CRIME REPORT ABOUT CORRUPTION IN THE HIGH COURT (DEPUTY JUDGE MR BELTRAMI KC)

This is an update to the crime report on death threats. These threats are described in many mass media. For example, here, here, here and here.

Reference: <…>

Dear Sir or Madam

1. The reason for today's update of my crime report [on death threats] filed on <…> is the following.

2. In my original crime report, I did not raise the issue of a possible corruption offence committed by the deputy judge of the Commercial Court of the High Court (KBD) Mr Beltrami KC. This issue is one of the most important parts of my petition signed by more than 60,000 people.

3. The reason why I did not include this episode in the original crime report is that I did not know which body was responsible for investigating corruption crimes committed by judges. However, on the website of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, in the “FAQ” section, I found the following question and answer:

“Can I complain to you because I believe a judge is involved in corruption or has committed fraud?

No. Such allegations would be a matter for the police”.

4. I believe that this is not only about the police, but also about other investigative bodies, including those investigating the most serious crimes - such as the NCA, to which my petition is addressed and to which I ask that my crime report be redirected.

5. So, one of the most important topics of my petition, signed by more than 60,000 people, is the story connected with the deputy judge of the Commercial Court of the High Court (KBD) Mr Beltrami KC.

6. This person combines the work of a judge and a lawyer (barrister) and as a judge on 27 May 2022 held the hearing in case CL-2016-000831. At the same time, he violated the requirements of the Guide to Judicial Conduct, hiding from me (the plaintiff) information about his more than close ties with the lawyers of the defendants – Russian oligarchs.

7. I will quote the relevant part of my petition:

Deputy Judge of the High Court of England and Wales, Mr Beltrami KC, hiding from me his close ties with the lawyers of the oligarchs, after bribery by the defendants of my lawyers, essentially deprived me of access to justice exactly on that basis that now I have no lawyers

So, after the monstrous lawlessness described above only partially, I had the last hope to achieve justice in the English court, which is famous for its fairness, integrity, incorruptibility and impartiality, but my hopes have been ruined.

Blocking, in fact, access to justice for me, deputy judge Mr Beltrami KC wrote in his judgment literally the following: “Given the constraints of the application and the timing of the hearing I have not engaged in -- and I want to be absolutely clear about this -- the details or the merits of any of those allegations. It would be quite wrong for me do so, and I say nothing about them either way because I cannot do so. What I can say, and as is relevant to the application, is that the fact that such widespread allegations have been made is itself, in my judgment, a very strong factor against the application. Such allegations are easy to make but difficult to substantiate. <...> In summary, I see the fact of the allegations as a very strong contrary factor against the application”.

This judgment has not been published anywhere, and it was about my request that I personally, in the absence of lawyers, could represent the interests of the plaintiffs, since there is no one else can represent them, because (1) as a result of the fraudulent behavior of the defendants, I was left without money and cannot pay for the services of lawyers, and (2) those lawyers (Candey firm) who agreed to work on the terms of “no win – no fee” were bribed by the Russian oligarchs in the most primitive way.

After the hearing conducted by Mr Beltrami KC, I found out from publicly available sources that he had been working for the lawyers of these Russian oligarchs for many years, and their relationship became so close that Mr Beltrami KC's son began working for Simmons & Simmons, representing these Russian oligarchs.

This information was not disclosed to me either before or during the court hearing, despite the fact that the Guide to Judicial Conduct states: “If there are circumstances which may give rise to a suggestion of bias, or appearance of bias, if possible, they should be disclosed to the parties well before the hearing. Disclosure, followed by recusal on the day of the hearing, will almost certainly involve additional costs for the parties and will frequently cause listing difficulties. However, listing arrangements in many courts may render notification in advance impossible. Disclosure should of course be to all parties and, save when the issue has been resolved by correspondence before the hearing, discussion between the officeholder and the parties as to what procedure to follow should normally be in open court, unless the case itself is to be heard in chambers”.

That is, due to non-disclosure of information, I was deprived of the opportunity to apply for recusal of Mr Beltrami KC, who turned out to be closely connected with the lawyers of the Russian oligarchs and who actually made a fateful decision in their favor, without considering at least one argument on the merits.

8. I will also quote one more relevant fragment of my petition – section

“EXTORTION EPISODE 2”: An attempt of 2021 to capture the lawsuit under death threats accompanied by the words that the oligarchs will bribe my British lawyers and even judges

In 2021, I finally managed to notify the defendants of the lawsuit and the proceedings moved into the active stage. Against this background, the defendants sent some people to me who, threatening to kill, demanded that I assign the plaintiff's rights to these persons (that is, in their own words, they tried to capture the lawsuit).

