By Lucy Komisar
Jan 28, 2020

In December, the Danish Press Board rejected a complaint that tax fraudster William Browder filed against Finans, Finans.dk, a Danish financial news outlet, part of the national daily Jyllands-Posten, that reported on his tax evasion and invented Magnitsky story in a documented exposé by journalists Jette Aagaard and Kristoffer Brahm.

It is the first complaint Browder ever filed against a major newspaper, which was then backed up by an independent press board which confirmed the story of his fakery.

I wrote the first article exposing Browder’s corruption in 100Reporters in 2017, but he filed no complaint against me or that investigative website. There were no mainstream media challenges to the Browder hoax since then, till this in March 2019. The Danish reporters consulted me in preparing their stories.

The Dec 12, 2019 Press Board report details Browder’s charges and the press committee‘s findings – all against him, all supporting the reporters‘ investigation of his tax evasion and corruption. It was a solid and resounding blow to his Magnitsky hoax by an important western media organization. This was not reported in other western media, which, following Russophobic policies, continue to repeat his fabrications.

Here is the shattering Press Council decision in Danish and in English, which provides evidence for any western media that cares about the truth. I have boldfaced key parts. In the original text, people‘s names are given in legal practice as Person A for Magnitsky, etc, but I have inserted the real names. I have also posted photos and links to add to understanding of the text. My comments are in bold italics.

Finans, March 12, 2019 article: Danish Bank and Nordea‘s evil money-laundering have enormous influence – but can you trust the man who is sentenced to nine years in prison for tax fraud? More articles in Finans.com.

Everything that follows is from the report.

The article states

William Browder has been proclaimed a hero in the Western world. A man who fights against the bad guys. Almost single-handedly has taken up the fight against corrupt Russia with a betrayed President Putin at the head, and for years has waged a tireless fight for human rights and to get justice for his tax auditor, Sergei Magnitsky, who died in 2009 in a Russian prison.

He plays a key role in the major disclosures of money laundering cases in Danske Bank, Nordea, Swedbank and several other international banks. And he is the man who has led the United States and other countries to enact Magnitsky laws, which means that named Russians can neither enter the United States nor do business in countries that have enacted the legislation. A law that has caused Russia to retaliate and almost caused the Cold War to flare up again.”

Fact box Magnitsky legislation

“The Magnitsky Act applies, among other things. Russian nationals suspected of human rights violations. Specifically, this means that 49 named members of Putin’s inner circle are listed on a band listing, and they cannot travel to law enforcement countries or do business there. The United States, Canada and the Baltic countries are among those who have introduced such a sanction list while the EU is working on the matter and Denmark is considering it. The background to the sanctions list is the story of the late Russian tax adviser Sergei Magnitsky who died in prison after accusing senior officials of stealing $ 1.5 billion kr. in one of Russia’s spectacular cases of corruption.

The article continues

But is Browder a hero, or is the truth also that he cynically exploited Magnitsky s death in a Russian prison to remove the focus from the the fact that, as an investor in Russia, he was in the spotlight for committing tax fraud – and ended up with a nine-year sentence for just that?

“It’s a malicious and objectionable question. When was murdered, I promised in memory of him, his family and myself that I will do everything in my power to seek justice for him,” Browder writes in an email to Finans. He does not deviate from his own version of history: that after he founded the investment company Hermitage Fund in Russia in 1996, he became the country’s largest foreign investor.

But in 2007, he faced a plot when Russian investigators searched his office, stole some of his investment companies and subsequently used them to steal $1.5 billion DKK [$230mil US] from the Russian Treasury. When Magnitsky, as tax auditor, revealed the plot, he was imprisoned, tortured and killed. And when critics object to Browder‘s version, he slams them down hard. The acclaimed and award-winning Russian film director Andrei Nekrasov is one of those who has been touted as a propagandist paid by the Russian intelligence service after making a highly critical documentary film about Browder in 2016. (TheMagnitskyAct.)

Fact box

Andrei Nekrasov, the filmmaker, is an award-winning director of documentary films. He has become known internationally for his highly critical films about Russia, Putin and the Russian intelligence service. Among his films is one about the former KGB agent Litvinenko, who moved to England and became a major critic of Putin and the KGB. In England, two Russian agents reportedly killed Litvinenko with the radioactive substance Polonium. Poison murder became a huge cause in the media of the world.

He has also made highly critical films about Russia’s war efforts in Chechnya and Georgia. After the movie about Litvinenko, the plan was to make a movie about the hero Magnitsky who died standing up against the Russian oppressors. During the course of the research, according to Nekrasov, he realized that Browder‘s story about Magnitsky is untrue.”

The article continues

“Despite the fact that Nekrasov – who now lives in Norway – is the man behind several documentaries with a critical focus on Russia, President Putin and the intelligence service FSB. “Browder calls people who attack him Russian agents. My bad luck is that I was born there and have a Russian name, so psychologically it’s easy for him to attack me. But it is paradoxical, because I made a series of highly critical films about Putin and Russia while Browder went around and was a big fan of Putin defending him. He said Putin was amazing and not corrupt. Until the Russian police began to take an interest in Browder‘s tax fraud,‘‘ says the filmmaker.

He emphasizes that despite his label as Russian propaganda, his film has not received a crown from Russia, but is produced by Norwegian Piraya Film, which among other things, has produced the Oscar-nominated documentary The Act of Killing and the documentary Cold Case Hammarskjold.

In the documentary, you follow Nekrasov, who first wants to make a tribute film based on Browder‘s story, but later turns his head and ends up portraying Browder as a manipulator. It has not been possible to interview Browder, but he writes in an email that it is not true that he is hitting hard on his critics.

I would be happy to address honest critics, but we have had to deal with a massive disinformation campaign starting from the top of the Russian government in retaliation for the Magnitsky Act, he writes, continuing: Anyone who has looked closer to the Russian government’s disinformation campaign, have dismissed their version of the events as outraged and laughable, as story is based on.

The conclusion is clear: The version of the truth that Browder travels and disseminates in the West is far from the whole truth. Otherwise, the credibility of Browder plays a crucial role in the Magnitsky case, as it has become known in the media of the world and in the political aftermath. For politicians in both the United States and Europe, the emphasis has been on his personal narrative. Browder‘s credibility was tested when in 2015 he was forced to testify under oath in a U.S. lawsuit. Here, a company had ended up in the “fat barrel” to have received part of the $1.5 billion DKK tax dollars that Browder claims were stolen from the Russian Treasury in a plot in which his old companies were abused.

It was Browder who had reported the company to the police. He had personally delivered the documents to the New York Prosecutor’s Office and later took them over to the federal prosecutor’s office. Despite his role in the case, Browder did not sit voluntarily in the witness desk that the defense had called him to. He escaped several times from lawyers trying to subpoena him.

A video on Youtube shows one of the escape attempts. After a visit to American talk show host Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show on February 3, 2015, when Browder told his version of the Magnitsky story, you see him out on the snowy street, pushing a woman to the side, jump into the back seat of a car and out again on the other side before fleeing down West 51st Street in Manhattan.

The article continues

Browder gives an explanation of his escape in an email. “They were trying to access documents about my security, my personal movements, the whistleblowers who helped us, and the government investigations we assisted. Providing the Russian government with these documents directly would have put me, my family, my colleagues and our community of justice activists at risk of being killed by the Russian government.’ And here it emerged that Browder‘s investment fund, Hermitage, did not solely have the activist approach to oligarchs, which Browder later emphasized. Apparently, the company was also strongly focused on paying as little in taxes as possible.

 Hermitage had established at least several investment companies which, according to the authorities, did not comply with the legislation, and the companies were convicted of tax evasion in the courts.

Fact box with the heading Tax fraud, Tax Rigging”

Hermitage established investment companies in the southern Russian region of Kalmykia, where companies can get a tax rebate if at least half of the employees are disabled. That rule was allegedly introduced to help veterans of the Afghanistan wars in jobs. Browder was the director of an investment firm, Saturn Investments, which a court in Kalmykia in 2003 determined had unlawfully taken advantage of the rules by pro forma hiring people with disabilities to obtain the tax rebate. The investment company also lost its appeal. On December 9, 2005, according to documents from a witness hearing of Browder, the Kalmykia court ruled that another of Browder‘s investment companies, Dalnaya Steppe, owed approx. 130 million DKK in taxes. The company subsequently went bankrupt without the tax being paid. A third of Browder‘s companies were also investigated by the Russian tax evasion authorities.

The article continues

“When the tax lawsuits were filed against the investment companies, Browder was a big proponent of Putin, whom he repeatedly praised when he spoke to international media. In January 2005, in a debate at the Davos Summit, Browder emphasized that everyone in Russia knew that it was no longer acceptable not to pay taxes. But in November of that year, Browder was rejected upon his entry into Russia – according to Browder, arguing that he was a threat to the country’s security.

Nekrasov has another interpretation

The biggest lie is that his tax case is politically motivated and that Putin is personally after Browder because he is the banner of human rights. Browder became an enemy of Russia because of the tax numbers that he and Hermitage made up,” he says. Browder rejects that explanation in an email. He writes that shortly after his deportation, Hermitage asked the Russian authorities if open criminal investigations were in place that could result. We received an official response saying there was none. We also received a reply claiming that I had been expelled under a section of Russian law which declared me a threat to national security, writes Browder.

However, he has not provided evidence of his allegations, nor does he answer the question of whether he and Hermitage paid the tax they were due in Russia. The most important person in Browder‘s history of the Russian Weekends is Magnitsky, who according to Browder was beaten to death because of his heroic decision to become a whistleblower who revealed the plot.

Browder has stated in his autobiography that he contacted the best lawyer he knew in Moscow, Magnitsky, when his office was searched in 2007. “As soon as Magnitsky joined the team, we asked him to analyze if we had done anything wrong,” writes Browder in the biography.

But Magnitsky did not join the team in 2007. During the testimony, Browder admitted that Magnitsky had worked for him at least since 2002 – including for one of the investment companies about which the authorities had raised tax cases.  He also admitted that Magnitsky did not pass a legal exam.

[LK: In a U.S. federal court deposition he was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree in Russia.
“I‘m not aware that he did,” Browder said.
Did he know if Magnitsky “went to law school?”
“No,” Browder answered.]

Video Clip of Browder on Magnitsky not going to law school.

Magnitsky was thus not a lawyer. He was a tax accountant who headed the tax department of the law firm, Firestone Duncan, which Browder‘s company had used since the late 1990s in Moscow.

The story of the whistleblower Magnitsky is at the heart of Browder‘s narrative. But the testimonies of Magnitsky, which are publicly available, show that he did not show up to the police as a whistleblower to reveal a plot. He was called as a witness in an ongoing investigation because he and Browder were being investigated for tax fraud.

According to Browder, Magnitsky, during the testimony, accused two named investigators of the police and tax authorities, respectively, of being part of the plot in which criminals allegedly stole Browder‘s investment companies. It was this naming that meant he was later imprisoned and killed. He had become a problem for them.

In the published witness questioning, Magnitsky mentions the two investigators numerous times. Among other things, he says that they were involved in the searches and to seize official company documents. But he does not accuse them of being behind the theft. He raises no charges against them. For Nekrasov, that’s crucial. “Magnitsky was summoned as a witness in a criminal investigation; he did not go on his own initiative to report a crime. Browder manipulates by referring to these documents as Magnitsky’s whistleblower testimony. It is not true that he here accused police officers of the theft of $1.5 billion DKK.

And there is no other evidence that Magnitsky uncovered a theft of the tax payments. Therefore, the motive of Browder‘s narrative to imprison and kill Magnitsky falls apart,” he says.

