Will No One Rid Me of This Meddlesome Economist?
My friend and accomplished economist, Sergei Guriev, has left Russia. He has been targeted by the authorities. Things came to a head when the mouth-breathers from the Investigative Committee (the new Oprichnina that is leading the attack on any and all opponents of the regime) raided the New Economic School where Sergei was Rector. (He resigned that post, and withdrew his name from consideration for re-election to the board of Sberbank.)
Sergei’s sins (in the eyes of the Putinists) were many. Most notably, he had defended Khodorkovsky publicly and frequently. He called for Khodorkovsky’s release: in the same remarks, he said everyone involved in the Magnitsky case should be fired. Most critically, he was one of a group that evaluated the Khodorkovsky conviction, and concluded that the verdict was a sham.
And this provided the pretext for his current predicament: he affirmed that he had not received any financial support from Khodorkovsky, but the authorities allege that he and the New Economic School had received money from foundations associated with and funded by Khodorkovsky. Some reports also indicate that the authorities were relying on that old standby-a tax investigation.
Does it really matter? They would have found something. Anything.
Sergei was very outspoken in his criticism of the Putin economic model. His views are quite similar to mine, and he expressed them cogently and calmly in many public forums. This interview from 2011 provides a good example of his critique of Putinism. Particularly chilling his is demurring from answering the question about whether Russia could collapse: he says that expressing such views could lead to an extremism charge. However, in 2012 Sergei honestly and bravely stated that Russia could collapse-and in a bloody way. He associated himself publicly with Navalny.
Like I said. His sins were many. Given the growing oppression in Russia, it was perhaps inevitable that he would fall victim to it.
Sergei was closely affiliated with Medvedev. This is another indication that Medvedev and his circle are being slowly squeezed out of the way.
Sergei is a very brave man. Fortunately, in this era of the Soft Purge, and perhaps because of his association with Medvedev, he was permitted to leave the country. Fortunately for him. Unfortunately for Russia.
Sergei’s departure comes hard on the heels of the announcement that another prominent opposition voice, Masha Gessen, is leaving Russia.
This is disgusting, and leaves me in a cold fury. It is quite clear that there is no place for smart and decent people in Russian public life, and those who dare speak out against the new tsar and his oprichniki are hounded by “legal” means. Legal nihilism writ large. The law as a sword.
Putin the Python is squeezing, squeezing, squeezing, and civil society is suffocating in Russia as a result. Soon the only people left in Russian public life will be thugs, crooks, and toadies. And when that day comes, Putin will smile and congratulate himself on a job well done. For those are his kind of people. That meddlesome economist, Sergei Guriev, is definitely not. And that speaks volumes of good things about Sergei.
“Most critically, he was one of a group that evaluated the Khodorkovsky conviction, and concluded that the verdict was a sham.”
Yeah, I remember when your idol Andrei Illarionov testified before Congress that Khodorkovsky’s first conviction was “purely fabricated”. Then a competent legal authority, the ECHR, ruled that Khodorkovsky was guilty as hell.
Really, prof, Illarionov’s lies about Khodorkovsky’s first conviction should make you a little leery of relying on Khodorkovsky fanboys for legal analysis.
Comment by wanderer — May 29, 2013 @ 3:17 pm
@wanderer. Go fuck yourself. Truly. Like the ECHR isn’t a politicized body that sways with the political winds. And where in this post did I mention Illarionov? Um, nowhere.
How is the view up Putin’s ass?
I know Sergei Guriev. He is an honorable, intelligent, and courageous individual. As is his wife, who is even more critical of Putin, Sechin, Rosneft, Gazprom and the whole collection of creatures that masquerades as the government of Russia. They are not “fanboys”. They are serious people. Unlike you.
The concept of anyone calling up the Eurotards and their human “rot” court for an objective opinion is so bizarre that it could leave one speechless. Dean Swift once said that you can recognize a genius by this sign – when a confederacy of dunces rises against him. Putin and Co.’s enmity is likewise the sign of an honorable one.
Comment by Sotos — May 29, 2013 @ 4:35 pm
So now the ECHR are in the tank for Putin.
