bribery, rape, and tax evasion are not statements of facts, they are simply Navalny’s opinion about publications in Western media!
“In this publication, I disseminated my opinion about the publications of Western journalists,” Navalny himself replies.
Thus, Navalny’s lawyers and he himself admitted in court on record that this is not an investigation based on facts, but simply an opinion based on media publications.
“I don’t care about the court’s decision”
Now that you have a full understanding of the trial and the evidence, think about what decision the court could make under these circumstances? On what basis could the court refuse the claim if Navalny was unable to refute any of the documents presented by Usmanov’s lawyers, but constantly filed motions such as summoning him to judgment of the dead Berezovsky? Is Navalny really such a bad lawyer that he doesn’t know the basics of civil procedure? I doubt.
What did Navalny count on in this case and why did he organize a circus in court? The answer is quite simple - by making absurd requests, he wanted to portray himself as a victim of an unfair trial, knowing that he had no evidence and would still lose the case.
Having become familiar with this process, I involuntarily remembered another high-profile case. When Savchenko was tried, one of her lawyers, Ilya Novikov, directly said before the trial that “our task is not to win the trial, but to discredit him.” Translating into Russian - instead of painstaking legal work, stage a performance for the media. As a result, Savchenko received 20 years in prison.
Navalny chose a similar “effective” strategy - with the same predictable result.
This position is also supported by the fact that even before the end of the trial he declared that he would not carry out its decision. And after the trial he said that he “didn’t care about the decision.” Why then did he come to court if he refused to carry out its decision in advance - in order to gain publicity?
This position resembles an offended child, and not a lawyer, much less a politician aspiring to lead the country. At the same time, Navalny managed to lie again,
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Key quotes from the exchange of video blogs between Usmanov and NavalnyBusinessman Alisher Usmanov, before the start of the court hearing on the lawsuit he filed against oppositionist Alexei Navalny, recorded a video message to the latter, in which he responded to the main accusations against him made by the politician and which became the reason for filing the lawsuit.
At the beginning of his 12-minute address, Usmanov says that he recorded it for people “who still think that Navalny is telling the truth.” The billionaire says their opinion is important to him. Navalny himself posted this video on his website and promised to analyze it in detail later.
In his video, Usmanov addresses the oppositionist in absentia on a first-name basis and comments on the most popular accusations brought against him by Navalny. Usmanov already outlined most of the points from this video message in April in an interview with the Vedomosti newspaper.
Who is the criminal?
Navalny:
In his program “Cactus,” Navalny said about Usmanov that he “is worried that he was called a criminal.” At the same time, according to the politician, the businessman himself allegedly “served six years in Uzbekistan either for rape or for fraud, he is a criminal and was a criminal.”
Usmanov:
“You are lying that I am a criminal and trying to hide the fact that I was in prison. I have nothing to hide. I, unlike you, served six years in prison, and on a really fabricated case - about the theft of socialist property, which I did not steal ", about a bribe that I did not give to anyone. You said that I was imprisoned for rape - that is, with this manipulation of articles and words, you immediately wanted to erase the line between a person and a non-human."
“If you were a real lawyer, you would know that a person who was completely rehabilitated, not at his own request, but by a decision of the country’s Supreme Court, is not a criminal - if the person is rehabilitated on the principle and basis of the absence of corpus delicti. Of the two of us, a criminal “It’s you, because today you are under a sentence from the judiciary and on probation.”
Was there privatization?
Navalny:
“Let Usmanov tell us as much as he wants about his investments in Uber. Well, he invested, so what? What is the source of investment and in general 90% of his wealth? Here it is: privatized hefty Soviet mining plants. They are digging iron ore concentrate from a quarry and that’s all. They started digging with 1960s, it’s just that at some point Usmanov came there,” Navalny wrote.
Navalny also claimed that Usmanov allegedly “simply privatized or kidnapped or otherwise took ownership of these plants, but he created absolutely nothing.”
Usmanov:
“You are lying, that the source of my wealth is the largest privatization transactions. A lie. You say that I took and stole Soviet mining and processing plants. Mortgage auctions, as far as I remember, ended in 1995, I never participated in any of them , and in subsequent privatization transactions too."
“Our first deal in 2004 was a record deal, and the amount we paid for the Mikhailovsky GOK was more than $1.5 billion, of which we collected half a billion ourselves, the shareholders, and the bank gave us a billion - and we repaid this loan on time by the way "You are lying when you say that we received all these assets for free from someone, as a gift."
“You’re lying about everything. The fact is that I received all this for free. Our only participation in a state auction was in 2008, when we again paid a record amount for the right to develop the Udokan field, half a billion dollars, and that was the most a major deal with the state outside the oil and gas sector."
How many jobs?
Navalny:
“He hasn’t created a single job. All that Alisher Usmanov has, the basis of his business empire, is such Soviet mining and processing plants, it was created some time ago, in the 70-80s,” he asserted Navalny in the program "Cactus".