- This story is described, for example, in my interview for the Latvian press.

- Making these demands, these people substantiated them by the promises that this would eliminate the threat of my contract killing by the defendants. These threats are described in lines 16-27 of the list of threats investigated by the Latvian police.

- In addition, these people directly warned me (threatened) that the defendants would bribe my British lawyers and even judges. Verbatim transcripts of these fragments with links to the audio recordings are available here. That is how the words about the bribery of English judges sounded:

“Bobylev: Look, Igor, I have such a question. Imagine that I am you. I am Igor Sychev, and you are the judge. And here sits our defendant [Mr Guryev]. Please tell me, now you are a judge and you are a bribed judge. This is not possible in the English court, but we will imagine for a moment that you are the bribed judge. What would you cling to to make a decision not in my favor? Here you are the judge, you are the bribed judge, you need to cling to something. The judge is guided, except for his wig, by his conscience, he is not guided by anything else, this is in any legislation of the world. Now, what would you say? What would a bribed judge cling to?

Me: I can't even imagine.

Bobylev: Is everything going so fine for you? But in principle, we were told the same thing”.

9. I have every reason to believe that Mr Beltrami KC and the Russian oligarchs (PhosAgro's shareholders) have committed a corruption crime - giving a bribe to Mr Beltrami for issuing a judgment in favor of these oligarchs. I cannot explain Mr Beltrami's violation of the requirements of the Guide to Judicial Conduct for any other reason.

10. The important thing is that it was very easy for Mr Beltrami to comply with these requirements - he could (must) simply inform me before the hearing or at the beginning of the hearing that he was simultaneously working as a barrister for lawyers on the opposite side, and his children work for the firm representing the opposite side, and ask me if I trust him to be the judge in this case.

11. In other words, the procedure is extremely simple, but Mr Beltrami, contrary to the mandatory rules, decided to hide this important information from me.

12. I am sure that the reason for hiding this information was that Mr Beltrami and the Russian oligarchs, whose corrupt habits I know very well, since I worked for them for 18 years (more on their habits is in the document mentioned in paragraph 14 below), understood that I would not agree that Mr Beltrami can act as a judge under such circumstances.

13. In addition to my arguments set out in my public petition and indicating possible corruption, I will give the following.

14. Firstly, the Russian oligarchs in question (who bribed Mr Beltrami KC) are extremely prone to corruption, not only in Russia but also abroad. A detailed description of this subject is contained in the attached (separate) document.

15. Secondly, even if we assume that Mr Beltrami was appointed as a judge for the hearing on 27 May 2022 quite by accident (which I do not believe), then my opponents, having learned the name of the judge with whom they are very closely familiar, could not help but take advantage of this "gift of fate" in order to get into informal contact with him to discuss the hearing scheduled for 27 May with their participation. If they had not tried to take advantage of this “accidental” opportunity, then these oligarchs would have radically changed their long-standing habits of solving all problems with the help of corruption.

16. At the same time, the oligarchs had very easy opportunities to enter into an informal dialogue - after all, their lawyers, who had long known Mr Beltrami, who had worked for them for many years, could call him on his mobile phone at any time and meet in an informal setting. If we were talking about a person completely unfamiliar to these oligarchs, then it would take a lot of effort to organize such an unofficial contact with him or her, and in this case the situation was simplified as much as possible.

17. Thirdly, it is also very simple to transfer a bribe under such conditions - this can be done under the guise of supposedly legal payment for the services of Mr Beltrami as a lawyer. It is enough for some unofficial representatives of the oligarchs to conclude an agreement with Mr Beltrami for the provision of fictitious legal services to them and transfer the amount of the bribe under this agreement. By the way, if this was the case (and I am sure of this, since this is the easiest option), then we are talking not only about a corruption crime, but also about laundering illegal funds (the bribe).

18. Another (alternative) and also a very simple option for transferring a bribe is the payment by Simmons & Simmons, which represents the interests of the oligarchs, of a fictitious remuneration (bonus) to the son of Mr Beltrami, who works in this law firm. This option also provides the appearance of the legality of the bribe, but in fact, is the fact of the transfer of the bribe and, at the same time, the laundering of the money received as a bribe.

19. Separately, I want to pay special attention to the following aspect - the corruption crime under consideration surely involved British lawyers of these Russian oligarchs. I assume that this is Simmons & Simmons, since it is with them that Mr Beltrami has the closest ties. At Simmons & Simmons, this litigation is being led by partner Ed Crosse, who is well known in the legal community in principle, since previously he led the London Solicitors Litigation Association.