I suppose Mrs. Gloster is too? Your fellow blind Putin-hater Berezovsky thought so…
Wow, who p*ssed in your Wheaties, lol!
Comment by wanderer — May 29, 2013 @ 4:45 pm
@wanderer. What is happening to Sergei makes it very personal to me. That’s why I’m pissed.
Re the ECHR-@sotos has it exactly right. Relying on the Euroweenies for an objective view on this is beyond bizarre.
Um, the ECHR, which has made thousands of rulings against the Russian government, is now in the tank for Putin just because it confirmed Khodorkovsky’s criminality?
Boy, you whiners have to have *everything* go your way, or your butthurt resounds through the galaxy!
Comment by wanderer — May 29, 2013 @ 6:16 pm
It would almost seem that Holder is taking a page from Putin. Ask AP & Fox. And Congress is either powerless or terrified. And the rest of the Main Stream Media ignores it. If Sergei reads your page, let him know that many of your readers are praying for him. And would do much more than just pray to support him. Keep us posted on how we can help your friend.
Comment by ObamaPutin — May 29, 2013 @ 7:39 pm
I can take it one step further and qualify the ECHR and other European structures’ more than a decade old actions in the region as propagation and validation of political corruption in the CIS region, corruption and validation of rigging of the overall electoral processes, support of corruption and validation of the legal environment – all in the interest of some not even founded geopolitical interests.
And all that comes with extreme arrogance – what is not proper for the people of EU itself, is ok for the people of CIS, since these are “less developed or sophisticated people.”
European political circles remain the same what they have been throughout several centuries, at least – political prostitutes.
Comment by MJ — May 29, 2013 @ 11:35 pm
@wanderer
Snarkiness aside, you fail to grasp the nature of hoe to judge politics and politicians: it is perfectly normal to make decisions, some of which may be for or against one party, and it is in their interest to appear objective and heroic. The real question is can a group or organization make decisions that uphold their professed principles when there is a price to be paid. That is when their true worth can be judged.
Let us look at an American example: the late and to me un- regretted Senator Fulbright of Arkansas. A “Brave” liberal on Foreign affairs, he took “heroic” stands on issues that no one gave a tinker’s damn about in Arkansas: “He ain’t no Commie, he was a Razorback!”(a football star at U of A). Show me one vote, however, on civil rights for people of color and I will faint. Same with the late Justice and Senator Paul Douglas – find a vote he made against dairy subsidies, all the while he would be ranting about the evil of the oil drilling and extraction tax breaks.
The Eurotards will be brave, when it costs them nothing, but when push comes to shove the are as pusillanimous as any Pol you can find.
Comment by Sotos — May 30, 2013 @ 8:59 am
Anders Aslund wrote a similar editorial about Guriev in The Moscow Times.
Comment by Howard Roark — May 30, 2013 @ 12:09 pm
Sooo….
Nothing specific on how the ECHR ruling on Khodorkovsky’s first conviction was Putin-influenced or erroneous for any other reason, just a lot of free-floating contempt for Euro institutions in general.
And yeah, I can see how institutions that spread ruin to entire countries deserve a good bit of that.
But that still leaves Khodorkovsky’s first conviction confirmed by a competent legal authority, which both Illarionov and Guriev are not, in the total absence of any argument or evidence to the contrary.
Comment by wanderer — May 30, 2013 @ 2:55 pm
Um, @wanderer-you were the one who appealed to the ECHR’s authority in the first place. The onus is on you, not us.
Bullsh*t. But then, what else should I expect outta you.
Comment by wanderer — May 30, 2013 @ 3:20 pm
@wanderer-not bullshit at all. Who the f*ck brought up ECHR? You. Period. Appeal to authority.
I can recommend some excellent cheeses to go with that whine.
The chest-out strutting placing onesself in authority to determine that the ECHR isn’t a competent legal authority is similar to what was rampant in Charleston in April 1861.
Comment by wanderer — May 30, 2013 @ 4:37 pm
@wanderer. Your avoidance is obvious. You are the one asserting ECHR is a competent legal authority. Sotos, MJ, and I are claiming, with evidence, that it is a politicized body. You are the one that brought ECHR into the conversation. What about this mystifies you?
