8 Jul 2021 | Croatia, Monaco, News and features, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Whistleblower Jonathan Taylor
We are delighted to announce that on Wednesday 7 July 2021, Croatian Justice Minister Ivan Malenica formally rejected the request by Monaco to extradite UK whistleblower Jonathan Taylor. Jonathan Taylor’s Support Group extends its gratitude to the Minister for taking the right decision.
The move comes following sustained calls for the past 11 months from human rights and civil liberties campaigners across Europe – and UK MPs – for his immediate release and safe return home. Legal experts backing the release of Jonathan Taylor said there was no proper legal basis for Monaco to seek Mr. Taylor’s extradition and the process was retaliatory in nature. Lawyers acting on behalf of Jonathan Taylor argued that it constituted an abuse of process.
Jonathan Taylor was arrested whilst on a family holiday in Croatia last July, and has been restrained there since. He has been isolated, away from his family, and unable to support himself or his family, all of which have taken an extreme toll on his mental wellbeing.
A former in-house lawyer for oil firm SBM Offshore based in Monaco, Jonathan Taylor blew the whistle in 2013 on a massive bribery scheme. Jonathan’s whistleblowing disclosures led to SBM Offshore paying over $800 million in fines in the US, Netherlands and Brazil and investigations which led to successful prosecutions of two former CEOs for fraud-related offences.
Yet nine years later, he was arrested on a questionable Interpol Red Notice whilst on holiday, and wanted for questioning in Monaco over allegations made by his former employer over his settlement. The Red Notice was withdrawn by Monaco last December on the eve of Interpol making a determination on its validity. Jonathan denies wrongdoing and his lawyers have long argued there is no legal basis for extraditing him for questioning as he is neither charged nor convicted of any offences.
“I am of course elated that justice has finally prevailed and I am appreciative that Minister of Justice Ivan Malenica was able to pay regard to the salient legal arguments of my lawyers that were seemingly overlooked by the Courts in making his decision to reject Monaco’s flawed attempt at extraditing me,” states Jonathan Taylor.
“Special thanks go to all my supporters in Europe, overseas and in Croatia who somehow kept me sane in my year of need! Be assured that I remain resolute and proud of exposing serious wrongdoing at SBM Offshore and I will never be intimidated by the corrupt and those that shamefully seek retaliation against me for exposing them. I continue to stand ready to assist the Monaco Prosecutor in the event that a decision is made to pursue those responsible for SBM Offshore’s illicit business practices instead of me.”
We agree with Jonathan. The Minister of Justice of Croatia, Ivan Malenica, carefully considered the position of Jonathan Taylor as a whistleblower and a protected witness. His decision in this case has wider implications for the rule of law in Europe: it is a victory for the public’s right to know about wrongdoing by protecting the messengers of that information. Whistleblowers play a vital role in Europe’s fight against global corruption. Croatia has demonstrated its commitment to the rule of law and to the protection of whistleblowers.
We now call on Monaco to drop any further proceedings against Jonathan Taylor and to focus on the actions of SBM Offshore as a proper target for their investigations.
We wish Jonathan a safe return to the UK where he can begin to rebuild his life.
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
Whistleblowing International Network (WIN)
Martin Bright, Editor, Index on Censorship (United Kingdom)
Protect (United Kingdom)
Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers (United Kingdom)
Centre for Free Expression (Canada)
Free Press Unlimited
The Government Accountability Project (USA)
ARTICLE 19
The Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa (PPLAAF)
Transparency International EU
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation (Malta)
Pištaljka (Serbia)
Blueprint for Free Speech (Germany and Australia)
The Signals Network (USA/France)
Transparency International – Bulgaria
Transparency International Italy
SpeakOut SpeakUp Ltd
European Organisation of Military Associations and Trade Unions (EUROMIL)
Transparency International Secretariat
Access Info Europe
GlobaLeaks
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Eurocadres – Council of European Professional & Managerial Staff
Professor David Lewis, Middlesex University (UK)
Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
Sherpa (France)
WhistleblowersUK
Baroness Kramer, Co-Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Whistleblowing (UK)
Mary Robinson MP, Co-Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Whistleblowing (UK)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
7 Jun 2021 | Kazakhstan, News and features, Slapps, Statements, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116855″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text](7 June 2021, London) – A legal case currently before the UK courts highlights the egregious tactics being used by Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited (ENRC), a privately-owned Kazakh multinational mining company, in what appear to be deliberate attempts to escape public scrutiny.
The civil case brought by ENRC is against the UK’s anti-corruption authority, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), and ENRC’s former lawyers, Dechert LLP. The SFO launched a formal corruption investigation into ENRC in April 2013, but has yet to bring any charges. The investigation has become one of the SFO’s longest running and most complicated cases. ENRC denies all allegations.
ENRC is suing the SFO for misfeasance in public office claiming the SFO mishandled the corruption investigation, induced Dechert lawyers to breach duties owed to ENRC, and leaked information to the media. ENRC claims Dechert and its partner, Neil Gerrard, were negligent and acted in breach of contract and fiduciary duties, including by leaking confidential information to the press. The SFO, Gerrard and Dechert all deny the allegations.
