Sergey Pugachev is : “Sit down, perhaps the house”


— Why neither you nor your lawyers were not in court in London?

— In agreement with the judge I had to connect to the meeting via video as I am in France, but the court was released on bond. I guess for technical reasons. The documents with the decision in my hands. The judge I sent them, having forbidden to discuss until the decision was announced on Thursday. It is strange that the Agency on insurance of contributions [DIA] had circulated details of the solution.

— If the court determines you the punishment of deprivation of liberty, France can be extradited under the international agreements between European countries?

— Excluded. Sit, perhaps, at home. In fact, it is a punishment for an administrative offence, but the extradition request is possible only in criminal cases. Article 696-4 of the Criminal procedure code of the French Republic does not allow to extradite their nationals on the request for extradition even in the framework of criminal proceedings, and I, as you know, a French citizen. If Thursday judge, assume, sentenced me to two years of imprisonment, and I for two years (the limitation period of execution of the punishment in this case) coming to England and meeting a policeman, I can, of course, be sent to prison. But I’m not going to England.

— This process, thereby, anything in your life doesn’t change?

— This process is important to me in a positive way. The judge found that in sufficient detail I revealed the origin of the funds that I transferred from Russia to their accounts in Switzerland [with the period from 2008 to 2011 Pugachev transferred several million dollars from Mezhprombank to their foreign accounts].

Moreover, the judge found that I transferred funds, received in credit from VTB on the security of land on Rublevo-Uspensky highway, not the funds of the Bank of Russia to Mezhprombank issued as unsecured loans, according to ACB and Russian law enforcement agencies [in the crisis of 2008-2009 the Central Bank to Mezhprombank unsecured loans to 32 billion rubles. the Bank has not returned]. Thus the decision disavowed all claims of the Russian law enforcement bodies, as well as the decision by the Russian arbitration court on attraction of me to vicarious liability, which soon will be appealed by me in the European court of human rights [ECHR].

The judge also acknowledged proven guilty in perjury under oath, in compliance with the disclosure requirements of assets, withdrawal of assets, in violation of the orders of the court, and that you illegally left the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

— As to the false testimony, the wording is inaccurate. The judge is not talking about false testimony, and the incomplete disclosure of my information about the attempt of Igor Altushkin [owns 80% stake in Russian copper company] to purchase “the Yenisei industrial company” [YPC, was a part of United industrial Corporation Pugacheva] and paid them a down payment of $150 million.

As pointed out by Pugachev’s claim to Russia, received in international arbitration in the Hague in September 2015, Igor Altushkin in early 2011 was the only possible buyer for the EPC. The contract of purchase and sale was signed on 9 June 2011. The size of the first payment under the contract for the closing of the transaction was $800 million total price of the contract (about $5 billion) was to be paid to the seller in several tranches, the size of which depends on the subsequent events with YPC. “The amount was far below the real value of the EPC, but, under pressure from President Putin and the government of the Russian Federation, the proposal made by Mr. Altushkin was the only option available,” writes Pugachev’s claim to Russia. Mr. Altushkin has made an advance payment in the amount of $150 million to remove the company from the market. “As a result of the scheme of the government of Russia with Mr. Altushkin and his business partner Ruslan Baysarov, the Russian government had expropriated the license of the EPC without paying any compensation,” said Pugachev in the lawsuit to Russia.”

As for my departure home to France, that the DIA itself provoked me to violate this restriction: after numerous threats to my life they hired an American detective Agency Diligence International LLC, installed in my machine devices that antiterroristicheskoy unit of the Scotland Yard SO-15 adopted for blasting. The investigation into this case continues. Naturally, I felt genuine fear for his life.

— However, the judge has determined that you have violated court order, I left England.

— Yes, but the judge found that I had good reason to fear for his life, at least since 2011. However, I believe the original order of the judge dated March 2, 2015, on the prohibition to leave England a violation of one of fundamental human rights to freedom of movement, and I will appeal it to the ECHR.

— You were obliged by the decision of the London court to hand over all documents, but you left yourself a French passport, and the judge ruled this as a violation.

Is a misunderstanding, because the passport I passed on the judge the lawyers the terms of the DIA. But, as I said above, the decision to restrict the freedom of movement I’m going to challenge in the ECtHR.

— The high court in 2014 took security measures, demanding to arrest your property worldwide for $2 billion And angry that you still haven’t adequately disclosed information about the trusts.

— All the information about my property I uncovered. Property control trusts, one of the beneficiaries of which I am, I do not possess. Thus I am not obligated in accordance with this order and have been unable to disclose this information.

— You can print out economic processes to the political plane, presenting itself as a victim of the regime established by the Russian authorities, what did you said in an interview with TV channel “Rain” and the Financial Times. London court is waiting for your facts.

— The court is not waiting for any facts. Judge of the High court in London in a judgment of 19 December 2014 acknowledged, quote: “a lot of [Pugacheva] assets was in fact effectively expropriated by the Russian state (including or, at least, with the help of the DIA)”. The process for me is 100% politically motivated and nothing else. Both criminal and arbitration cases in Russia is an attempt to cover up the expropriation of my assets. In England there are no lawsuits against me. The only decision of the High court in London on the request of the DIA became interim measures in arbitration the claim of the DIA, which was considered by the Moscow Arbitration court. I have not been accused of any crime either in the UK or in other EU countries, so I consider unacceptable any court order about the limitations in the use of my personal assets, including their sale. I am sure that with these kinds of decisions, the Russian authorities abuse the British legal system to persecute its opponents abroad. London processes — just a very expensive PR Agency.

— You deleted from the Interpol wanted list?

— There is a solution of the Interpol Commission that the case against me is politically motivated, linked to the expropriation of assets and the threat of murder, and me in the database now no.

— When will take place session of arbitration in the Hague on your claim to Russia for $12 billion?

— I guess in the spring. Also soon will be initiated by me court session on criminal case about extortion, attempted murder and other serious articles of the Criminal code of the French Republic, which French investigating law enforcement agencies. This case is already in court, the meeting would be open.