Then a competent legal authority, the ECHR, ruled that Khodorkovsky was guilty as hell.
I read that report, and they did no such thing. They said that Khodorkovsky couldn’t prove that he had been singled out for tax evasions whilst others were left alone. Given that the Russian tax authorities are the only body who could verify such a claim, it was hardly surprising that it was never proved. But that Khodorkovsky couldn’t prove it in a court does not mean that it isn’t true, and it is blatantly obvious to even a casual observer that his prosecution was politically motivated.
Comment by Tim Newman — May 30, 2013 @ 10:05 pm
SWP: And where is your evidence that the ECHR’s ruling against Khodorkovsky was politically motivated? And I also cited Justice Gloster in her ruling against your fellow Putin-hater Berezovsky. Did Putin get to her too? Oh, what a universe you must live in, seeing Putin dominate all of Europe’s judicial institutions like this, lol!
I’ll just conclude that you’re full of paranoid hatred for anything that you can’t dictate to and leave it at that.
Timmy:
590. Having examined the materials of the case and the parties’ submissions and despite its earlier conclusions under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention in respect of the 2000 Tax Assessment (see paragraph 551), the Court has little doubt that the factual conclusions of the domestic courts in the Tax Assessment proceedings 2000-2003 were sound. The factual issues in all of these proceedings were substantially similar and the relevant case files contained abundant witness statements and documentary evidence to support the connections between the applicant company and its trading companies and to prove the sham nature of the latter entities (see paragraphs 14-18, 48, 62-63, 165, 191-193, 212 and 213). The applicant company itself did not give any plausible alternative interpretation of this rather unambiguous evidence, as examined and accepted by the domestic courts.
591. From the findings of the domestic courts and the parties’ explanations, the Court notes that the company’s “tax optimisation techniques” applied with slight variations throughout 2000-2003 consisted of switching the tax burden from the applicant company and its production and service units to letter-box companies in domestic tax havens in Russia. These companies, with no assets, employees or operations of their own, were nominally owned and managed by third parties, although in reality they were set up and run by the applicant company itself. In essence, the applicant company’s oil-producing subsidiaries sold the extracted oil to the letter-box companies at a fraction of the market price. The letter-box companies, acting in cascade, then sold the oil either abroad, this time at market price or to the applicant company’s refineries and subsequently re-bought it at a reduced price and re-sold it at the market price. Thus, the letter-box companies accumulated most of the applicant company’s profits. Since they were registered in domestic low-tax areas, they enabled the applicant company to pay substantially lower taxes in respect of these profits. Subsequently, the letter-box companies transferred the accumulated profits unilaterally to the applicant company as gifts. The Court observes that substantial tax reductions were only possible through the mixed use and simultaneous application of at least two different techniques. The applicant company used the method of transfer pricing, which consisted of selling the goods from its production division to its marketing companies at intentionally lowered prices and the use of sham entities registered in the domestic regions with low taxation levels and nominally owned and run by third persons (see paragraphs 14-18, 48, 62-63 for a more detailed description).
592. The domestic courts found that such an arrangement was at face value clearly unlawful domestically, as it involved the fraudulent registration of trading entities by the applicant company in the name of third persons and its corresponding failure to declare to the tax authorities its true relation to these companies (see paragraphs 311, 349-353, 374-380). This being so, the Court cannot accept the applicant company’s argument that the letter-box entities had been entitled to the tax exemptions in questions. For the same reason, the Court dismisses the applicant company’s argument that all the constituent members of the Yukos group had made regular tax declarations and had applied regularly for tax refunds and that the authorities were thus aware of the functioning of the arrangement. The tax authorities may have had access to scattered pieces of information about the functioning of separate parts of the arrangement, located across the country, but, given the scale and fraudulent character of the arrangement, they certainly could not have been aware of the arrangement in its entirety on the sole basis on the tax declarations and requests for tax refunds made by the trading companies, the applicant company and its subsidiaries.