Sincerely yours,

Igor Sychev

Information about Guryev and PhosAgro; their close ties with the UK, lobbying and "exporting corruption"

1. Mr Guryev's family's close connection to the UK goes beyond buying the most expensive real estate. For Russian Forbes, the Guryev family said that their family assets are managed by the English firm Kola Capital, and that the Guryevs' wives and children reside permanently in England. That is, the UK is the second most important country of presence for the Guryevs after Russia (and if we talk about the importance of the UK as a place of storage of assets, then it ranks first).

2.?21% of PhosAgro shares worth about $ 2 billion are owned by Putin's personal friend Mr Litvinenko, infamous, including in the UK, thanks to the shocking story of his conflict with his own daughter Olga, who now lives in the UK. In May 2021, her story was described in The Times in an article titled "They kidnapped my daughter". In brief, the story is as follows: as a result of a family conflict with his daughter, Mr Litvinenko abducted her daughter (that is, his granddaughter), and Olga herself, who was forced to flee Russia, has been declared by her father abducted (in order to seize her property and deprive her of means of subsistence). In Russia, a criminal case has been "investigated" for more than 10 years that someone allegedly abducted and illegally imprisoned Olga abroad, although she leads a public lifestyle and her interviews are published regularly. Last year, she won a trial in the ECHR, proving the obvious – that she is not abducted, but even after that, the criminal case on her abduction was not stopped in Russia. The law is not written for PhosAgro’s shareholders in Russia.

3.?The unexpected и mysterious appearance of Mr Putin's friend (Mr Litvinenko) in the list of billionaires at the expense of PhosAgro could not fail to attract public attention. This story has been the subject of investigative journalism, for example, of the leading business newspaper Vedomosti (subsidiary newspaper of the English Financial Times and the American Wall Street Journal). Neither Mr Litvinenko nor PhosAgro could provide a clear explanation of how Mr Litvinenko became a big shareholder of PhosAgro. Therefore, the journalists rightly assume that this was the result of corruption on the part of PhosAgro. If so, then this is one of the largest corruption stories not only in Russia, but throughout the world. Let me remind you in this regard that PhosAgro's shares are listed on the London Stock Exchange.

4.?The team of the Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny (who was first poisoned on the instructions of Putin, and then imprisoned), on 8 April 2021, devoted to the story of PhosAgro a part of its weekly program, which is published on their official YouTube channel. Navalny's team stated that Mr Litvinenko owns 21% of PhosAgro's shares in nominal terms, and Mr Putin himself is the real owner of these shares. It is noteworthy that after the release of this program there have been no denials either from PhosAgro and Mr Litvinenko, or from the Russian authorities.

5.?In addition, recently was released the interview of the head of this Foundation Maria Pevchick to the most famous Russian blogger, Yuri Dud. This interview is named “What Corruption Has Done to Russia” and received more than 18 million views. It was filmed in London and begins with a mention of Guryev and his Witanhurst palace. Further, minutes 20 to 30 are devoted to him, and Maria Pevchikh declares that the corruption of the little-known Guryev should be investigated and in this context mentions the story with 20%.

6.?Mr Litvinenko is also known in the UK for his association with Prince Michael of Kent. On 10 May 2021, the Daily Mail dedicated an article to their relationship titled “Moment Queen's cousin Prince Michael of Kent receives honorary professorship from one of Vladimir Putin's oldest and most trusted cronies emerges in unseen footage amid Kremlin cash-for-access storm”.

7.?That is, PhosAgro and Guryev are actively lobbying for their interests in the UK, which, as I mentioned above, is the second most important region of their presence.

8.?In addition to Mr Litvinenko's links to the Royal Family, lobbying takes place through other channels, most of which are probably hidden from the public, but there are also publicly known channels. For example, for a long time the chairman of the Board of directors of PhosAgro, at the invitation of the Guryevs, was the former head of the London Stock Exchange, Xavier R. Rolet (who left this post only after severe criticism of him after the beginning of the war in Ukraine). Here is what the Sky wrote about him: “Mr Xavier R. Rolet is a prominent figure in the City, having run London Stock Exchange Group for more than eight years before stepping down at the end of 2017”.

9. PhosAgro's ties with the Kremlin are so close that the barrister of them in my lawsuit is Mr Swainston KC, who is known for representing Russia in English and international courts, where he tries to prove that Russia did not annex Crimea and accuses Ukraine and Western countries of providing fake evidence.