The Swiss parliamentarian Andreas Gross has been investigating the Magnitsky case for several years and, as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, has been the banner of instituting resolutions against Russians in Europe due to Magnitsky death . In an email correspondence with Finans, he acknowledges that Magnitsky was actually questioned as a suspect. Still, he thinks that Magnitsky was a whistleblower. According to Gross, the warnings as a whistleblower occurred only in police reports that preceded the Magnitsky witness inquiries.

Finans has gone through the police reviews. Magnitsky is not mentioned in them, as is a director of the big bank HSBC, [Paul Wrench] who, as Browder‘s partner, warns of a possible scam and a plot among the officials.

First, they launch a version in which Magnitsky allegedly acts as a whistleblower during his witness inquiries. When that explanation falls apart, a new one is launched. And if it’s real – which I don’t think it is – then Magnitsky is not a whistleblower at all because he didn’t accuse the police of the theft. Then Browder traveled around the world and made a completely wrong man into the hero of the story that American law is named after, states Nekrasov. According to him, the truth is that there is no whistleblower at all because the events have not taken place, as Browder claims.

But Gross disagrees. He believes that Browder is reliable. He’s driven by his bad conscience because he knows that Magnitsky died on his behalf, so to speak. The Kremlin wanted to put him in jail and not Magnitsky,‘‘ writes Gross.

The death of Magnitsky itself is another controversial focal point of the entire case. In Browder‘s version, Magnitsky was imprisoned and tortured to eventually die after being chained to the bed and beaten by eight guards with rubber sticks. Browder claims that there are several reports from the Russian authorities supporting this version. But when Nekrasov filmed his documentary about Magnitsky, he couldn’t make it go up: He simply couldn’t get eight combat officers into the space that was in Magnitsky’s cell. He therefore ended up perceiving Browder’s version of Magnitsky’ s death as a lie.

Physicians for Human Rights also does not mention torture or violence resulting in death in its independent 2011 report on Magnitsky’s death. It states that he was ill and suffered from gallstones and chronic active gallbladder and pancreatitis and that on the day of his death he complained of pain and vomiting, but received insufficient medical attention. “The neglect was calculated, deliberate and inhuman. He received inadequate medical evaluation and treatment through his detention and on the day of his death, this continued, the independent doctors write in the report.  

[There is a link here to the website, which contains a June 28, 2011 report from the International Forensic Program, PHR, Physicians for Human Rights, entitled Forensic Review of Magnitsky Documents Submitted by Browder‘s Hermitage Fund]

The article cites the introduction Physicians for Human Rights International Forensic Program (PHR / IFP) was contacted by Hermitage CEO Browder on December 16th, 2010 requesting a review of documents in their possession regarding the death in custody of their lawyer, Magnitsky […] ”, The Press Committee writes “The repeated medical neglect and breach of Magnitsky’s well-being was undoubtedly a major factor leading to his death.‘‘

But there is not a word in the report about guards beating Magnitsky to death. Finans has been in contact with the organization’s then-director, but he does not want to comment. Neither does Gross buy Browder‘s account that Magnitsky was beaten to death, but he believes that Magnitsky was killed. ‘Of course he was killed – by the system – because he was not treated for his illnesses and because his fate was ignored in a society where life has such a low value. The question is: Did anyone have any intentions of killing him, and who was it? Until you can say this clearly, you have to be careful,” he writes in the email correspondence with Finans.

Browder has not been. He has on several occasions proclaimed named persons as Magnitsky killers. That prompted one of the Russian investigators [Karpov], who have been put on the so-called Magnitsky list, to file a lawsuit against him in London in 2013. The lawsuit ended up being rejected because, according to Judge Simon of the London High Court, it did not belong in the English courtroom. But the judge ruled that Browder went over the line with his charges. The causal connection that one would expect in such a serious indictment is completely lacking, and nothing is said about torture or murder. (….) The defense has not come close to presenting facts that – if proven – could justify that sting of slander, the judgment reads.

The article continues

When Browder left the courtroom after the case, he described the dismissed case as a victory: ‘This was a shocking example of backlash tourism,’ he told The Guardian newspaper about the Russian investigator’s lawsuit.

However, the Finans article contains pictures of an English translation of the Russian judgment. The pictures show information about the verdict marked with yellow background color.

Browder was sentenced in 2013 to nine years in prison for tax fraud in Russia. In his autobiography, Red Notice, he describes how Magnitsky was sentenced after his death. It was the first time since Pope Formosus in the year 897 that such a fate befell a dead man. Even Stalin, one of the world’s most ardent mass murderers, a man who had at least 20 million Russian deaths on his conscience, never relented in putting a dead man on the prosecution bench, writes Browder in Red Notice.

But the story doesn’t fit. For even though Magnitsky is mentioned as the brain behind the tax office, only Browder is convicted. Faced with this at his 2015 witness hearing in the US court case, Browder‘s defense read: I am not a Russian criminal defense attorney so I cannot judge it. So you stick to your explanation even though the documents show something else? Yes.

The article continues

“Nekrasov’s film has never become a blockbuster. Although the documentary has been in the back for several years, not many in the West have seen it. Because Browder and his allies have managed to keep it away from the public’s knowledge. Scheduled TV shows in both Germany, France and Norway have been stopped, just as Finnish TV has failed to show it. A Norwegian film festival also ended up taking Nekrasov’s documentary off the poster.

Even a scheduled showing in the European Parliament was prevented. Earlier this year, Secretary of State Gunter Schirmer of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly’s Human Rights Division, which is behind the Council of Europe’s Magnitsky report, admitted that the major German TV station ZDF gave up the documentary film under pressure from it. Our former First Vice President, Bernd Fabritius, happened to be on the ZDF Board of Directors in Germany and convinced with the files and evidence at the last minute those responsible for the program that this was a piece of disinformation, Gunter Schirmer told a meeting in Europe. – Parliament in January this year.

Finans has asked ZDF to answer why it is apparently not the program director in ZDF who decides what to show and whether the TV station has been subject to political pressure. ZDF has not answered Finans’s questions. I think it’s a clear expression of political censorship, says the Nekrasov. Browder emphasizes in a written response that he struggled to prevent the screening of Nekrasov’s film, because the film promotes a complete false, fabricated, and incriminating tale of Magnitsky killed in 2009, and who cannot speak for himself. ”

At a hearing in the European Parliament in January, Browder was asked whether a constructive debate between himself and the Russian film director might be needed in light of their various interpretations of Magnitsky story. But the proposal from the questioning parliamentarian, Nicolas Bay from France, was received with a direct attack. Thanks for your question. I knew that the FSB (Russian Security Service, ed.) Would have one planted in here. I am happy to address the FSB,‘‘ replied the red-baiting Browder. See the video clip. (Bay is a politician of the center-right.)

Finans has asked Browder about the irregularities that our research has uncovered in the story he himself tells. It has not been possible to interview him and he has therefore been sent a number of questions. After an immediate read through of the questions, he found that one of the journalists behind it had to be on the Russian payroll.

The article concludes with a timeline under the heading Money Laundering Browder. The timeline shows:

1996 – Browder founds Hermitage in Russia February 26, 2003 – The court in Kalmykia, Russia, decides that one of Browder’s investment companies has paid too little in taxes. May 5, 2003 – Court of Appeal in Kalmykia maintains that the investment company has paid too little in taxes.

November 13, 2005 – Browder is denied entry into Russia. December 9, 2005 – The court in Kalmykia, Russia, decides that another of Browder‘s investment companies has paid approx. 130 million dollars too little in taxes. 2006 –

A criminal investigation against Browder begins due to the tax cases of the investment companies. 2006 – Three of Browder‘s investment companies pay 1.5 billion DKK in tax.

June 4, 2007 – Police raid Browder’s Company and its law firm, Duncan Firestone, in Moscow, Russia. June 9, 2007 – The investment company owed $ 130 million in tax, goes bankrupt. The tax is not paid.

September 11 and 20, 2007 – The three investment companies that paid $ 1.5 billion DKK in tax, re-registered to new owners.

December 10, 2007 – HSBC, the Browder‘s partner, warns the Russian prosecutor about the theft of the investment companies’ values in the wake of a conspiracy.

December 21 and 24, 2007 – Three investment companies apply for $ 1.5 billion DKK tax refunded. December 26, 2007 – The $ 1.5 billion DKK in tax is refundable. June 5, 2008 – Magnitsky is questioned by Russian investigators.

October 7, 2008 – Magnitsky interrogated by Russian investigators.

November 24, 2008 – Magnitsky is arrested. November 16, 2009 – Magnitsky dies in prison.

June 28, 2011 – Doctors of Human Rights cite medical neglect as a major cause of Magnitsk ‘s death.

December 14, 2012 – The United States adopts a Magnitsky law that prevents a number of unnamed Russians from entering the United States and doing business in countries with Magnitsky law.

July 11, 2013 – Browder is sentenced to 9 years in Russia for tax fraud. ”

Following its publication on March 13, 2019, Finans published the article The Money Launderer Browder Will Not Reveal Who Finances His Work with the following subheading:

“According to Browder, it is not safe for him to reveal internal facts about his laundering work. He states that he has been sentenced to nine years in prison in Russia in a screening process.

The article then states

“The controversial money laundering hunter Browder has devoted much of his life to chasing suspicious people and corporate cash flows, reporting the clues to the police and leaking the information to the media of the world. But when asked to account for his own cash flows, he closes in. Who sponsors the work you and your team do in tracking money? How much does it cost annually?

A “We lean on pro bono lawyers, investigators and volunteers around the world. We do not reveal our internal work because it is not safe to do so,‘‘ writes Browder, who has asked a number of questions by Jyllands-Posten.

Email. How rich are you today? I do not comment on that. Browder was previously one of the largest foreign investors in Russia, where he established the Hermitage investment fund in 1996. After his tax auditor, Magnitsky, died in a Russian prison in 2009, Browder has marked himself as an influential advocate for human rights and as a man who reveals banks’ facilitation of money laundering. His money track led him to the major banks Nordea and Danske Bank, whose money laundering cases now appear well documented.

Sentenced by Russian court

According to Browder, Magnitsky was tortured and killed in prison because he revealed a plot in which, among other things. Russian investigators helped steal three of Browder‘s investment companies, which were subsequently used to cheat the Russian treasury for $1.5 billion kr [$230mil].

According to his critics, Browder exploits Magnitsky ‘s tragic death to remove the focus of his tax fraud in Russia. He has been sentenced to nine years in prison by a Russian court, in a case which he himself thinks was a politically motivated viewing process.

In the early 2000s, the Russian authorities investigated several of Browder‘s tax fraud investment companies. Two of them were located in the Russian region of Kalmykia, where companies can obtain favorable tax conditions under certain conditions. Among other things, if at least half of the employees are disabled. A court in Kalmykia ruled in 2003 that one of the Browder‘s investment companies had illegally used the rules by pro forma to hire an unskilled man without qualifications, a worker and a mechanical engineer in the investment company to obtain the tax rebate.

One of the disabled people, OE Bukaev, testified in court. Here he explained that he had been disabled since childhood and had worked as a building painter, mason and in a sauna. Around 2000, he was offered employment in two of Browder‘s investment firms, but only on paper, he explained. He was paid on an ongoing basis and, in return, was to provide a copy of his passport and the certificate documenting that he was disabled. He did no work for the investment companies and kept his normal job while. For about a year and a half, he was given money for being one of the disabled employees on paper, and he was told to answer that he had a real job in the investment companies, if anyone asked, his explanation sounded. The investment company also lost the appeal case, and it was because of this case that Browder several years later – in 2013 – was sentenced to nine years in prison. According to the judgment against Browder, it was Magnitsky who developed the plan to cheat on taxes.

Politically motivated judgment

According to Browder, a court in the United Kingdom, Interpol, the British Government, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States have all established that it was a politically motivated conviction.

