Many English attorneys and judges keep that freezing orders are important to limit fraudsters, and defend the openness of their courts to lawsuits and proof originating in international locations with compromised authorized programs. Assessing all of the proof, they contend, no matter the place it got here from or the way it acquired there, higher serves justice.
“Admissibility of proof makes U.Okay. courts extra enticing for this type of litigation than international locations just like the U.S.,” stated Pavel Tokarev, a former Diligence investigator who left in 2019 to begin his personal company. “The foundations of accepting proof, it’s very versatile within the U.Okay.”
The jailhouse proof from Ms. Tyshchenko is a living proof.
To accumulate it, Mr. Hardman labored with Andrei A. Pavlov, a Russian lawyer employed by BTA Financial institution. The US and Britain would later place sanctions on Mr. Pavlov for his alleged function in a prison conspiracy that led to the 2009 demise in a Moscow jail of the whistle-blower Sergei Magnitsky. Mr. Pavlov, in an interview in Moscow, stated he had been unfairly smeared and had completed nothing unsuitable. He stated he was proud to have labored with Mr. Hardman due to his London accomplice’s fame as an excellent lawyer.
Confronted with complaints that Hogan Lovells had not totally knowledgeable the courtroom that Ms. Tyshchenko offered her proof underneath duress, an English decide dominated they’d adopted disclosure guidelines by stating that she was incarcerated when she first offered the data. However the decide was not requested to rule on whether or not the circumstances of her incarceration — the truth that she was in a Russian jail — must also be thought of, in addition to the involvement of Mr. Pavlov and questions on whether or not Ms. Tyshchenko had been mistreated.
Furthermore, whereas Ms. Tyshchenko remained in jail, one other Hogan Lovells lawyer satisfied an English decide to grant an order that required her husband in Britain at hand over data and different info. Among the many supporting proof the regulation agency submitted had been “press studies” from compromat.ru, a Russian web site infamous as a clearing home for unverified and typically fabricated info.
Hogan Lovells stated that London’s Excessive Courtroom had already rejected complaints of the agency “behaving improperly” in Ms. Tyshchenko’s case, and said that it “complies totally” with the principles of proof. The knowledge from compromat.ru was “one small a part of a a lot bigger assortment of proof that the courtroom accepted justified the granting of the order” within the case in opposition to Ms. Tyshchenko, the agency stated.
Ms. Tyshchenko was much less sanguine. “There aren’t any good guys on this affair,” she stated.
A Case That By no means Ends
If a few of London’s regulation companies have reaped wealthy rewards by defending oligarchs and former Soviet international locations, they’ve typically been much less profitable at recovering funds for these purchasers. As of November 2020, BTA Financial institution had recovered simply $45 million of the greater than $6 billion it claims Mr. Ablyazov stole, its chairman stated in a current affidavit.