10.?And PhosAgro’s solicitors work together with the Russian law firm “Ivanyan and Partners”, which is also closely connected with the Russian authorities and which also represents Russia in international courts, as well as solves various kinds of sensitive legal tasks for Russia. Mr Ivanyan does not hide that the so-called Government Relations is one of the firm's activities. At the same time, he himself declares that this activity, as they say, is on the verge, and the dividing line between the criminal and non-criminal aspects of such activity is very thin.

11.?The journalists noted: "Ivanyan and Partners" have repeatedly taken on the most delicate assignments and processes that are strategically important for Russia, both within the country and abroad." I would especially like to draw your attention to this, since it is about lobbying outside Russia.

12.?One of the solicitors for PhosAgro, Guryev and Antoshin is Mr Crosse (Simmons & Simmons), who is a significant figure in legal circles. Previously, he headed the London Solicitors Litigation Association and has a reputation in the judicial environment. I found out in open sources that he takes part in meetings of judges and, for example, together with Mr Justice Knowles, was a member of the working group on Disclosure Pilot.

13.?That is, PhosAgro and Guryev do everything possible to be able to lobby for their interests in the UK, including the judicial system.

14.?Recently, the term "export of corruption" has come into use, which means the desire of Russian billionaires, for whom Russian corruption is the most familiar way of solving problems and increasing their well-being, to transfer these same methods to Western countries in which they have interests. This was stated by Olga Litvinenko, already mentioned above, exactly in relation to PhosAgro shareholders. Moreover, Olga Litvinenko has repeatedly called for PhosAgro shareholders (including the First and Fifth Defendants) to be included in the Magnitsky sanctions list for their involvement in egregious human rights violations, both publicly in the press and in official meetings with authorities in various countries. I will quote some excerpts from her interviews of 2018-2019:

(1)?"If Vladimir Litvinenko and his partners in PhosAgro, whose shares are freely listed on the London Stock Exchange, are included in the Magnitsky list, the possibility of their influence on the legal and public systems of those EU countries that adopt the relevant acts will be partially prevented. We are talking about Vladimir Litvinenko, Andrey Guryev and Igor Antoshin, who can be described as Putin's "wallets" and pillars of today's Kremlin regime. And this is not some emotion, but a legal opinion prepared by an international group of lawyers” (the article of?12 October 2019).

(2)?"Vladimir Litvinenko is a dollar billionaire who owns shares in PhosAgro, and Olga Litvinenko is seeking the inclusion of her father and his business partners Andrey Guryev and Igor Antoshin in the sanctions lists. This is one of the issues raised at the meeting between Olga Litvinenko and Estonian parliamentarians. "I discussed the inclusion in the sanctions lists of co-owners of PhosAgro, whom I call "Putin's shadow cashiers". I have already spoken about this in the Lithuanian Parliament and am now preparing a legal opinion for the working group on including the above-mentioned individuals in the sanctions list. Guryev is already on the so-called "Kremlin list" (the article of 7 March 2018).

15.?Moreover, PhosAgro, Guryev and Antoshin through intermediaries told me directly about the possibility of bribing English judges It was on 21 June 2021. In particular, my interlocutors asked me a very strange question, which I will reproduce verbatim (translated into English):

Bobylev (0:02): Look, Igor, I have such a question. Imagine that I am you. I am Igor Sychev, and you are the judge. And here sits our Orthodox man, a beloved person [Mr. Guryev].

Me (Sychev) (0:17): the defendant?

Bobylev: Yes. Please tell me, now you are a judge and you are a bribed judge. This is not possible in the English court, but we will imagine for a moment that you are the bribed judge. What would you cling to to make a decision not in my favor (0:33)? Here you are the judge, you are the bribed judge, you need to cling to something (0:36). The judge is guided, except for his wig, by his conscience, he is not guided by anything else, this is in any legislation of the world (0:43). Now, what would you say? Could you say that you had recorded [conversations] - there was a microphone in the pen - so he recorded it, and this is illegal? Or he did do something that at the market price is not worth 100 million, it is worth at best 20 million? What would a bribed judge cling to (1:03)?

Me (1:04): I can't even imagine.

Bobylev (1:05): Is everything going so fine for you? But in principle, we were told the same thing.

16.?As you can see, the phrase "bribed judge" (in relation to English judges) sounds 4 times in this short fragment at once.

17.?The main goal of my interlocutors was to convince me to assign them the rights of the plaintiffs in these proceedings, which, according to them, would eliminate the risk of my killing by the defendants. I will reproduce verbatim the words that were addressed to me on that day (translated into English):

“Therefore, it is possible to use different approaches…, different ways, and this issue can be solved in different ways, but there is, of course, a risk for you that we can eliminate - so that they do not order to kill you. This risk is eliminated by changing the beneficiary of the court claim”.