Did you not pay the correct tax at any time when investing in Russia?

The Hermitage Fund, which I advised, paid all taxes at all relevant times in Russia. Browder points out that in 2006 – after his expulsion from Russia in November 2005 – he received a document from the Russian authorities, who determined that there was no criminal investigation directed at him. He maintains that he is the victim of a plot. “Companies, I advised, were some of the largest taxpayers in Russia and paid $1.5 billion. The entire amount was stolen with the approval of high-ranking Russian officials and ended up on accounts and real estate owned by the families of Russian officials,‘‘ writes Browder.

He also maintains that Magnitsky revealed this plot and therefore ended up in jail. Browder previously described how Magnitsky was beaten by eight prison guards and then left to die in his cell without medical attention.

The Russian government has released many records to Magnitsky ‘s family, which shows that Magnitsky was beaten by eight prison guards with rubber cutters, writes Browder, who points out that Magnitsky was imprisoned after that, as a witness, he had given an explanation in a case in which his client Hermitage believed that the company was subject to a plot. When the independent organization Physicians for Human Rights released its report on Magnitsky ‘s death in June 2011, it cited medical neglect as a major cause of death, but did not mention violence. One month later, the Presidential Human Rights Council in Russia described that there was a reasonable suspicion that Magnitsky ‘s death was due to violence. His family had reported missing bones and marks on Magnitsky ‘s corpse. [LK: This refers to wrists, knees, ankles only] In October 2012, in addition to its report, the Physicians for Human Rights organization upheld the conclusion that Magnitsky’s death was due to a lack of medical treatment for his illnesses.

HERE are the questions Finans reporters put to Browder and his answers

Q You put a lot of effort into closing your critics down. Why is that? [LK: Browder‘s tactic is always to go on the attack, accuse critics of working for the Kremlin.]

A He said: “I am happy to address honest critics, but we have been dealing with a massive disinformation campaign emanating from the top of the Russian government in retaliation to the Magnitsky Act.” He lists the president, general prosecutor, foreign minister, state investigators, and state TV channels, using foreign journals, governments, international organizations and foreign courts, all out to get him. [LK: Ie. no criticism is legitimate, everyone works for the Kremlin.]

Q Why did you fight so hard to stop filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov’s movie to be shown?

A Because the film promotes a completely false, fabricated and defamatory narrative about Magnitsky who was killed in 2009 and cannot speak for himself. Magnitsky’s family and I have written to every organization involved in the production and distribution of this film, pointing out the specific falsehoods and misrepresentations. No responsible media organization, having reviewed the documents and facts, wanted anything to do with it. He also accuses filmmaker Nekrasov of being a mouthpiece for the Russian government propaganda.

LK: He doesn‘t mention that he threatened lawsuits in those letters. Nor that Nekrasov, who had made very critical films about the dearth of Litvinenko and the war in Chechnya, started out sympathetic to Browder till his investigation revealed the truth in TheMagnitskyAct.

Q When your version of the story is publicly questioned you tend to accuse your critics of being Russian agents or working for Russia. Why do you react in this way?

A He cites a series of documents including the Moscow Prison Public Oversight Commission report. LK: But this does not support his claims.

The Human Rights Council Report of the President of Russian Federation. LK: But this was repudiated by the head of the HRC as preliminary and based on Browder‘s documents.

Several reports by PACE, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. LK: The PACE findings were rejected as evidence by U.S. federal judge William Pauley on grounds they were based only on Browder‘s documents and that hearings on them had not been held.

An investigation by U.S. Department of Justice in the Prevezon case. LK: But the chief DOJ investigator Todd Hyman admitted the evidence came from Browder and that he hadn‘t checked out the alleged bank transfers.

Browder declared that “other countries, criminal authorities of them opened criminal investing in laundering the proceeds of $ 230mln on his request I’ve accused Nekrasov because he’s been openly working with those involved in the $230 million fraud and those who received the proceeds of that fraud. My suspicions have been proven correct in multiple exposures by investigative journalists who showed Ms. Veselnitskaya, an associate of the Russian family who the U.S. Department of Justice determined to have received $ 230 million in fraud proceeds. …As you would know from the US Department of Justice, Ms. Veselnitskaya] provided financial support for Nekrasov‘s film. 

LK: How Browder works: He files a complaint, a country‘s criminal office responds they will look into it, he puts out a press release that X country is investigating the fraud. In fact, nothing has come of any investigations.

Facts: Nekrasov did a film about Browder, he has not worked with anyone allegedly involved in the fraud. Natalia Veselnitskaya is the lawyer for the Katsyv family changed by the DOJ based on Browder‘s allegations. That would make every lawyer an associate of his/her client. And the DOJ could not determine anything, which is why it settled the case. The film was funded by TV networks in Finland, France and Germany. Veselnitskaya paid for a single screening in Washington.

Q There is a video on YouTube where you run away from a lawyer with a subpoena. That was the third time they tried to give you the subpoena – why were you so reluctant to get questioned under oath?

A The lawyers issuing the subpoenas worked directly for Veselnitskaya who has since been exposed by the U.S. Department of Justice as an agent for the Russia government and indicted for obstruction of justice… They sought to obtain documents about my security, my personal movements, the whistleblowers who helped us, and the law enforcement investigations we assisted. Providing those documents directly to the Russian government would have put me, my family, my colleagues and our community of justice activists at risk of being killed by the Russian government. 

LK: She was not exposed as an agent for the Russian government. The indictment accusing her of communicating with the Russian chief prosecutor is itself an obstruction of justice to prevent her from traveling to the U.S. to play a continuing role in exposing Browder and his Magnitsky hoax.  Browder was ordered to give a deposition by Judge Thomas Griesa, who didn‘t seem to find Browder‘s argument compelling. And he wasn‘t killed.

Q In your book, you claim that your problems in Russia were caused either because you fought against the oligarchs or because you criticized Putin. Is it possible that you got into trouble because of your aggressive tax planning that might even have been illegal? . 

A No. Shortly after I was expelled from Russia in November 2005, we sent an inquiry to the Russian authorities about whether any criminal allegations had opened which would have precipitated that. We received an official response saying there were none. We also received a reply stating that I was expelled under an article of Russian law declaring me a threat to national security. . 

LK: The second investigation was still going on so there were not yet criminal allegations. We don‘t know the national security details, but that might be related to his very large and illicit buys of shares of the national energy company, Gazprom.

Q Magnitsky was questioned on the 5^th of June and 7^th of October 2008. You said he went to the police as a whistleblower and accused two officers (Pavel Karpov and Artem Kuznetsov) for being part of the crime of stealing your companies (which were used to steal the $ 230 million paid in taxes). But in his testimonies – which we have come into the possession of via EU parliamentarians – Magnitsky seems to be questioned as a suspect in an ongoing tax case. And he does not accuse Karpov or Kuznetsov of stealing the companies although he mentions their names several times. Why are you saying that Magnitsky was a whistleblower? . 

A It was not a tax case but the criminal case on fraud opened on 05.02.2008 in response to the criminal complaint filed. An HSBC officer [likely Paul Wrench] and Magnitsky testified in this case as a representative of the HSBC officer. Magnitsky‘s testimonies are in the public record and on the Magnitsky justice campaign website, and have been for a long time. It is clear from the text of his testimony that he is not a suspect, but is giving testimony in his professional capacity, legally representing his client, Hermitage, whose criminal complaint caused an investigation to be opened into the fraud against Hermitage. Magnitsky described the findings of his investigation into the fraud against Hermitage and identified who played a role in the fraud, including how police officers targeted Hermitage, and how Karpov and Kuznetsov breached their official duties to assist the criminals. . 

LK: It was a criminal tax case, fraud by not against Hermitage. Look at Magnitsky‘s testimonies. He does not link the officers to the fraud or say they assisted criminals. How could he think the Press Board would not see this?

Q You have said on several occasions that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 guards. What kind of documentation do you have for stating this?

A The Russian government has released multiple records to the Magnitsky family demonstrating that Magnitsky was beaten by 8 riot guards with rubber batons. These include: the prison’s use of rubber batons, LK: This is a Browder forgery.  the death certificate referencing the suspected cerebral-cranial injury LK: It talks about a possible past “closed” injury and says “no signs of violent death detected”, and the forensic post-mortem stating that his injuries were consistent with the use of rubber batons.  LK: Injuries were on hands, ankles and knees, none of them life-threatening.

LK: The European Court of Human Rights in August found: “The medical examination had not disclosed any traces of violence on Mr Magnitskiy‘s body, having thus disproved the suspicion that he had been beaten up with a rubber truncheon on 16 November 2009. The injuries on the wrists had been caused by handcuffs, while bruises and abrasions on the left hand, left shin and right ankle had been self-inflicted when Mr Magnitskiy had behaved aggressively.”

Q You have claimed that Magnitsky was sentenced after his death. But according to the judgment of the court that was presented to you during your deposition during pre-trial in the Prevezon case in 2015 the case against Magnitsky was dismissed. Why did you say that Magnitsky was sentenced after his death? Do you have any documentation proving this statement?

A  He evades the question but replies that the verdict “established” him guilty of “devising” tax evasion.

LK: Indeed, it said Magnitsky had “arranged for a tax avoidance for two entities by falsifying tax returns. It was in a group with prior agreement and on a large scale …. Mr Magnitsky, acting in the interest of Mr Browder, devised a plan of committing criminal offenses…” Magnitsky was guilty, And then because he was deceased, the case was dismissed. No sentence.

Q When did Magnitsky start working for you?

A Magnitsky was working with Firestone Duncan law firm which provided services to Hermitage since the late 1990s.  LK: That is Browder’s first truth. In his book, at hearings and speeches, he declares that after his shell companies were stolen, he went out and found the best lawyer he could get, Sergei Magnitsky. Except Magnitsky was an accountant for Firestone Duncan handling its client Hermitage since the late 90s.

Q Have you used Magnitsky’s death in your favor to shift the focus from wrongdoing conducted by you and your companies?

A This is a callous and offensive question. When Magnitsky was murdered, I made a vow to his memory, his family and to myself that I will do everything in my power to seek justice for him. I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself if I did anything other than that. LK: He doesn‘t explain that for the 11 months Magnitsky was in prison, he did nothing to help him, no calls to the media, he admits in his deposition he didn‘t even communicate with Magnitsky‘s lawyer.

Q According to the ICIJ database, a firm affiliated to you – Berkeley Advisors Inc – was set up by Mossack Fonseca. A document states that you – William Browder – were the owner of the firm. Can you confirm that?  Why did Mossack Fonseca set up this firm for you in the British Virgin Islands? How many companies have Mossack Fonseca set up for you?  As an anti-money laundering activist, you have questioned the use of firms in jurisdictions such as BVI and Cyprus – why did you use the jurisdictions yourself?

A  Browder doesn‘t answer. He can‘t. No way to spin it.

Q Who sponsors the work that you and your team are doing with money tracing? How much does this cost annually?

A We lean on pro bono lawyers, investigators and volunteers around the world.

LK: Actually, a lot is done by OCCRP, the Romania based but Delaware registered US AID and Soros/Open Society- sponsored “media” organization which Browder admitted in his deposition prepared bank transfer documents for him.

Q Did you and some of your accomplices steal the $230 million that had been paid in taxes?

A No. This is a highly defamatory question which accuses me of a crime. It is actionable if you choose to repeat it. Companies I advised were some of the largest tax payers in Russia, and paid $ 230 million in taxes in 2006. The entire amount was stolen with approval from senior Russian government officials and ended up on accounts and in real estate owned by families of Russian government officials, and some funds have been shown through the Panama Papers to flow to the account of President Putin’s associate Sergei Roldugin. The facts have been widely reported and confirmed by multiple governments, law enforcement agencies and investigative journalists around the world.