593. The arrangement was obviously aimed at evading the general requirements of the Tax Code, which expected taxpayers to trade at market prices (see paragraphs 395-399), and by its nature involved certain operations, such as unilateral gifts between the trading companies and the applicant company through its subsidiaries, which were incompatible with the rules governing the relations between independent legal entities (see paragraph 376). In this connection, the Court finds relevant the warning given by the company’s auditor about the implications of the use of the company’s special fund during the year 2002 (see paragraphs 206-209) and is not persuaded by the applicant company’s reference to case no. A42-6604/00-15-818/01 (see paragraphs 356-357), the expert opinion of its counsel (see paragraph 577) and its reliance on Article 251 (1) 11 of the Tax Code (see paragraph 376).
And the “blatantly obvious political motivation” lies entirely in the realm of accusation, not evidence.
Comment by wanderer — May 31, 2013 @ 4:16 am
And the “blatantly obvious political motivation” lies entirely in the realm of accusation, not evidence.
Perhaps, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Proving a political motivation in a court would be notoriously difficult, but that’s besides the point. The thing about justice is that it needs to be seen to be carried out consistently: perceptions matter, in any justice system.
Comment by Tim Newman — May 31, 2013 @ 7:49 am
He added: “I have no issues with Putin or Medvedev. It is just that I (and my family) have a subjective dislike of my chances to lose my freedom, given that I have done nothing wrong.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/world/europe/economist-sergei-guriev-doesnt-plan-return-to-russia-soon.html
So, let me get this straight: generally no issues with the people who constructed the system where anyone can have high chances of losing freedom without doing anything wrong? Just a subjective dislike for the specific situation when that anyone happens to be himself?
Comment by Ivan — May 31, 2013 @ 1:16 pm
“Perhaps, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Ah, so all unsupported accusations about Putin, or the ECHR, or Saddam’s WMD, for that matter, automatically get full credence, while those disputing these fact-free accusations must bring definitive ‘evidence of absence.’
Got it.
Comment by Wanderer — May 31, 2013 @ 2:38 pm
No, I’m not sure you have got it. I’ll try to explain.
I lived in Dubai for 2 years, a place where the written laws were vague and subject to wide interpretation. In many aspects of life this didn’t really matter for most people most of the time because behaviour was not governed by the written law (whatever it was) but more along the lines of what everyone else is doing. For example, the law was, and still is, that drinking is illegal in Dubai unless one of two conditions are satisfied:
1. You are a resident who holds a liquor license.
2. You are drinking in a bar located in the hotel in which you are staying.
In other words, if you are staying in the Jumeirah Beach Hotel and you go for a nice dinner at Asha’s Restaurant in Wafi City and drink a beer with your curry, you’re breaking the law and could face a few years in the desert prison. Except this law is vague, written in Arabic, and never, ever enforced. Indeed, advertisements and tourism guides implicitly encourage people to break this law. The law is there, but ignored as a matter of course. Almost every visitor to Dubai breaks it.
But then one day the government decides they want to get rid of a meddlesome individual, and clobber him on a drinking charge. Haul him alone out of a bar full of people who are breaking the law, and throw the book at him. Is this justice? Sure, he’s breaking the law – and no doubt the ECHR, either through naivety or strictly speaking would agree that he is “guilty as hell” – but is this justice? No, it isn’t.
Also, is there any concrete evidence that he was singled out for political reasons? No, because that would have to take the form of a recording, document, or transcript of the initial order to arrest him. But does the absence of this document in itself prove that the decision to arrest this one man was not political? No, it doesn’t.
The Khodorkovsky case is far less clear cut I’ll concede that, but a similar principle holds. The tax law in Russia, like a lot of laws in Russia, is vague, unclear, contradictory, and subject to wide interpretation. In my experience of dealing with the Russian tax authorities, they look at your books and you agree on a suitable “fine” every time. In other words, you might be compliant, you might not be, but you need to buy a clean bill of health to make us go away. See you next year. It was also widely accepted (and not just by Russia’s tax authorities) that foreign workers do not have to pay income tax on their worldwide earnings, even though the law says that they do. That law just doesn’t get enforced, and swathes of the tax code is like this. And of course, the closer you are to the political elite either locally or nationally, the less interest the tax authorities take in you in the first place. As with a lot of laws in Russia, everyone is breaking the tax law and it is just an arbitrary decision on who to prosecute.
