Many English legal professionals and judges keep that freezing orders are important to limit fraudsters, and defend the openness of their courts to lawsuits and proof originating in nations with compromised authorized programs. Assessing all of the proof, they contend, no matter the place it got here from or the way it bought there, higher serves justice.
“Admissibility of proof makes U.Okay. courts extra engaging for this type of litigation than nations just like the U.S.,” mentioned 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 amass 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, mentioned he had been unfairly smeared and had accomplished nothing incorrect. He mentioned he was proud to have labored with Mr. Hardman due to his London companion’s status as an excellent lawyer.
Confronted with complaints that Hogan Lovells had not totally knowledgeable the courtroom that Ms. Tyshchenko offered her proof below duress, an English choose dominated that they had adopted disclosure guidelines by stating that she was incarcerated when she first offered the knowledge. However the choose was not requested to rule on whether or not the circumstances of her incarceration — the truth that she was in a Russian jail — also needs to 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 legal professional satisfied an English choose to grant an order that required her husband in Britain handy over information and different info. Among the many supporting proof the regulation agency submitted had been “press reviews” from compromat.ru, a Russian web site infamous as a clearing home for unverified and typically fabricated info.
Hogan Lovells mentioned that London’s Excessive Courtroom had already rejected complaints of the agency “behaving improperly” in Ms. Tyshchenko’s case, and acknowledged that it “complies totally” with the foundations 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 towards Ms. Tyshchenko, the agency mentioned.
Ms. Tyshchenko was much less sanguine. “There aren’t any good guys on this affair,” she mentioned.
A Case That By no means Ends
If a few of London’s regulation corporations have reaped wealthy rewards by defending oligarchs and former Soviet nations, 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 mentioned in a current affidavit.