LK: There is no evidence for any of this, just charges by acolyte government agencies such as the DOJ and by journalists of sensational American websites..\

These are follow-up questions

You write that it is known from the U.S. Department of Justice that Natalia Veselnitskaya provided financial support for Nekrasov’s film. I am not aware of this. Can you send the document or a direct link to the document where the US Department of Justice proves this?

A See the testimony of Mr. Akhmetshin to the U.S. Senate Judiciary hearing in November 14, 2017 in respect of the U.S. DOJ investigation into FARA violations by unregistered Russian agents,

LK: Akhmetshin said “ we did the screening of this movie, this Magnitsky movie here in Washington, DC. Paying for a screening is not providing financial support to making a film. It‘s the cost of renting a room.

Q  Can you please send a copy of the official response from the Russian authorities where they state that there were no criminal allegations against you?

A The document is attached.

Browder sent a document which appeared to have been sent to him from the General Prosecutor’s Office of Russian Federation on April 27, 2006.  LK: This was at time that investigations were ongoing and before criminal allegations were made. Remember that Magnitsky was interrogated as a witness in Oct 2006 on the matter.

Press Committee:  Can you please send the multiple records from the Russian government proving that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 guards?

A Mr Borshev – the head of OPC (the Oversight Prison Commission of Moscow) after conducting his investigation stated the following: There were 8 guards participating in beating the lawyer Magnitsky in Maastricht Tishina – confirmed by the human rights commissioner Mr Valery Borshev.

Hermitage report certificate on use of handcuffs, issued by Matrosskaya Tishina Detention Center, Assistant Deputy Head of Detention Center, Lt. OG Kuznetsov at collection point post… rubber baton was applied to Magnitsky, Death Certificate of Magnitsky, November 16, 2009, signed by officials of Maestrosskaya Tishina Detention Center, identifies suspected cerebral cranial injury. The e-mail then shows four pictures that show A/Magnitsky ‘s Left Hand, Magnitsky’ s Knuckles, Magnitsky’s Left Knee and Magnitsky’ s Wrist.

LK: The claim by Borshev was not in the Moscow Public Oversight Commission Report, which Borshev signed and which was prepared by the commission, not by him alone. This means that if Borshev proposed this assertion for the report, the full group rejected it. Or maybe he invented it after he became an associate of Browder‘s, participating in European groups supporting the Magnitsky hoax. There is nothing in the report about a beating.

Also, as shown earlier, the rubber baton charge is a forgery. And the paper that refers to suspected cranial injury called it a “closed,” ie past injury and says no signs of violent death detected.

The injuries on wrists, knees, shown earlier, were not life threatening. Browder does not provide postmortem photos of the torso, which showed no marks.

Browder‘s complaint was received by the Press Committee on March 13, 2019.

The parties’ views

Browder‘s views Good press practice Correct information, source criticism and presentation, etc.

Browder has stated that Finans in the article has provided incorrect information which is abusive, harmful and may be disrespectful to him. The factually incorrect information in the article could have been avoided if the journalists behind the article had sufficiently verified their information before publication.

Thus, the journalists should have examined and retrieved the documents Browder sent to them and the publicly accessible information to which Browder had referred under submission. At the same time, journalists should have looked critically at information from the source Nekrasov in light of his connections to / and financial support from agents of the Russian government [LK: Untrue, money to make the film came from Norwegian, French, German TV] and from the people who benefited from the $ 230 million fraud which Magnitsky discovered and was killed.

Browder and Magnitsky have been victims of serious crimes in Russia, and Finans, by providing inaccurate and abusive information about them, has not complied with the requirement of the press ethical rules that victims of crimes and accidents should be shown the greatest possible consideration.

The negative mention of the Magnitsky deceased is distressing to his family, who continues to work to get justice from the Russian state, and Finans should be required to publish large pictures of the injuries Magnitsky inflicted in the jail, as well as an apology to his family.

[LK: Aside from bruises on wrists, ankles, knees, shown earlier, there are no pictures of injuries. they would have come from the same source as those photos. Browder has never posted them.]

Browder has brought the matter to the Press Board as it is of great public interest because it relates to the new forms of disinformation arising from corrupt and totalitarian governments, in this case the Russian. It is Browder‘s opinion that the case could inform and educate journalists.

Reasonable submission Browder states that he was not given reasonable time to answer Finans’s referral questions prior to publication.

On March 11, 2019 at 09.04 GMT Browder received an email from one of the journalists behind the article with a list of 19 questions to which the journalist wanted answers on the following day at. 14.00.

Browder posted on March 12, 2019 at 1 p.m. 11.51 an email to the journalist with answers to the 19 questions. In his mail, Browder referred to various source material, which he urged the journalist to read, as the information contained therein contradicts the false and defamatory statements and false presumptions made by the journalist’s questions.

On March 12, 2019 at 12.52, Browder received an email from the journalist with four follow-up questions, and the journalist asked for further documentation of Browder‘s information. The same day, at. At 13.07, the journalist sent two more questions to Browder. Browder answered the follow-up questions in an email that was sent the same evening at 1 p.m. 19.12, in which he had also enclosed and referred documentation supporting his information. However, the article charged was brought to Finans without including the documents and information provided by Browder, as well as Browder‘s comments which he had sent to the journalist on March 12, 2019 at. 19.12, also did not appear.

In the press case, Finans did not deny that the article was brought on the same day that Browder was sent follow-up questions. Finans also did not deny that the article was brought before the media had received the follow-up responses from Browder. Nevertheless, the article questions whether Browder can document his views – documentation provided by the mail that Finans received from Browder a few hours after the article was published.

Finans did not explain the need to publish the article before Finans had received final reply from Browder, even though Browder answered the first 19 questions after one day, while the six follow-up questions were answered on the same day as they were quiet.

The hasty publication of the article indicates to Browder that Finans had drawn his conclusions on the matter before submitting it to him. In that connection, it cannot justify the date of publication of the article where Finans, to the best of his knowledge, brought inaccurate and infringing information that Browder was offered a follow-up article which was brought the following day.

Information appealed, etc. Browder has referred to the following five cases in the article where Finans for better knowledge has brought incorrect information and thus acted contrary to good press practice:

The questioning of Magnitsky in 2008 Browder has referred to the following statements in the article which are incorrect, offensive and may be disrespectful to him:

But the testimonies of Magnitsky, which are publicly available, show that he did not appear with the police to reveal as a whistleblower a plot. He was called as a witness in an ongoing investigation because he and Browder were being investigated for tax fraud. […] But he does not accuse them of being behind the theft. He raises no charges against them. For Nekrasov, that’s crucial. […] Finans has reviewed the police reports. Magnitsky is not mentioned in them.

Browder has also referred to the fact that the article states false allegations from the source Nekrasov, inter alia: “And there is no other evidence that Magnitsky uncovered a theft of tax payments. […] According to him, the truth is that there is no whistleblower at all because the events did not take place, as Browder claims.

Browder: The article states that Magnitsky was questioned as a suspect when he gave an explanation to a Russian investigator in 2008. This information is not correct, which Browder pointed out to the journalist in his email of March 12,2019 pm. 11.51. The fact that the article’s information is not correct is also clear from the specific interrogation report, which today remains publicly available.

In support of this, Browder has pointed out, among other things, that in a testimony given by Magnitsky in October 2009, one month before his death, he explained, among other things, “I believe that the purpose of the criminal case framed at the initiative of Kuznetsov AA was to suppress the founding and registration documents of the stolen companies and to deprive the lawful owners of the companies of the control thereof. It was Kuznetsov AA who actually ruled the investigation, called witnesses for questioning, using the summons provided to him and signed by the investigator Karpov, conducted questioning, sent inquiries to banks and depositors in order to find the assets owned by the stolen companies , which at the same time were not targeted in the investigation of any case. [LK: Not true].

In my opinion the criminal prosecution is the above person’s revenge against me, because during the meetings with Gordievsky SE, investigator of the investigating committee at the RF Prosecutor’s Office for the Southern Administrative District of Moscow, I informed him of the above circumstances and expressed the opinion that Kuznetsov AA had to be interrogated about the circumstances of the stealing of Makhaon LLC, Rilend LLC and Parfenion LLC […] ” 

[LK: This, a month before he died, appears to be dictated by Magnitsky‘s lawyers. Some of the text Browder supplies was handwritten, some was typed. Magnitsky did not have a computer or typewriter. Browder and his lawyers had tried to get him to say this all along, as he told Oleg Lurie in prison, and he had refused. Now he gave in.  Or why would he say it only in Oct 09 when he was arrested in Nov 08? The part about meetings with Gordievsky is not true. There is no evidence of that. It‘s not in his testimony.]

On the basis of the evidence provided by Browder, the allegations made in the article under appeal cannot be justified.

• Whether Magnitsky ‘s death Browder has stated that Finans has made incorrect, abusive and damaging statements about Magnitsky’ s death, at the same time that Finans has failed to include documentation confirming Browder s information about the death.

In connection with the submission, Finans received photos and other documentation, which had been publicly available for five years prior to the publication of the article, proving that Magnitsky was subjected to prison violence prior to his death. [LK: bruises on hands from handcuffs, on knees from banking door. Nothing on torso.] Thus, in his email of March 12, 2019, Browder referred to 9 p.m. 11:51 to six specific acts, while in his follow-up email of March 12, 2019 at 1 p.m. 19:12 referred to four additional documents regarding the registration of violence against Magnitsky as well as photos from his autopsy. However, none of these documents documenting the use of rubber cutters and handcuffs and mentioning the names of the prison guards involved are mentioned in the article.

“Browder claims that there are several reports from the Russian authorities supporting this version. But when Nekrasov filmed his documentary on Magnitsky, he couldn’t make it go up […] The Organization for Human Rights also did not mention torture or violence with death in his independent report on Magnitsky death of 2011. […] Nor does Gross buy Browder‘s story […] ”

The evidence presented by Browder, other than a report from the Presidential Human Rights Council in Russia, is also not mentioned in the follow-up article published on March 13, 2019.

The evidence presented by Browder, other than a report from the Presidential Human Rights Council in Russia, is also not mentioned in the follow-up article published on March 13, 2019.

Complaint: The reason why the Physicians for Human Rights report does not include information on violence is because the report was published before the Russian government released evidence that Magnitsky had been subjected to violence. [LK: Untrue. What evidence?] During the press committee case, Finans referred to a 2012 addition to the report without mentioning that the addition did not include detention center records. Furthermore, Finans has failed to mention that in the addition to the Physicians for Human Rights report, it was concluded that Magnitsky had been subjected to violence: [LK: Concluded by whom? By Browder.]

“It is not possible for such marks to be left through the ordinary use of handcuffs provided by trained personnel. It is my opinion that the severity of the injuries documented in the photographs and described in the autopsy report is inconsistent with accidental misapplication of the handcuffs by the trained personnel. [LK: Who says this?]

In support of the wording of the article, Finans has also referred to an email from the European Parliamentarian Gross. However, a 2013 report from the Council of Europe, prepared by Gross states that “Mr. Magnitsky […] died after being beaten with rubber batons. [LK: this is in the fake report by Andreas Gross who later repudiated this claim in the Nekrasov film]” A resolution adopted by the Council of Europe in January 2014 also states:

”After almost a year in detention, on 16 November 2009, Mr Magnitsky, whose state of health had further deteriorated, was transferred back to a detention centre equipped with relevant medical facilities. Following his arrival, he was beaten with rubber batons and died the same evening. [LK: Untrue. No evidence. U.S. federal court Judge William Pauley III repudiated this report as based only on what Browder told the Council.] Civilian emergency doctors called in by prison officials were kept waiting for more than an hour, after which they found Mr Magnitsky’s lifeless body on the floor of a holding cell.”