So in Khodorkovsky’s case, the question is not so much was he evading taxes – yes he was – but to what extent was his behaviour widely accepted up until he became vocal on politics, and to what extent dozens or perhaps hundreds of other people were and probably still are acting in exactly the same way without censure. This context is vitally important, and cannot be dismissed by pointing out what nobody is disputing: that the tax affairs of Yukos were dodgy, any more than pointing out that our man in Dubai was drinking was enough to dispel accusations that the law was being applied in a very selective manner.
As I said, justice needs to be seen to be applied consistently and fairly, especially in a country like Russia. Perception matters more than evidence in this context for the precise reason that evidence is exceptionally hard to come by. Look at the scandal in the US at the moment (hastily being brushed under the carpet) whereby IRS officials deliberately targetted Tea Party activists and subjected their applications to lengthy delays which their Democratic counterparts avoided. There will never be concrete evidence that this was politically motivated, but absence of a document or transcript does not dispel the accusation that the IRS was acting out of political motivations. I know the Russian government don’t give a shit what people think of its justice system, but the Russians I know have no faith in it whatsoever. And this will matter in the long run. Most educated Russians I know think Khodorkovsky was evading taxes to no greater or lesser extent than anyone else, but whilst doing so managed to create and run probably the best company Russia has ever seen. I don’t see many of them crying over the demise of Khordokovsky himself, but plenty of them are aghast at what happened to Yukos once Rosneft got their hands on it. Few are convinced by the whole pantomime, even if the ECHR have either failed to see the context or chose to ignore it.
Comment by Tim Newman — May 31, 2013 @ 4:40 pm
But then one day the government decides they want to get rid of a meddlesome individual, and clobber him on a drinking charge. Haul him alone out of a bar full of people who are breaking the law, and throw the book at him. Is this justice? Sure, he’s breaking the law – and no doubt the ECHR, either through naivety or strictly speaking would agree that he is “guilty as hell” – but is this justice? No, it isn’t.
610. The Government responded that the allegations that other taxpayers may have used similar schemes could not be interpreted as justifying the applicant company’s failure to abide by the law. They further contended that the occurrence of illegal tax schemes at a certain stage of Russia’s historical development was not due to failures or drawbacks in the legislation, but rather due to “bad-faith” actions by economic actors and weakened governmental control over compliance with the Russian tax legislation on account of objective criteria, such as the 1998 economic crisis and the difficulties of the transition period.
611. At present, the Government was constantly combating tax evasion and strengthening its control in this sphere. They also referred to statistical data by AK&M and some other news agencies in 2002, which had reported that OAO LUKOIL and OAO Surgutneftegas, two other large Russian oil producers, had posted sales proceeds of RUB 434.92 billion and RUB 163.652 billion and paid RUB 21.190 billion and RUB 13.885 billion in profit tax respectively, whilst the applicant company had posted sales proceeds of RUB 295.729 billion and paid only RUB 3.193 billion in profit tax. The Government submitted that at least two Russian oil majors, OAO Surgutneftegaz and OAO Rosneft, had never engaged in such practices, whilst some, in particular OAO Lukoil, had ceased using them in 2002.
Comment by S/O — May 31, 2013 @ 5:03 pm
The Government responded that the allegations that other taxpayers may have used similar schemes could not be interpreted as justifying the applicant company’s failure to abide by the law.
Which is precisely what the Dubai courts say every time some poor sod is arrested: “just because we happily allow most people to behave illegally as a matter of course, doesn’t mean you can.” This is not justice.
They further contended that the occurrence of illegal tax schemes at a certain stage of Russia’s historical development was not due to failures or drawbacks in the legislation, but rather due to “bad-faith” actions by economic actors and weakened governmental control over compliance with the Russian tax legislation on account of objective criteria, such as the 1998 economic crisis and the difficulties of the transition period.
Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? Of course, there are no “bad-faith” actions on the part of the Russian government and the tax authorities, who are pure as the driven snow.
At present, the Government was constantly combating tax evasion and strengthening its control in this sphere.
Yes, on an inconsistent and highly selective basis which remains to this day.