Usmanov:
“You are lying once again that I have not created a single job. You are simply ignorant, because over the 10 years of my management of enterprises, 40 thousand jobs have been created. More than 800 billion rubles have been invested in them - in technology, in the infrastructure of these enterprises ". Multiply the average exchange rate, and you will understand how much it is. It’s even awkward to say this figure. And was this modernization at the expense of the Soviet regime? Maybe according to the state plan? Or maybe Leonid Ilyich left me the party’s gold?"
Where does Usmanov pay taxes?
Navalny:
"Alisher Usmanov, richest man Russia, with a fortune of more than $13 billion, refused Russian tax residency. This means that he officially notified Russian authorities that he lives most of the year in the UK and Switzerland, so he will no longer pay taxes in Russia,” Navalny said in a video dated 2016.
Usmanov:
“You’re lying that I don’t pay taxes in Russia. Where do you pay taxes yourself? And in general, do you pay taxes? But I pay taxes only in Russia. And I want the people you’re lying to, to fool their brains “, you lie, you slander, they knew that this year alone I declared 2.7 billion rubles in taxes, and over 10 years I paid almost half a billion dollars, if translated at the exchange rate.”
Where does the money come from?
Navalny:
“So we have a senseless, useless oligarch, whose money came not from entrepreneurial talent, but from huge Soviet mining and processing plants, where people work in terrible working conditions. One of the most expensive yachts in the world, built through the sale of raw materials extracted from huge Soviet GOKakh," Navalny wrote on his website.
Usmanov:
“As for the other funds that torment you so much, I also want to say something, because I feel terrible envy of a loser and a failed businessman who started his business with kickbacks on small transactions. I made a lot of transactions abroad, on other exchanges countries - in London, New York - and I paid the wonderful taxes on this that I talked about. And the profit that I earned there was more than 4.5 billion dollars."
“Out of this money, in addition to taxes, I gave another billion to charity and simply helping people - are these also bribes? Well, with the rest, if you are very interested - I just want to explain this to you so that you do not envy - I bought everything that "I have, among other things, a wonderful boat and a plane. Because I generally live in happiness, Lesha, unlike you."
Bribe or payment?
Navalny:
"Usmanov donated the Social State Project to the foundation, controlled by people[Russian Prime Minister Dmitry] Medvedev’s estate on Rublyovka worth 5 billion rubles,” Navalny said in another issue of Cactus. At the same time, he added that he and his employees regard this as a bribe.
Usmanov:
“You are also lying when you say that I give bribes. You understand, bribes are not registered in the registration chamber. They do not openly transfer money from their account. You still need to read books on real estate, land ownership, and so on. Because sometimes it happens in them that people are paid not only for making a deal, but for what they don’t do.”
“This whole story with the land, with the house is a huge multi-year, multi-stage, so to speak, saga in which there were three interested parties, and I had to pay not for the fact that there was a deal, but for the fact that it was not between them "And everyone had to pay. One had assets so that he would give up the profits he wanted to make on his land, the other - loans and money so that he would cede the land."
Miners or miners?
Navalny:
Navalny claimed that Usmanov allegedly “underpays his workers, he underpays taxes, due to this he enriches himself, due to this he bought his famous yacht for 400 million euros.” “This is the basis of his wealth, and he has not created any jobs and does not bring any positive effect to the economy,” the politician said.
Usmanov:
“In general, you should have investigated a little deeper somehow. For example, Lesha, you say that we have miners. Again, that’s not true - we don’t have miners. Well, at least you would find out. They work for us open method ore mining. We have miners - and the salaries of these miners, by the way, are much higher on average than in the region, by as much as half. And much higher than in other regions of Russia."
During one of the most high-profile trials of the year - the consideration of a claim to protect the honor, dignity and business reputation of billionaire Alisher Usmanov against the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) and its head Alexei Navalny - it became clear that the court was not inclined to satisfy the petitions of anti-corruption fighters.
Today, May 31, judge Marina Vasina decided to satisfy Alisher Usmanov’s claim. According to a court decision, Alexey Navalny must remove the investigation into the “underground empire” of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, since this film discredits the dignity of... no, not the prime minister, but the oligarch Usmanov.
The oppositionist's position is already known: he is not going to comply with the court's decision. Navalny’s response was just published on Twitter:
Apparently, Alexey Navalny will continue his legal fight - but already in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Medvedev and Shuvalov were not summoned to court
On May 30, when the hearing took place, Alexei Navalny and his lawyer Ivan Zhdanov tried to prove that FBK's accusations against Usmanov of tax evasion, a conviction for rape, an alleged bribe to Dmitry Medvedev, illegal possession of a mining and processing complex and the introduction of censorship in the Kommersant publishing house were reliable. . However, the FBK team based their evidence only on words, so the judge rejected each accusation for lack of facts to support these allegations.