Complaint: Consequently, it cannot be justified that Finans did not mention the damage inflicted on Magnitsky and that the newspaper attacked Browder‘s credibility by holding that there is no evidence that Magnitsky was beaten.

• Whether the Russian tax judgment against Browder and whether Magnitsky was sentenced after his death Browder has referred to the second half of the headline of the article: but can one rely on the man sentenced to nine years in prison for tax fraud? ‘‘stating that the article indicates that he cannot be trusted.

Complaint: The journalists did not obtain Browder‘s comments on the verdict prior to the publication of the article. If the journalists had done this, Browder would have stated that the actual litigation and judgment in which Browder was sentenced in absentia was unjustified and politically motivated, which several international players, including INTERPOL, the British, German Government and the Dutch government, have also stated. [LK: Interpol, controlled by the U.S., fell into place with no challenge to or apparent interest in the evidence.]

Complaint: Consequently, it cannot be justified in the headline and the article to cast doubt on Browder‘s credibility on the basis of the specific judgment. To this end, Browder notes that the international criticism of the judgment in Finans’s follow-up article on March 13, 2019 is interpreted as being Browder‘s subjective assessment despite the fact that this is factual information.

The article also casts doubt on Browder‘s information that Magnitsky was convicted in the same tax case after his death:

“But the story doesn’t fit. Because even though Magnitsky is mentioned as the brain behind the tax evasion, it is only Browder who gets sentenced.”

However, it is publicly known, and official documents show, that in 2011, two years after Magnitsky ‘s death, Russian prosecutors reopened the case against him. In its coverage, Finans has only provided evidence that the case was brought against Browder, although it appears from direct legal documents, which Finans has also referred to that the case concerned both Browder and Magnitsky, Furthermore, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office wrote on its website on July 11, 2013 about the trial:

“In Moscow, in a criminal case on tax evasion in the amount of more than 500 million rubles. The prosecutor’s office of the city (Moscow). July 11, 2013, 13:59 Today, July 11, 2013, the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow issued court decisions in a criminal case against a British citizen, 49-year-old Browder and Russian citizen Magnitsky.

The article also contains the following abusive statements, casting doubt on whether it is correct that Browder has been denied entry into Russia because he is considered to be a threat to national security:

But in November of that year, Browder was rejected upon his entry into Russia – according to Browder, arguing that he was a threat to the country’s security. Andrei Nekrasov has a different interpretation […] Browder refuses in an email that explanation. […] He did not, however, send evidence of his claims, nor did he answer the question of whether he and [the Browder’s company] paid the tax they were due in Russia.

Browder‘s information is factually correct and appears from a statement to the UK Government from the Russian Foreign Ministry, which is available on Browder‘s website, russian-untouchables.com. Finans failed to correct the information in the follow-up article of March 13, 2019, in which Finans wrote instead: “Browder points out that in 2006 – after his expulsion from Russia in November 2005 – he received a document from the Russian authorities who determined there was no criminal investigation against him.

Since Finans has been knowledgeable about the evidence that Browder‘s information is correct, Finans should not have made the abusive, undocumented statements of Nekrasov.

About the source Nekrasov, Browder has stated that Finans has not verified the allegations made by the source Nekrasov, which in the article is produced as an independent researcher. Instead, Finans has brought damaging and offensive statements from the filmmaker, which are at the same time undocumentable. [LK: Not true. Lots of proofs.]

At the same time, Finans in the article failed to disclose Nekrasov‘s relations, including of financial nature, to Natalia Veselnitskaya. [LK: no financial relations] Veselnitskaya a Russian government agent [LK: untrue, no evidence] who also works for a Russian oligarch family accused by the US Department of Justice of receiving a return from the $ 230 million fraud that Magnitsky revealed [LK: He did not reveal anything] and killed.[LK: He was not killed] This information appeared in Browder‘s mails to Finans.

Nor does it appear from the article that Nekrasov ‘s critical film about Browder was promoted by state, Russian propaganda TV channels and the Russian state prosecutor personally. In this connection, a Russian opposition figure, Mr. Goldfarb, who previously worked with Nekrasov, stated:

“This is the transformation of Andrei Nekrasov from an opposition journalist to a Kremlin propagandist. For me, Nekrasov’s reincarnation is a personal loss, since I have many years of friendship with him.

[LK: Alex Goldfarb, based in NY, was an associate of Boris Beresovsky, a corrupt oligarch who fled Russia when Putin clamped down on the oligarchs. He is not an independent analyst.]

The article’s description of Andrei Nekrasov as being Putin-critical is thus outdated, which can be seen, among other things, by the fact that Nekrasov has appeared on state-run Russian TV channels where Putin critics are given no talk time. [LK: As opposed to US TV where Putin supporters are given huge amounts of airtime. A joke, they don‘t appear.]

About the British defamation case

The article mentions a British defamation case which was brought against Browder by a Russian police investigator. However, it does not appear from the article that the case was rejected by the judge, who considered that the plaintiff would take advantage of the English judicial process, nor does the article show that the judge found that if the defamation lawsuit was dealt with by the court, the plaintiff would not should be assessed individually but in relation to membership in a criminal organization, and that this could potentially justify the backlash. Nor does it appear that the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of Browder‘s company, Hermitage. [Read the judge‘s decision. He said that absent the fact the person defamed didn‘t live in London, he would have a case. And if Browder continued to defame him, he would take this up again.]

Finans views Good press practice Correct information, source criticism and presentation, etc. Finans has denied that the article contravenes good press practice.

Finans has stated that the media in his articles deals with, among other things, the fact that Browder most often uses the large, legal vocabulary to press and threaten to bring in critics and media who dare to publish the criticism, to silence. Browder disciplines master the shift of focus and proportion distortion to perfection, and they are usually accomplished by drowning critical questions about his own version of the truth in vast amounts of unilaterally produced over-information. This press case has in itself become a testament to this pattern.

Thus, in his remarks to the Press Committee, Browder has focused on what Finans has not written, rather than the actual content of the articles complained about.

Presentation in a timely manner Finans has stated that Browder has had ample opportunity to relate to the individual information about Magnitsky and that he has been repeatedly invited to participate in a telephone interview, which he has not wanted, but communicated only by email.

Browder’s prior email contact with Finans’s journalists clearly demonstrates that Finans has worked thoroughly, seriously and conscientiously, and it supports the information provided in the article, just as Browder‘s statements are loyally referenced. Finans journalists have thus unequivocally submitted to Browder the points of criticism which must be assessed on the basis of press ethics.

Professional and competent source criticism has also been exercised in relation to information from both Browder as well as the wealth of other oral and written sources that have contributed to the articles, in keeping with the guiding press ethical rules. Browder has, as a party source, an immediate and major interest in the fact that only information that strengthens his version of reality is made available to the public, and therefore parts of his complaint to the Press Committee are a purely covert attack on the media’s free editing rights.

Extensive consideration has been given to submitting to Browder all relevant material, and he has had the opportunity to address all criticisms prior to the publication of the articles. However, it would be an unheard of interpretation of item A.3 of the Guidance Press Ethical Rules, if the media are required to provide all factual and undeniably accurate information to those parties who might feel criticized in the given article prior to publication – notwithstanding the fact that this information does not, by all usual standards of assessment, contain neither attack nor criticism of the persons concerned, but a factual and sober summary of the persons concerned.

In support of all relevant submissions, Finans referred to, among other things, the following extracts from the impugned article of March 12, 2019, stating that Finans’s journalists have taken great care to faithfully reproduce Browder’s answers to the criticisms made against him:

But is Browder a hero, or is the truth also that he cynically exploited Magnitsky ‘s death in a Russian prison to remove focus from the fact that he, as an investor in Russia, was in the spotlight to commit tax fraud – and ended up with a nine-year sentence for just that? It’s a malicious and objectionable question. When Magnitsky was murdered, I promised in memory of him, his family and myself that I will do everything in my power to seek justice for him, ‘‘writes Browder in an email to the Jutland Post. He does not deviate from his own version of history: that after he founded the investment company Hermitage in Russia in 1996, he became the country’s largest foreign investor. But in 2007, he faced a plot when Russian investigators searched his office, stole some of his investment companies and subsequently used them to steal 1.5 billion. DKK from the Russian Treasury.

When Magnitsky, as tax auditor, revealed the plot, he was imprisoned, tortured and killed. […] In January 2005, in a debate at the Davos Summit, Browder emphasized that everyone in Russia knew that it was no longer acceptable not to pay taxes. But in November of that year, Browder was rejected upon his entry into Russia – according to Browder, arguing that he was a threat to the country’s security.

Andrei Nekrasov has another interpretation: The biggest he is that his tax case is politically motivated and that Putin is personally after Browder because he is the banner of human rights. Browder became an enemy of Russia because of the tax numbers that he and [Browder’s company] made,” he says. Browder rejects that explanation in an email.

He writes that Hermitage, shortly after his deportation, asked the Russian authorities if open criminal investigations could give that outcome. We received an official response saying there was none. We also received a reply claiming that I had been expelled under a section of Russian law which declared me a threat to national security, Browder writes. However, he has not provided evidence of his claims, nor does he answer the question of whether he and [the Browder’s company] paid the tax they were due in Russia.

Finans has denied that Browder was given too short a time to answer Finans’s questions in connection with the submission. In that regard, Finans emphasized that Browder was made explicitly aware that, if he did not respond to the media’s expectations, he could come up with a follow-up article immediately after.

In relation to the assessment of whether Browder has had reasonable time to answer the questions submitted, it must be borne in mind that Browder has for almost 10 years engaged in the dissemination of its version of, among other things, the Magnitsky case and the other matters the article addresses regarding his person. In the given framework, it is neither difficult nor time-consuming for Browder to answer the very simple questions that Finans had to ask by mail, because Browder refused to be interviewed on the matter.

As Browder asked for more time to answer the first questions, Finans postponed the publication of the article for a day. 28 hours after receipt, Browder answered these questions. Then he was given more than six hours to elaborate on a few follow-up questions that could address the shortcomings of the first answers, and the offer of an interview was still in force. When Browder‘s response once again went beyond Finans’ deadline and therefore would delay the publication of an article which Browder had any interest in counteracting and delaying publication, brought the Finans article based on the first responses and failed to include passages that would require knowledge of Browder‘s details. – answer the questions that follow up.

The journalists have, on the whole, reproduced information from material which it has been indisputably possible to verify the authenticity of, and has consistently taken the necessary reservations and presented the views of both parties in substantive descriptions of what happened in cases where it was not possible with undeniable certainty to verify the facts available sufficiently to determine which of the parties is right.

Appealed information To the individual complaints, Finans has stated that, as follows, Browder cannot demonstrate at one point where Finans should have breached good press law, and no errors in the individual complaints have been found:

1. On hearing of Magnitsky in 2008 The article states that Magnitsky was called as a witness in an ongoing tax fraud investigation and that Magnitsky named two investigators during the witness hearings, which according to Magnitsky took part in a central search and helped to seize official company documents. But in the translation of Magnitsky’s testimony from Russian to English, which is also available on the Browder’s own website, russian-untouchables.com, Magnitsky did not accuse the two investigators of being behind the theft of the Browder’s businesses, and he brought no charges against them. Browder has argued, as stated in the article, that Magnitsky revealed a plot and that the naming of the two investigators from the police and tax authorities respectively was the reason why Magnitsky was later imprisoned and killed.
2.  It is not correct, as stated by Browder in his complaint, that it is Finans who concludes in the article that Magnitsky was questioned as a suspect. It is, on the other hand, the Swiss parliamentarian Gross who has been investigating the Magnitsky case for several years and which is clearly stated in the article as the sender of this claim. As a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Andreas Gross has been the banner of resolutions against Russians in Europe due to the death of Magnitsky – a European counterpart to the American Magnitsky Act. In an email to Finans, Gross wrote on March 5, 2019:

The records of Magnitskys interrogations on 5 June and 7 October 2008 are indeed records of an interrogation as a suspect. In the first one, M. (repeatedly!) names the police officers he suspects of involvement in the crime (that he and his client Browder were now accused of). In the second one, M. (in a lawyerly way) refers to and reaffirms his statement made on 5 June (which includes the names of the police officers) and then goes on to add additional detail and new information from his investigation since the first interrogation. [LK: Untrue. Read the interrogations.]

