| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money 12:09 - Apr 14 with 3685 views | joe90 |
Had to laugh when I came across this quote from a book review in the Guardian today:
Belton’s analysis is relentless and convincing. There are gobsmacking moments. According to Sergei Pugachev, a one-time government insider now in oligarch exile, Putin personally directed Roman Abramovich in 2003 to buy Chelsea Football Club. The objective was to raise Russia’s profile, with the elite and with ordinary Brits, Pugachev says. The acquisition was part of a bigger infiltration of the west by Moscow, via dirty cash. “It was as if a virus was being injected,” Belton writes
I'm certainly no fan of Chelsea, but this is pretty deep, haha
Here's the article: https://bit.ly/3bkeioR
[Post edited 14 Apr 2020 12:13]
|  | | |  |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 12:32 - Apr 14 with 3621 views | TacticalR |
'The bombings are best understood in the context of the political intrigues that were occurring in the Kremlin at the time. Yeltsin, suffering from alcoholism and ill health, was faltering badly as the Russian president, and it was clear that he could not possibly run for another term in early 2000. Thus, as noted earlier, the group that surrounded him, known as “the family,” had to come up with a successor who the Russian people would support, but who would also protect their own interests - i.e. guarantee that none of them, including Yeltsin, would be prosecuted for corruption. The family - which included Yeltsin’s daughter Tatiana Dyachenko, Valentin Yumashev (a journalist and adviser to Yeltsin, who later married Tatiana), Aleksandr Voloshin (head of the presidential administration), and oligarchs Roman Abramovich and Boris Berezovsky - settled on Putin, who Yeltsin appointed as prime minister on August 9, 1999. But Putin was virtually unknown to the Russian public: something was needed to jump-start his candidacy as Yeltsin’s successor.'
Amy Knight, Orders to Kill: The Putin Regime and Political Murder, (2017)
The bombings referred to are the Russian apartment bombings of 1999 in Buynaksk, Moscow and Volgodonsk. According to the author these bombings were arranged and carried out by Putin's FSB. |  |
| |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 12:37 - Apr 14 with 3601 views | CiderwithRsie |
Amusing up to a point, but I don't find the use of Britain as a destination for dirty money from Russia, the Middle East or Asia a joke. The Private Eye special reports after the Panama Papers a few years back was an eye-popping moment for me.
(You can download the reports Looting With Putin, Where There's Muck There's Brass Plates, Tax Lies and Videotape and Tax Havens - Selling England By The Offshore Pound free from the PE website)
The fact that our game has been especially tainted is even less amusing to me. |  | | |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 13:54 - Apr 14 with 3518 views | peejaybee |
Watch, Putin.A Russian Spy Story . On All 4
A real Eye Opener |  |
| If at first you dont succeed, pack up and f**k off home. |
| |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 14:17 - Apr 14 with 3485 views | stowmarketrange |
I just ordered the book from amazon.
If I disappear before the season ticket renewals there will be a spare seat in ML front row. |  | | |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 20:56 - Jul 28 with 2730 views | TacticalR |
Reviving this thread from last year as Abramovich is suing Catherine Belton, the author of Putin's People (mentioned in the OP)
'Barrister Hugh Tomlinson QC, acting for Abramovich, said Belton’s book painted the Russian as the "willing tool" of the Putin regime. He said the book suggested that Putin had ordered Abramovich to purchase Chelsea as part of a scheme to exert influence in the west, which amounted to libel.'
Abramovich denies buying Chelsea on Putin’s orders, court hears (behind paywall)
https://www.ft.com/content/be8b2b6a-5695-42bd-b9b1-85b4fcc7313c | |
| |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 21:41 - Jul 28 with 2596 views | Mick_S |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 14:17 - Apr 14 by stowmarketrange |
I just ordered the book from amazon.
If I disappear before the season ticket renewals there will be a spare seat in ML front row. |
The weather is good for this time of year, cuckoo.