Genrikh Pavda did not refuse to take a photo with Alexei Navalny,
although these photos will probably be used
in new revealing materials of the oppositionist
Alisher Usmanov’s lawyer, Genrikh Pavda, built the oligarch’s defense on the basis of the following documents:
1. Certificates dated April 2017, according to which Alisher Usmanov has no criminal record.
2. A document dated June 2010, which states that the businessman was indeed convicted of theft of state or public property by misappropriation or embezzlement, fraud and theft of state or public property by fraud. But on this moment these facts “do not matter,” since the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan overturned the verdict and Usmanov was rehabilitated.
3. Promised donation agreement land plot to the Sotsgosproekt Foundation, as well as an act of acceptance and transfer of property and a certificate from the tax office, which reported compliance with all of Usmanov’s obligations.
The court decided that these documents were quite enough to prove the billionaire was right.
To attract the necessary evidence and information, Navalny stated petitions to summon Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov to court. Navalny accused both of them of receiving bribes through dummies. According to Navalny, Dmitry Medvedev received a bribe from Usmanov in the form of a land plot and an estate in the village of Znamensky, Odintsovo district, which were donated to the prime minister’s classmate Ilya Eliseev, head of the Sotsgosproekt foundation. Shuvalov, according to FBK, was given a bribe in the form of returning a loan in the amount of $118 million rubles, which Usmanov returned to the deputy prime minister’s wife.
But the court did not satisfy the petition to summon Dmitry Medvedev and Igor Shuvalov.
This is not the first time that the court has rejected absolutely all of Alexei Navalny’s requests. It is not surprising that the head of FBK himself began the trial with the words:
“At first, dear court, you refused all my requests, and then I suddenly found out that I had lost. Please be open-minded this time.
This call, as we see, was not heeded by the judge.
But the court treated the requests of Alisher Usmanov’s defense favorably. It was also noticeable that lawyer Genrikh Pavda behaved calmly and even somewhat smugly: it seemed that he had no doubt about the outcome of the case.
Usmanov won the trial, but lost in the long run
It seems that Alexei Navalny again managed to turn the negative agenda in his favor: the trial with Usmanov, despite the decision, will play into the hands of the oppositionist. This is additional PR, these are new posts and videos with revelations (it was not for nothing that Navalny behaved sarcastically in court and cheerfully took selfies with Usmanov’s lawyer). Navalny’s audience will once again be able to see the specifics of the Russian judicial system. In Europe, opposition claims against the Russian government will again be heard.
But the results of the trial for Alisher Usmanov are not so clear. This looks like a Pyrrhic victory. The court's satisfaction of a libel claim will in no way convince Russians that it is libel - something that Usmanov himself understands very well. Quite the contrary. The very fact that the oligarch became a “video blogger”, addressing the audience in the same way as Navalny, means important thing: Usmanov realizes that Russians' trust in the judicial system is very low. Simply put, judges are not trusted (which, by the way, is).
So there was no point in clearing Usmanov’s reputation with the help of the court. On the contrary, it was more beneficial for him not to attract additional attention to himself. But why then was the trial held, why was the lawsuit filed?
And this became completely clear from the results of the court decision. The court ordered Navalny to delete the video “He’s not Dimon for you.” And this shows quite clearly that who was to become the true beneficiary of Usmanov’s claim.
The oligarch himself seemed to be fulfilling the “request” of the beneficiary. For the businessman, this decision came at a high price: his reputation is crumbling under the blows of “fame.” Dubious fame is hardly useful for a person like Alisher Usmanov. It is unlikely that business partners will treat him with the same degree of respect after the stream of “photographs” and ridicule that caused. And for Usmanov himself, this, apparently, is not very pleasant, since he tried to fight off the subpoena with money - .
If Alexey Navalny decides to continue the fight in the European Court, the international reputation of the oligarch will also suffer. And this is even more dangerous for Alisher Usmanov. Scandals on the RuNet are followed primarily by a Russian-speaking audience, and now the scandal threatens to become public knowledge foreign press, television and the Internet. There is no reason to expect that the oligarch’s business partners abroad will react to this scandal with sympathy.
But Usmanov probably knows what he is doing. Perhaps a reward awaits him for “throwing himself at the embrasure.” And this award, unfortunately, will be given at the expense of all-Russian economic interests. But it is also possible that the oligarch had to “pay off debts” in such a specific way. This practice is already known in Russia: an example is the donation of Faberge eggs and Renoir paintings to the museum by oligarch Viktor Vekselberg. Then no one doubted that Vekselberg had to “buy off” the close attention to his capital. Perhaps in the case of Usmanov we are seeing the same picture.
Well, you have to pay for everything in this world, and for big money you have to pay triple.
Photo: novayagazeta.ru, kp.ru, svoboda.org
print version