• About Magnitsky ‘s death The article charged does not deal with whether Magnitsky was subjected to violence during his imprisonment. Thus, it is true that Finans does not deny the existence of Russian records suggesting that Magnitsky was subjected to prison violence. However, this case is irrelevant, since Finans has never contested that Magnitsky should have been given a bank during his imprisonment.

The article thus relates exclusively to Browder‘s claim that Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight prison guards, which by the source Andrei Nekrasov has been termed a lie. The article mentions the Council of Europe’s investigator of the Magnitsky case, Andreas Gross’s conclusion in the case: Magnitsky was killed. However, as Andreas Gross has stated in his mail to Finans, despite his investigation, he cannot conclude that Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight guards. [LK: Andreas Gross recanted]

Finans, for the purposes of the article, asked Andreas Gross several questions in an email to which he replied on March 5, 2019. Finans has stated that the following is an accurate representation of the questions and answers in this correspondence:

Finans: You mention in the documentary by filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov that you agree that the Russian authorities did not kill Magnitsky, but that they did not take care of him. This was my view at that time, in the middle of my long work to come to an understanding what may have happened. It’s a big difference off you intentionally kill somebody or if you allow it to happen by negligence. Magnitskys murdering happened as a result of something in between as I would say today. This shows you that it’s still nearly impossible to be absolutely precise.

Why do you think that Magnitsky was not killed? Of course he was killed – by the system, by the way he got not treated for his illnesses, by the way he’s faith was ignored because a life has such a low value in that society. The question is, did somebody had the intention to kill him and who was this. Until you may say this clearly you have to be careful. Why do you think that he died in prison? Because he was beaten, he was forced to exist in conditions who deteriorated his health, he did not get the medicine he needed, the responsible people did not believe, what he told them. A sum of factors, many elements of violence, structural and systematically ones. What do you think about Browder saying that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 guards? It may be, but I can not say this for sure, because I do not know as much as Browder.” [LK: First says beaten, then not so sure.]

The article also describes the report on Magnitsky ‘s death, published by the independent organization Physicians for Human Rights in June 2011, which cites medical neglect as a major cause of death. The report states that Magnitsky was ill and suffered from gallstones and chronically active gallbladder and pancreatitis, and that on his day of death, complained of pain and vomiting but received insufficient medical attention. The organization wrote in the report that “the neglect was calculated, deliberate, and inhuman. He received inadequate medical evaluation and treatment through his detention and on the day of his death this continued […] The repeated medical neglect and the breach of Mr. Magnitsky ‘s welfare was undoubtedly a major factor leading to his death. ‘‘[Finans’s Press Committee].

Browder stated during the press conference that the report could not be used because it was made before the Russian authorities released evidence of violence to Magnitsky ‘s family. Finans has stated that Magnitsky ‘s family later reported that his body had marks and bruised bones. This led the Presidential Human Rights Council of Russia to conclude that there was a justified suspicion that Magnitsky ‘s death was due to violence. In October 2012, however, in an addition to its previous report, the Physicians for Human Rights organization maintained that Magnitsky died due to non-medical treatment of his illnesses, and thus violence was not cited as the cause of death. . Among other things, Finans has referred to the following conclusions from the Physicians for Human Rights’ addition to the 2012 report:

”[…] 138. […] Consequently, the decision by the authorities at (detention facility no. 1) to restain him and keep him in a cell for two hours without treating him sealed his fate and resulted in his death [Finans¹ fremhaevelse, Pressencevnet\. 139. The PHR report also considered the injuries to Mr Magnitsky’s wrists and concluded that such injuries “could cause considerable pain and or numbness to the hands” and that it was not possible for such marks to be left through the ordinary use of handcuffs applied by trained personnel. The report stated that the degree of the injuries documented in the photographs was inconsistent with accidental misapplication of the handcuffs by trained staff.”

Physicians for Human Rights are today at the conclusions of the reports, so it is not correct, as stated by Browder, that the organization’s conclusion was made before the Russian government released the documents which the Browder considers to be evidence that Magnitsky died as a result of violence.

Finans has chosen to bring the conclusions of the Physicians for Human Rights report, as the journalists’ source criticism indicates that they have high credibility and nuances / contradicts the interpretation of Magnitsky death, which not only Browder, but also a number of actors in the Western world, as described in the article, has stated as a causal explanation.

In a follow-up article, The Money Launderer Browder Won’t Reveal Who Finances His Work, which was brought on March 13, 2019, states Browder‘s argument against Physicians for Human Rights, as it again states that there are various interpretations of whether violence was the direct cause of Magnitsky ‘s death.

• On the Russian tax judgment against Browder to Browder‘s complaint for non-submission, Finans stated that the article describes the nine-year sentence for tax fraud to which the Browder was sentenced. The judgment is a fact, not a point of discussion. The article focuses on Browder‘s claim that Magnitsky was convicted with him – according to the Browder as the first in Russia since the year 897 – because the allegation is factually incorrect, which Finans submitted to Browder under the mail correspondence prior to publication.

As the reply from Browder [Reprinted under Item 1, Case, Press Committee], in Finans’s view, is not evidence that Magnitsky was convicted, the journalists asked Browder when they sent follow-up questions to document its claim.

Finans then stated that in 2015, Browder was questioned under oath in a US courtroom. Here, he was questioned by an American lawyer about his claim that Magnitsky was convicted with him. Finans has in his remarks inserted a transcript of the questioning, where Q is the lawyer’s question to Browder and A is Browder‘s answer:

Q So this is an English translation along with the Russian in the back, a judgment in the name of the Russian Federation. And if you go to the end of it, it convicts you of tax evasion, correct? A Yes

Q And you have said many times that Mr. Magnitsky was convicted postumously. You’ve said that? A Yes. Q And on the first page it appears that it’s dismissed against Mr. Magnitsky, correct? A No.

Q Under paragraph 4 of Article 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Do you see that? A Yes.

Q So he wasn’t convicted posthumously, right? You were wrong about that? A No. I don’t ” I don’t read it as such. […]

Q Page 28 of 30. If you look at the top, there are page numbers on the top. I’d give you a Bates number, but mine is not Bates-numbered. Just look at the top of the page there. All right. It says Sentenced. So on Bates No. 1434, the sentence only refers to you, correct? A I see my name here.

 Q Browder found guilty of committing two crimes and ” and then it goes on, right? A Correct.

Q And there’s nothing about Mr. Magnitsky being convicted of anything, correct? A I’m not a Russian criminal lawyer, so I couldn’t make a judgment about this – about this conviction.

Q Well, it appears from these two entries that you were wrong. That he was never convicted posthumously, right? A No.

Q You ” your sticking to your position even though the document says otherwise? A Yes. Q Because you’re not a Russian lawyer? A That’s correct.

Q All right. But you have Russian lawyers working for you, right? A I do.

Q And they’ve reviewed this conviction, and they’ve said there’s somewhere some- place in this conviction that it refers to Mr. Magnitsky as being convicted of some- thing? MR. KIM: Objection. I think communications with his lawyers are topics that we should not answer. MR. CYMROT: All right.

Q So do you have any basis for saying that Mr. Magnitsky is convicted of anything? A Yes. Q What’s that? A Advice from my lawyers.

Q Okay. You know, he just claimed privilege for you. I’m reading the document. It says Case is dismissed. The individual decision to dismiss the crime case on the basis of paragraph 4 of Article 24. Do you see that? It’s at the beginning. Then at the end, Sentenced. Only Browder. You’re sticking by your position no matter what, right? A Is there a – 15 MR. KIM: Objection to form. A My analysis is different than yours.

Q Do you have anything in the document that you can point me to that suggests he’s convicted? A I’m not a lawyer.

Q Well, you read English, right? A I do read English, but I’m not a specialist on Russian law and Russian proc- criminal procedure.”

It is the above, as well as Browder‘s own description of the circumstances in his autobiography, Red Notice, that form the basis of the article’s section on the Browder’s claim that Magnitsky was sentenced with him when complaints were sentenced to nine years prison.

• About the source Andrei Nekrasov, Finans has stated that Browder has repeatedly stated that the filmmaker is in a form of dependency relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin. This, despite the fact that Nekrasov is probably one of the greatest critics of Vladimir Putin and the Russian intelligence and was highly critical of Russia, since Browder still publicly praised Vladimir Putin years ago. To this end, the media has noted that this is, in general, a frequently used argument when Browder attacks critics, as he has, for example, suggested in this case that one of Finans’s journalists is probably a Russian agent, based solely on the nature of the complaints received.

Finans then pointed out that in one of his responses to the media, Browder wrote: “As you would know from the US Department of Justice, Ms. Veselnitskaya provided financial support for Nekrasov’s film.”

Finans has stated that Natalia Veselnitskaya is a Russian lawyer who has been critical of Browder and who, according to the Browder, works as an agent for Russia. She has been a lawyer for a company that has been indicted in the United States based on the Browder’s information about the $ 1.5 billion theft. DKK, which three companies, Browder owned, were reimbursed in tax from the Russian state.

The article does not mention Veselnitskaya and Browder ‘s accusations against her, but during the research, Finans requested Browder to document her claim that Nekrasov’ s documentary film about complaints was financed by her / Russia. Browder‘s answer to Finans’s follow-up question # 4, however, does not document his claim that Veselnitskaya has financed Nekrasov’s film. Browder alone documents that Veselnitskaya has funded the screening of the film. A show that was made for good reasons after the film was finished.

The United Kingdom Defamation Case

Finans states that the article’s description of the defamation case brought by a Russian investigator against Browder in the United Kingdom clearly and unequivocally states that the case was rejected. According to the court’s ruling, the case was dismissed on grounds of abuse of the judicial process and / or lack of jurisdiction. Whether the grounds were abusive or non-judicial, the judge did not consider that the judge considered the applicant to take advantage of the English legal process.

The court’s decision states, among other things, that it will be an abuse of the court’s time and resources to take up a defamation case when the plaintiff has neither a reputation to maintain in the United Kingdom nor can receive full redress because of international sanctions, including the Magnitsky law that places the plaintiff on a penalty list.

The rejection of the case is interesting, however, because the judge, in a statement of opinion in the judgment itself, believes that he has given the applicant some form of vindication, ie erection. It appears from the Rule that Browder cannot justify the libelous allegations against the plaintiff that he was guilty of, or partially blamed, the torture and killing of Magnitsky – and that he would continue to commit to commit crime or cover it up.

The judge also writes that the verdict should not be seen as an expression that the court cannot intervene if Browder continues to publish defamation of the defendant. Browder argues in his complaint to the Press Board that the judgment states that in the defamation case, if it was to be admitted, the plaintiff‘s guilt should not be assessed individually but as part of a criminal organization. However, the Court’s conclusions on page 27 of the judgment show that the judge did not consider the possibility that the backlogs could be justified on the basis of the applicant’s participation in a broad conspiracy.

Rationale and decision of the Press Board: The following board members participated in the proceedings: Jesper Rothe, Hans Peter Blicher, Ulrik Holmstrup and Marlene Borst Hansen.