Your secret is safe with me. |  |
| Did I ever mention that I was in Minder? |
| |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 22:27 - Jul 28 with 2502 views | danehoop |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 20:56 - Jul 28 by TacticalR |
Reviving this thread from last year as Abramovich is suing Catherine Belton, the author of Putin's People (mentioned in the OP)
'Barrister Hugh Tomlinson QC, acting for Abramovich, said Belton’s book painted the Russian as the "willing tool" of the Putin regime. He said the book suggested that Putin had ordered Abramovich to purchase Chelsea as part of a scheme to exert influence in the west, which amounted to libel.'
Abramovich denies buying Chelsea on Putin’s orders, court hears (behind paywall)
https://www.ft.com/content/be8b2b6a-5695-42bd-b9b1-85b4fcc7313c |
Have a suspicion they will be hard pushed to prove this as libel. Well known and fairly easy to evidence the close relationship between the two and supposedly acting on the Big P's instruction back in the motherland.
At the time it was suspected that the transaction and ongoing crazy spending on transfers were all an alledged money laundering scheme as returns were comparatively higher and costs lower. |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 22:28 - Jul 28 with 2494 views | GloryHunter |
"It is reported that the book contains a claim from Russian billionaire Sergei Pugachev that Mr Abramovich purchased Chelsea FC on the orders of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Mr Abramovich’s claim is likely to major on the fact that similar statements from Mr Pugachev were branded “self-serving” and “impossible to believe” by Mrs Justice Rose during a High Court action in 2018 brought against Mr Pugachev by the liquidators of a Russian bank.
Given that the book was first published in April 2020, it is likely that extensive pre-action communication has already taken place, with the parties plainly unable to agree resolution. It is likely that Mr Abramovich was seeking that the book be pulped and reprinted without the defamatory allegations, and also that an apology be published, but the author and publisher were unwilling to do this. It seems the claim has been issued now to ensure that Mr Abramovich does not fall foul of the 12-month limitation period to bring an action.
It is an aggressive step by Mr Abramovich to sue both author and publisher. It is one thing for a big corporate like HarperCollins to find themselves on the receiving end of a claim from a claimant with very deep pockets — this will not be unfamiliar territory for them and they may well have media liability insurance — however, it is another for an individual (albeit an experienced journalist such as Ms Belton) to be faced with such a claim, particularly when the publishing contract with HarperCollins will likely have included warranty and indemnity provisions in the publisher’s favour that the manuscript is not defamatory.
It is also an aggressive step to publish a statement announcing the issuance of proceedings, as this, of course, draws more attention to the allegedly defamatory allegations being complained of. It would appear that Mr Abramovich and his advisors are comfortable with that and think it important to send a message that they consider the allegations to be untrue and are prepared to take legal action against those making them.
The statement asserts that defamatory claims were made in relation to alleged corrupt conduct around Mr Abramovich’s purchase of and the activities of Chelsea. Given the nature of the allegations, it is unlikely that Mr Abramovich will have much trouble surpassing the ‘seriousness threshold’ required by s1 of the Defamation Act 2013 i.e. that the allegations have caused or are likely to cause serious harm to his reputation.
The Defendants have a number of possible defences available to them. They could assert that the allegations are true. That will not be an easy evidential task for them to meet. If the words complained of are not a statement of fact, they could assert that they are “honest opinion”. The publisher may also seek to rely on a qualified privilege defence for allegations previously made in court, albeit they would need to show it was a fair and accurate report of those proceedings. It seems most likely that HarperCollins will insist that it was a publication on a matter of public interest (the statutory replacement for what used to be the Reynolds responsible journalism test). If the Defendants take this approach, it will be interesting to see if the Court considers that the alleged activities of an owner of a Premier League football club fall into the definition of ‘public interest’.
As Johnny Depp found out recently with his failed libel action against the publishers of The Sun, pursuing libel actions in this jurisdiction is not straight-forward. Even if a claim is ultimately successful, claimants can find they have suffered wider reputational damage given that the press will have free rein to report all that is said in court. This will have been factored in by Mr Abramovich’s lawyers — they may even consider that they have grounds to apply for summary judgment (a step which avoids detailed factual analysis and cross-examination of witnesses) — what the Duchess of Sussex achieved recently in her claim against the publishers of the Daily Mail. What will be most interesting to see is whether the Defendants, having stuck to their guns throughout protracted pre-action discussions, continue to do so and come back fighting with service of a robust defence, as per its public statement, or whether it is quietly settled on a confidential basis."