The Government submitted that at least two Russian oil majors, OAO Surgutneftegaz and OAO Rosneft, had never engaged in such practices
So the Russian government submitted that a company controlled by one of the most senior members of the Russian government had never engaged in wrongful practices. Now there’s proof that justice was meted out fairly!
Comment by Tim Newman — May 31, 2013 @ 6:48 pm
“So in Khodorkovsky’s case, the question is not so much was he evading taxes – yes he was – but to what extent was his behaviour widely accepted up until he became vocal on politics, and to what extent dozens or perhaps hundreds of other people were and probably still are acting in exactly the same way without censure.”
The ECHR also noted that Lukoil ceased similar practices in 2002, without the Russian government crushing it, bringing themselves voluntarily into compliance with the law. Khodorkovsky and Yukos singled themselves out, by continued brazen defiance of Russia’s tax laws after other, less blindly arrogant, oligarchs had gotten the message and started to pay up.
Comment by Wanderer — May 31, 2013 @ 11:22 pm
“So the Russian government submitted that a company controlled by one of the most senior members of the Russian government had never engaged in wrongful practices. Now there’s proof that justice was meted out fairly!”
As the ECHR notes, these companies paid an order of magnitude more taxes than Yukos, on roughly similar revenues, indicating that they were indeed complying with the law.
It was Khodorkovsky’s brazen defiance of the law that got him where he is, not Putin.
We probably thought his ‘roof’ in Washington had him covered. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Comment by wanderer — May 31, 2013 @ 11:27 pm
Almost as dumb as you wan(k)derer.
The Russian state uses its (often mutually contradictory) laws as weapons against any form of dissent.
Gazprom and others squirrel away copious amounts of money that should be going into state coffers, but the difference is it goes to Putin & Co’s pockets, so that’s OK.
Comment by Andrew — June 1, 2013 @ 5:05 am
Yeah, Andy comes up with yet another factless bullshit accusation we are supposed to buy becauuse its anti-Putin.
This is the sort of thing Berezovsky got away with for over a decade.
Comment by Wanderer — June 1, 2013 @ 9:26 am
The ECHR also noted that Lukoil ceased similar practices in 2002, without the Russian government crushing it, bringing themselves voluntarily into compliance with the law.
And no doubt the Dubai police can point to one or two individuals who are not drinking, too. The key question is whether it was Yukos or Lukoil which was the more typical of large companies at the time. The Russian government and its supporters are pretty keen for us to believe that Yukos was some kind of outlier with all other corporations falling into line, and are pointing to Lukoil as a typical example of this. Anyone who’s been even remotely involved in Russian business would know this is nonsense.
As the ECHR notes, these companies paid an order of magnitude more taxes than Yukos, on roughly similar revenues, indicating that they were indeed complying with the law.
The ECHR didn’t say Rosneft was paying taxes. They said the Russian government said they were. (And I’ll leave aside the idiocy of comparing revenues with taxes across different oil companies.)
Comment by Tim Newman — June 1, 2013 @ 5:55 pm
“The ECHR didn’t say Rosneft was paying taxes. They said the Russian government said they were.”
So the ECHR are stenographers. What a load.
I’m more convinced that TN is dancing around facts that are unpleasant for his beliefs.
Comment by wanderer — June 1, 2013 @ 6:05 pm
“The ECHR didn’t say Rosneft was paying taxes. They said the Russian government said they were.”
And they clearly found the Russian government more credible on this matter than the Yukos legal team.
The whole problem that SWP and his little coven here have with the ECHR is that they don’t default to “Putin is thieving scum and therefore all his opponents should automatically get everything their way!” like they do, but have to be convinced of it.
Comment by wanderer — June 1, 2013 @ 6:35 pm
So the ECHR are stenographers. What a load.
They said “The Russian government submitted that…”
That is legalise for “The Russian government said…” Approval or any other judgement is not implied.
I’m more convinced that TN is dancing around facts that are unpleasant for his beliefs.
No, what I’m doing is questioning statements dressed up as facts which contradict my actual experience of doing business in Russia and dealing with branches of the Russian government. Of course, if you don’t have this experience you are more likely to swallow these statements whole. Especially if they are pleasant for your beliefs.
Comment by Tim Newman — June 2, 2013 @ 7:48 pm