The Press Committee notes initially that Browder has not documented being able to complain on behalf of anyone other than himself. The Press Committee cannot therefore decide on whether Finans has acted in contravention of good press law in relation to Magnitsky or his family.

Good press information Correct information, presentation, source criticism, etc.

Browder has complained that Finans in the article, to the best of his knowledge, has provided incorrect, infringing and harmful information about him, and that Finans has failed to include documentation in support of Browder‘s views presented in the article . Browder complains in this regard that Finans’s submission prior to publication was insufficient and that he did not have reasonable time to respond to the criticism made. Browder has also complained that Finans has not shown sufficient source criticism.

It follows from the guidelines for good press practice that it is the job of the media to bring accurate and fast information. As far as possible, it should be checked whether the information provided or reproduced is correct. Criticism should be viewed against the news sources, especially when their statements may be colored by personal interest or injurious intent. Information which may be injurious, offensive or disrespectful to any person must be specifically examined before being brought, first and foremost by submission to the person concerned. Submission should be given in such a way as to give the respondent reasonable time to respond. Attacks and responses should, where appropriate, be brought into context and in the same way. This applies in particular to abusive or harmful statements, cf. A. 1 to A.4.

Reasonable submission Browder has complained that he was not given reasonable time to answer Finans’s questions during the publication prior to publication, and that some of his answers appeared only in a follow-up article posted the day after the article charged.

Based on the facts of the case, the Press Committee has assumed that on March 11, 2019, Finans. 09.04 submitted 19 questions to Browder. The same day at. At 17.39, Finans Browder called for answers and asked him to send his answers to Finans no later than the following day, March 12, 2019, at. 11.00. Browder responded shortly after he worked on his answers, but he wasn’t sure if he could reach the deadline. On March 12, 2019 at 11.21 wrote Finans to Browder and extended his deadline to the same day at. 15.00. In that regard, Finans stated that Browder‘s reply must appear in a follow-up article if Finans did not receive his reply before the set deadline. Kl. At 11.51, Browder submitted his replies to Finans, to which Finans at 1 p.m. 12.52 asked five additional questions. These were answered by Browder at 20.12 the same evening, when the article was published on Finans.dk.

The Press Committee finds that Browder in the morning of March 11, 2019, was given ample time to answer the 19 questions before the deadline set just over 24 hours later. The Board has emphasized that it should be possible for Browder to answer the specific questions without longer preparation time. The press committee does not express criticism of Finans’s submission in this regard.

With regard to the five follow-up questions, the Press Committee finds that, upon receipt of the questions, Browder must be aware that Finans was planning an early publication of the article, having been informed earlier that day that his answer would be be included in a follow-up article if received after the Finans deadline. In this connection, Finans has informed the Press Committee that the article was brought just over six hours after the mail with the follow-up questions was sent to Browder. The information on this is not disputed by Browder.

Accordingly, the Press Committee finds no basis for criticizing Finans for bringing the article before the media had received Browder‘s follow-up reply. The Committee emphasized that the follow-up questions also had a character that Browder should be able to answer without longer preparation time, and that his follow-up answers were included in the article “The money laundering Browder will not reveal, who finances his work ”, which was posted on Finans.dk the following day, March 13, 2019.

Appealed information Browder has complained about five facts in the article.

The press committee generally notes that, in accordance with the general principle of the editor’s right to edit the medium, the editor is entitled to decide what to bring in the medium. That is, it is within the boundaries of the editor’s right to edit not to mention matters that are central to one or the other, and it is up to the editor to select and deselect material and sources as long as overall impressions give a true and fair view.

The Board further notes, it follows from section 43 of the Media Liability Act, that the Press Committee decides in cases whether publication has been made in violation of good press practice, cf. a rebuttal. Browder‘s complaint contains questions about the correctness of various factual matters, which the Press Board, due to the nature and scope of the questions, is unable to verify.

On hearing about Magnitsky in 2008 Browder has complained that Finans in the article concluded that Magnitsky in 2008 was rightly questioned as a suspect in a tax case contrary to Browder‘s information on that Magnitsky gave testimony as a whistleblower in a fraud case.

Among other things, the article states:

[…] The story of the whistleblower Magnitsky is at the heart of Browder‘s narrative. But the testimonies of Magnitsky, which are publicly available, show that he did not show up with the police to reveal a plot as a whistleblower. He was summoned as a witness in an ongoing investigation because he and Browder were being investigated for tax fraud. […] In the published witness interrogations, Magnitsky mentions the two investigators numerous times. Among other things, he says that they were involved in the searches and to seize official company documents. But he does not accuse them of being behind the theft. He raises no charges against them. For Nekrasov, that’s crucial. “Magnitsky was summoned as a witness in a criminal investigation; he did not go on his own initiative to report a crime. Browder manipulates by referring to these documents as Magnitsky ‘s whistleblower testimony. It is not true that he here accused police officers of the theft of 1.5 billion. And there is no other evidence that Magnitsky uncovered a theft of the tax payments. Therefore, the motive of Plaintiffs narrative to imprison and kill Magnitsky falls apart,” he says.

The Swiss parliamentarian Andreas Gross has been investigating the Magnitsky case for several years and, as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has been the banner of instituting resolutions against Russians in Europe due to Magnitsky’s death. In an email correspondence with Finans, he acknowledges that Magnitsky was actually questioned as a suspect. Still, he thinks that Magnitsky was a whistleblower. According to the Gross, the warnings as a whistleblower occurred only in police reports that preceded the Magnitsky witness inquiries. Finans has gone through the police reviews. Magnitsky is not mentioned in them, as is a director of the big bank HSBC [probably Paul Wrench], who, as the Hermitage partner, warns of a possible fraud number and a conspiracy among the officials.

First, they launch a version in which Magnitsky allegedly acts as a whistleblower during his witness inquiries. When that explanation falls apart, a new one is launched. And if it’s real – which I don’t think it is – then Magnitsky is not a whistleblower at all because he didn’t accuse the police of the theft. Then Browder traveled around the world and made a completely wrong man into the hero of the story that American law is named after, states the filmmaker. According to him, the truth is that there is no whistleblower at all because the events have not taken place, as Browder claims. But Gross disagrees. He believes that Browder is reliable. […]

It is clear from the written submission prior to publication that Browder in his email to Finans of March 12, 2019 at 1 p.m. 11.51 answered the following questions regarding the Magnitsky hearings in

Magnitsky was questioned on the 5^th of June and 7^th of October 2008. According to you Magnitsky went to the police as a whistleblower and accused two officers (Pavel Karpov and Artem Kuznetsov) for being part of the crime of stealing your companies (that were used to steal the 230 mio. dollars paid in taxes). But in his testimonies – which we have come in possession of via EU-parlementarians – Magnitsky seems to be questioned as a suspect in an ongoing tax case. And he does not accuse Karpov or Kuznetsov of stealing the companies although he mentions their names several times. Why are you saying that Magnitsky was a whistle- blower? Have you actually read Magnitsky’s testimony? If so, you would have seen that the answer is self-evident and doesn’t support your allegations.

Browder: It was not a “tax case” but the criminal case on fraud opened on 05.02.2008 in response to the criminal complaint filed Paul Wrench, HSBC officer and Magnitsky testified in this case as a representative of Paul Wrench. Magnitsky’s testimonies are in the public record and on the Magnitsky justice campaign website, and have been for a long time. It is clear from the text of his testimony that he is not a suspect, but is giving testimony in his professional capacity, legally representing his client, Hermitage, whose criminal complaint caused an investigation to be opened into the fraud against Hermitage. Magnitsky described the findings of his investigation of the fraud against Hermitage and identified who played a role in the fraud, including how police officers targeted Hermitage, and how Karpov and Kuznetsov breached their official duties to assist the criminals.”

As stated above, the Press Committee does not have the opportunity to ascertain in what capacity Magnitsky gave testimony during the aforementioned hearings in 2008.

The Press Committee finds that Finans has sufficiently submitted the allegations made to Browder and that Browder‘s comments of March 12, 2019 are consistent with his views regarding the hearings of Magnitsky in 2008, which are reproduced in the article. The Board further finds that the article clearly states that it is the sources of Nekrasov and Gross’s assessment that Magnitsky in 2008 was questioned as a suspect and did not provide an explanation as a whistleblower.

In light of the above, the Press Committee finds that Finans has loyally reported the criticism raised by Browder‘s information about the interrogations in question, and the Board does not express criticism.

About Magnitsky ‘s death Browder has complained that Finans, in the article’s presentation of Magnitsky ‘s death, only included a 2011 report from the organization Physicians for Human Rights, which was not submitted to Browder prior to publication. Browder has also complained that Finans did not mention the documentable damage inflicted on Magnitsky in the jail prior to his death.

It appears from the mail correspondence between Browder and Finans prior to publication that Browder in his email of March 12,2019 at lp.m. 11.51 wrote the following about Magnitsky ‘s death:

“You have on several occasions said that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 guards.

What kind of documentation do you have for stating this? The Russian government has released multiple records to the Magnitsky family demonstrating that Magnitsky was beaten by 8 riot guards with rubber batons. These include: the certificate of use of rubber batons from the prison, [LK: This was a forgery] the death certificate referencing the suspected cerebral-cranial injury [LK: That was a past injury. Also said no signs of violent death detected] , and the forensic post-mortem stating that his injuries were consistent with the use of rubber batons.” [LK: Doesn‘t mean that occurred. There is no evidence that occurred.]

Finans asked a follow-up question to this, which in Browder‘s mail of March 12, 2019 at. 20.12 was answered as follows:

“Regarding question 10: Can you please send the “multiple records” from the Russian government proving that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 guards? Mr Borshev – the head of OPC (the Oversight Prison Commission of Moscow) after conducting its investigation stated the following: “There were 8 guards participating in beating of the lawyer Magnitsky in Matrosskaya Tishina [detention centre]”- confirmed by the human right commissioner [Mr Valery Borshev]. (emphasis added) [LK: Lies that Magnitsky was a lawyer, not an accountant. Does not provide the evidence requested]

Hermitage report Certificate on use of handcuffs, issued by Matrosskaya Tishina Detention Center, 16 November 2009: “16.11.2009 19:30 min. Assistant Deputy to Head of Detention Center, Lt OG Kuznetsov at collection point post…rubber baton was applied to … Magnitsky.” [LK: Baton use a forgery] Death Certificate of Magnitsky, 16 November 2009, signed by officials of Matrosskaya Tishina Detention Center, identifies suspected cerebral cranial injury.

[LK: The cranial injury was a past injury, no sign of violent death detected. The links to Browder’s baton and cranial injury claims posted in the report show a 404, not available. Postmortem photos show bruises on wrists and ankles, nothing life-threatening]

The article under appeal states the following: Magnitsky ‘s death: The death of Magnitsky itself is another controversial focal point of the entire case.

In Browder‘s version, Magnitsky was imprisoned and tortured to eventually die after being chained to the bed and beaten by eight guards with rubber sticks. Browder claims that there are several reports from the Russian authorities supporting this version. But when Nekrasov filmed his documentary about Magnitsky, he couldn’t make it go up: He simply couldn’t get eight combat officers into the space that was in Magnitsky ‘s cell. He therefore ended up perceiving Browder ‘s version of Magnitsky’ s death as a lie.

The Physicians for Human Rights organization also does not mention torture or violence resulting in death in its independent report on Magnitsky ‘s death from 2011. It states that he was ill and suffered from gallstones and chronic active gallbladder and pancreatitis and that on the day of his death he complained of pain and vomiting, but received insufficient medical attention. “The neglect was calculated, deliberate and inhuman. He received inadequate medical evaluation and treatment through his detention and on the day of his death, this continued, the independent doctors write in the report which contains a report of June 28, 2011 from the International Forensic Program, PHR, Physicians for Human Rights, entitled Forensic Review of Magnitsky Documents Submitted by Hermitage Fund and the following introduction Physicians for Human Rights International Forensic Program ( PHR / IFP) was contacted by Hermitage CEO Browder on December 16th, 2010 requesting a review of documents in their position regarding the death in custody of their lawyer, Magnitsky […] ” .