https://www.onsidelaw.co.uk/news-update/abramovich-v-harpercollins-and-catherine [Post edited 28 Jul 2021 22:39]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 22:59 - Jul 28 with 2422 views | danehoop |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 22:28 - Jul 28 by GloryHunter |
"It is reported that the book contains a claim from Russian billionaire Sergei Pugachev that Mr Abramovich purchased Chelsea FC on the orders of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Mr Abramovich’s claim is likely to major on the fact that similar statements from Mr Pugachev were branded “self-serving” and “impossible to believe” by Mrs Justice Rose during a High Court action in 2018 brought against Mr Pugachev by the liquidators of a Russian bank.
Given that the book was first published in April 2020, it is likely that extensive pre-action communication has already taken place, with the parties plainly unable to agree resolution. It is likely that Mr Abramovich was seeking that the book be pulped and reprinted without the defamatory allegations, and also that an apology be published, but the author and publisher were unwilling to do this. It seems the claim has been issued now to ensure that Mr Abramovich does not fall foul of the 12-month limitation period to bring an action.
It is an aggressive step by Mr Abramovich to sue both author and publisher. It is one thing for a big corporate like HarperCollins to find themselves on the receiving end of a claim from a claimant with very deep pockets — this will not be unfamiliar territory for them and they may well have media liability insurance — however, it is another for an individual (albeit an experienced journalist such as Ms Belton) to be faced with such a claim, particularly when the publishing contract with HarperCollins will likely have included warranty and indemnity provisions in the publisher’s favour that the manuscript is not defamatory.
It is also an aggressive step to publish a statement announcing the issuance of proceedings, as this, of course, draws more attention to the allegedly defamatory allegations being complained of. It would appear that Mr Abramovich and his advisors are comfortable with that and think it important to send a message that they consider the allegations to be untrue and are prepared to take legal action against those making them.
The statement asserts that defamatory claims were made in relation to alleged corrupt conduct around Mr Abramovich’s purchase of and the activities of Chelsea. Given the nature of the allegations, it is unlikely that Mr Abramovich will have much trouble surpassing the ‘seriousness threshold’ required by s1 of the Defamation Act 2013 i.e. that the allegations have caused or are likely to cause serious harm to his reputation.
The Defendants have a number of possible defences available to them. They could assert that the allegations are true. That will not be an easy evidential task for them to meet. If the words complained of are not a statement of fact, they could assert that they are “honest opinion”. The publisher may also seek to rely on a qualified privilege defence for allegations previously made in court, albeit they would need to show it was a fair and accurate report of those proceedings. It seems most likely that HarperCollins will insist that it was a publication on a matter of public interest (the statutory replacement for what used to be the Reynolds responsible journalism test). If the Defendants take this approach, it will be interesting to see if the Court considers that the alleged activities of an owner of a Premier League football club fall into the definition of ‘public interest’.
As Johnny Depp found out recently with his failed libel action against the publishers of The Sun, pursuing libel actions in this jurisdiction is not straight-forward. Even if a claim is ultimately successful, claimants can find they have suffered wider reputational damage given that the press will have free rein to report all that is said in court. This will have been factored in by Mr Abramovich’s lawyers — they may even consider that they have grounds to apply for summary judgment (a step which avoids detailed factual analysis and cross-examination of witnesses) — what the Duchess of Sussex achieved recently in her claim against the publishers of the Daily Mail. What will be most interesting to see is whether the Defendants, having stuck to their guns throughout protracted pre-action discussions, continue to do so and come back fighting with service of a robust defence, as per its public statement, or whether it is quietly settled on a confidential basis."
https://www.onsidelaw.co.uk/news-update/abramovich-v-harpercollins-and-catherine [Post edited 28 Jul 2021 22:39]
|
Thank you. Really enjoyed that read. | |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 23:21 - Jul 28 with 2386 views | GloryHunter |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 22:59 - Jul 28 by danehoop |
Thank you. Really enjoyed that read. |
Thanks for your thanks. It was all down to Mr Google, though. | | | |
| Chelsea, Putin and dirty money on 23:29 - Jul 28 with 2368 views | stowmarketrange |
I still haven’t got round to reading the book yet. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