The Press Committee: The repeated medical neglect and breach of Magnitsky ‘s well-being was undoubtedly a major factor leading to his death,‘‘ one of the conclusions reads. But there is not a word in the report about guards beating Magnitsky to death. Finans has been in contact with the organization’s then-director, but he does not want to comment. Neither does the European Parliamentarian Andreas Gross buy Browder‘s account that Magnitsky was beaten to death, but he believes that Magnitsky was killed. ‘Of course he was killed – by the system – because he was not treated for his illnesses and because his fate was ignored in a society where life has such a low value. The question is: Did anyone have any intentions of killing him, and who was it? Until you can say this clearly, you have to be careful, he writes in the email correspondence with Finans.

The death is also mentioned in the follow-up article of March 13, 2019, which states:

Browder previously described how Magnitsky was beaten by eight prison guards and then left to die in his cell without medical attention.

The Russian government has released many records to Magnitsky ‘s family, which shows that Magnitsky was beaten by eight prison guards with rubber cutters, writes Browder, who points out that Magnitsky was imprisoned after that, as a witness, he had given an explanation in a case in which his client Hermitage believed that the company was subject to a plot. When the independent organization Physicians for Human Rights released its report on Magnitsky’s death in June 2011, it cited medical neglect as a major cause of death, but did not mention violence. One month later, the Presidential Human Rights Council in Russia described that there was a reasonable suspicion that Magnitsky’s death was due to violence. His family had reported missing bones and marks on Magnitsky’s corpse. In October 2012, in addition to its report, the Physicians for Human Rights organization upheld the conclusion that Magnitsky’s death was due to a lack of medical treatment for his illnesses.

The Press Committee finds that the cited report from the Physicians for Human Rights of 2011, made on the basis of Browder, does not in itself contain information that may be injurious, offensive or disrespectful to Browder. The Board therefore finds no reason to criticize Finans for not having obtained Browder‘s comments on the report before the article was published.

With regard to Finans’s mention of Magnitsky ‘s death, it could have given a more nuanced picture of the case if the article had also stated that Magnitsky was exposed to violence while he was put in prison. However, the article clearly states that it mentions the death of the Magnitsky itself and the fact that there are sources that contradict Browder’s public interpretation of the cause of death. Since Browder has also come up in the discussion, and it is clear, in particular from the follow-up article, that he has referred to records from the Russian government showing that Magnitsky in the prison was beaten with rubber bands , [LK: There is no such evidence.] the Board, after an overall assessment, finds no reason to comment.

About the Russian tax judgment against Browder, Browder has complained that Finans in the article has questioned his credibility on the basis of a Russian tax judgment from 2013, where he was sentenced to nine years in custody. Browder complains in this regard that the judgment was not presented to him prior to its publication and that the international criticism of the judgment is not sufficiently clear from Finans’ articles.

On the basis of the facts of the case, the Press Board has assumed that it is undisputed that in a Russian tax case in 2013, Browder was sentenced to nine years in custody. The Board has also assumed that during its submission, Finans, in its mail of 11 March 2019, 09.04 to Browder, asked several questions in relation to Browder‘s tax situation in Russia and to the specific judgment, for example:

In your book you claim that your problems in Russia were caused either because you fought against the oligarchs or because you criticized Putin. Isn’t it possible that your got into problems because of your aggressive tax planning that might even have been illegal?

  Did you at any time when you invested in Russia not pay the proper taxes? […]

You have claimed that Magnitsky was sentenced after his death. But according to the judgment from the court that was presented to you during your deposition during pre-trial in the Prevezon case in 2015 the case against Magnitsky was dismissed. Why have you said that Magnitsky was sentenced after his death? Do you have any documentation that proves this statement? When did Magnitsky start working for you?

Have you used Magnitsky’s death in your favor to shift the focus from wrongdoings conducted by you and your companies?”

Against this background, the Press Committee finds that Browder was loyally informed that Finans in the discussion would relate critically to his tax cases, which is why the Board does not find that Finans has acted in breach of good press practice by not directly obtaining Browder’s comments on the judgment in question, the existence of which, as stated above, are uncontested. The Committee does not express criticism.

The Board further finds that Finans has faithfully presented Browder‘s information on the international criticism of the judgment, as the following article of 13 March 2019 states:

“He was sentenced to nine years in prison by a Russian court, in a case that he himself thought was a politically motivated viewing process. […]

Politically motivated verdict

According to Browder, a court in the United Kingdom, Interpol, the British Government, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States have all established that it was a politically motivated conviction. It is clear from the facts of the case that, prior to publication, Finans asked Browder to state his information that Magnitsky was convicted in the tax case in question. In connection with the follow-up questions, Finans asked Browder to specify where the court stated that Magnitsky was convicted. Browder‘s reply to Finans, which was sent on March 12, 2019 at 20.12, states:

“Regarding question 11: What you have send proves that Magnitsky was part of the case which I don’t think anyone has denied. But it does not prove that he was sentenced. I have read the verdict and it does not say anything about a sentence to Magnitsky. If you stick to your claim that he was sentenced, then please send the part of the verdict that according to you proves this.

Browder: I’ve never made a claim that Magnitsky was sentenced. I’ve made the claim that he was convicted. If you listen to any of my speeches on YouTube you will hear me quoted as saying “they found us both guilty. They couldn’t do anything more to Magnitsky because they already killed him. They sentenced me to nine years in absentia” The posthumous trial document does not simply show that he was “part of the case”, as you state, but clearly sets out that the trial that was held in 2013 was specifically against Magnitsky (who was killed in 2009) and me, and that through the course of the trial it was “established” that Magnitsky was the “mastermind” of the scheme.”

The article under appeal of 12 March 2019 states the following on the role of Magnitsky in the tax case:

“Browder was sentenced in 2013 to nine years in custody for tax fraud in Russia. In his autobiography, Red Notice, he describes how Magnitsky was sentenced after his death. It was the first time since Pope Formosus in the year 897 that such a fate befell a dead man. […] But the story doesn’t fit. For even though Magnitsky is mentioned as the brain behind the tax office, only Browder is convicted. Faced with this at his 2015 witness hearing in the US court case, Browder‘s defense read: I am not a Russian criminal defense attorney so I cannot judge it. So you stick to your explanation even though the documents show something else? Yes. […]

The Press Committee finds that Browder in his response did not provide any new information or views in relation to the statements from his autobiography, Red Notice, which are reproduced in the impugned article. The Board therefore finds no basis for criticizing Finans’s coverage of the question.

Browder has subsequently complained that the article raises doubts as to whether it is correct that Browder has been denied entry into Russia because he is considered to be a threat to national security.

It is clear from the facts of the case that Browder during the submission, in his mail of 12 March 2019 at. 11.51, stated the following to Finans:

“In your book you claim that your problems in Russia were caused either because you fought against the oligarchs or because you criticized Putin. Isn’t it possible that your got into problems because of your aggressive tax planning that might even have been illegal?

No. Shortly after I was expelled from Russia in November 2005, we sent an inquiry to the Russian authorities about whether there were any criminal allegations opened which would have precipitated that. We received an official response saying there were none. We also received a reply stating that I was expelled under an article of the Russian law declaring me a threat to national security.

Did you at any time when you invested in Russia not pay the proper taxes?

A Hermitage was one of the largest tax payers in Russia, its companies have been audited and found in compliance with tax regulations by the authorities. It was the fact that Hermitage companies paid so much in taxes that made them attractive targets for corrupt officials and criminals specialising in fraudulent “tax rebates” as Magnitsky pointed out in his testimony.”

Browder‘s response led to a follow-up question from Finans, such as Browder, in his email of March 12, 2019 at 1 p.m. 20.12, answered as follows:

“Regarding question 7: Can you please send a copy of the official response from the Russian authorities where they state that there were no criminal allegations against you?

The document is attached. Browder has enclosed a Russian document and an English translation thereof, which appears to have been sent to him from the General Prosecutor’s Office of Russian Federation on April 27, 2019.

Press Council Regarding my question 8: You write that you paid a lot of taxes, but you do not answer my question which is: Did you at any time when you invested in Russia not pay the proper taxes?

Among other things, the article states:

“At some point when you invested in Russia, did you not pay the correct tax?

A The Hermitage Fund, which I advised, paid all taxes at all relevant times in Russia. Browder points out that in 2006 – after his expulsion from Russia in November 2005 – he received a document from the Russian authorities, who determined that there was no criminal investigation directed at him. He maintains that he is the victim of a plot. “Companies I advised were some of the largest taxpayers in Russia and paid $1.5 billion. The entire amount was stolen with the approval of high-ranking Russian officials and ended up on accounts and real estate owned by the families of Russian officials, writes Browder.

The press board finds that Finans has faithfully reproduced Browder‘s information on why he was refused entry into Russia in November 2005. In that regard, the Board finds that the comment in the article of March 12, 2019 that Browder had not provided evidence for his views was not necessary, as at the time of publication, Finans was still awaiting reply from Browder to the follow-up questions in which Finans had requested this particular documentation. As Browder’s information regarding the expulsion, as stated above, is properly and loyally reproduced, the Board does not find reason to comment.

Finally, Browder complained about the source Nekrasov’s statements regarding the tax case:

The filmmaker has another interpretation: The biggest lie is that his tax case is politically motivated and that Putin is personally after Browder because he is the banner of human rights. Browder became an enemy of Russia because of the tax numbers he and Hermitage made, he says.

As stated below, the Board has not found reason to comment on the fact that the source Nekrasov contributes to the article. The Board then finds that it is sufficiently clear that the statement expresses the source’s subjective assessment of Browder’s tax case, and the Press Committee does not pronounce criticism of Finans for having made the statement.

About the Nekrasov, Browder has complained that Finans has not been sufficiently critical of him.

In relation to Finans’s source selection, the Press Committee finds that Nekrasov in the article makes a critical statement about Browder and about Browder‘s public disclosure of, among other things, his Russian tax case, Magnitsky’s role in this regard and Magnitsky’s death.

The Board finds that this gave Finans special attention to check the basis and accuracy of the source’s information, as the source could be colored by personal interest and injurious intent. However, it is clear from the article who Nekrasov is that he is critical of Browder and that his statements may thereby be colored by personal interest. The Committee therefore finds no basis for criticizing Nekrasov‘s participation in the article.

About the British defamation case Browder has complained about the article’s preparation of the British defamation case, which was brought against him in 2013 by a Russian investigator.

The article states the following about the lawsuit:

Browder has on several occasions proclaimed named persons as Magnitsky murderers. That prompted one of the Russian investigators, who have been put on the so-called Magnitsky list, to file a lawsuit against him in London in 2013. The lawsuit ended up being rejected because, according to Judge Simon in London The High Court did not belong in the English courtroom. But the judge ruled that Browder went over the line with his charges. The causal connection that one would expect in such a serious indictment is completely lacking, and nothing is said about torture or murder. (….) The defense has not come close to presenting facts which – if proven – could justify that sting of slander, ‘the judgment states. [The article shows a photograph of the verdict, where the reproduced section is marked with yellow color, Press Committee]”

The Press Committee finds that the article clearly states that the defamation case brought was dismissed by the British court and that the article’s wording that, according to the judge, the case did not belong in the English court has coverage in the facts. The Board also finds that it is within the editor’s right to edit that Finans has chosen to reproduce the above excerpt from the judge’s expression of opinion in the article. The committee does not express criticism.

The Press Committee finds that Finans has also not otherwise breached good press practice.

---