This is by no means an isolated example of ENRC using the courts in a way that discourages scrutiny and shuts down accountability. Since the SFO announced its investigation, ENRC has initiated a wave of more than 16 legal proceedings in the US and the UK against journalists, lawyers, investigators, contractors, a former SFO official and the SFO itself. The SFO has had to divert significant staff time and funding away from its corruption investigation to respond to the claims brought by ENRC.
The 22 undersigned human rights, freedom of expression and anti-corruption organisations are concerned that ENRC’s tactics are either a deliberate attempt to undermine the SFO’s corruption investigation and to silence those seeking to expose the company’s misdeeds or will serve to do so.
The groups believe that ENRC’s legal tactics include Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPPs, a form of legal harassment used by powerful individuals and companies as a means of silencing public watchdogs, including journalists, peaceful protesters and whistleblowers. SLAPPs typically involve long and costly legal procedures, or the threat thereof, to intimidate and harass critics into silence.
The conduct of corruption investigations by state officials and others must, of course, be lawful and follow appropriate procedures, the undersigned organisations said, but they nonetheless raised concerns about what appeared to be vexatious litigation by ENRC.
“ENRC’s campaign of legal action across two jurisdictions targeting more than a dozen people and other entities seems a deliberate attempt to shift the focus away from ENRC’s alleged corruption to those conducting legitimate investigations, whether journalists or public authorities. If such efforts succeed, not only could it derail proper public scrutiny of the original allegations, but it risks setting a damaging example for how others can thwart corruption investigations and shut down public discourse,” the organisations said.
A recent legal suit by ENRC was initiated in September 2020 in US courts against publisher HarperCollins seeking disclosure of wide-ranging information relating to the publication of a book, Kleptopia, and newspaper articles published in the Financial Times by investigative journalist Tom Burgis. The book and articles investigate possible corruption and other alleged offences by ENRC and its owners, notably Alexander Machkevitch, one of the three oligarchs (known as the Trio), who – alongside the Kazakh state – own the controlling stake in ENRC.
Shortly after initiating the US action, ENRC’s lawyers also initiated legal action in the UK, sending a Letter Before Claim notifying HarperCollins UK, the Financial Times and Burgis of intended court proceedings for defamation. The case has yet to be issued. In January 2021, ENRC followed with another legal claim, this time against the SFO and John Gibson, a former SFO case controller, who led the investigation into ENRC, accusing him of leaking to the press, including to Burgis.
In a submission to the court, counsel for HarperCollins in the US described ENRC’s tactics as a “relentless campaign to squelch any coverage of its corruption.” She added, “ENRC has undertaken a campaign to silence all who dare expose its misdeeds, through initiating or threatening legal action….It has pursued its critics (even law enforcement) with numerous lawsuits…. HarperCollinsUS is now the latest target.”
Court documents filed in the numerous legal proceedings reveal not only the aggressive legal tactics, but also allege unlawful surveillance and spying by agents linked to ENRC, including of Burgis and current or former SFO officials.
“The UK and US courts will need to decide the merits of these cases, but we are deeply troubled by the chilling effect this wave of legal action has on legitimate investigative and anti-corruption work by journalists, law enforcement officials, and others,” the civil society groups said. “We cannot permit powerful actors with deep pockets to silence their critics, thwart legitimate investigations and target those whose efforts are crucial to ending corruption.”
The groups called on the UK government to urgently consider measures, including legal measures, that could be put in place to protect public watchdogs and journalists from abusive legal actions that are intent on silencing them. The rule of law, protection of human rights, and democracy rely on their ability to hold power to account, said the organisations.
They further urged the SFO to swiftly move forward its investigation into ENRC. “If the SFO has evidence of corruption to charge ENRC then it should do so. Lengthy corruption investigations with no end in sight provide fertile ground for dirty tactics against journalists, whistle-blowers, and other critics to flourish,” the groups said.
Notes to editors:
ENRC was listed on the London Stock Exchange until 2013, when it became embroiled in controversy over governance issues and its purchase of disputed mining concessions in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It went private and today its ultimate parent company is Eurasian Resources Group S.à.r.l., registered in Luxembourg. The ‘Trio’ who own the majority shares in ENRC (now ERG) are Alexander Machkevitch, Patokh Chodiev and Alijan Ibragimov. Mr Ibragimov died in February 2021.
Dechert took over an internal investigation initiated by ENRC in 2010 into alleged corruption by company officials in Kazakhstan and later in Africa. ENRC abruptly fired Dechert on 27 March 2013, just before it was due to report to the SFO about its activities in Africa. In April 2013, the SFO launched a formal corruption investigation into ENRC.
—
For further information, please contact:
Anneke Van Woudenberg, Executive Director of RAID, on (44) 77 11 66 4960 or [email protected]; twitter @woudena
Jessica Ni Mhainin, Policy and Campaigns Manager of Index on Censorship, [email protected]
The organisations who signed this statement are:
- Index on Censorship
- Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID)
- Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA)
- Blueprint for Free Speech
- Corner House
- OBC Transeuropa
- Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
- IFEX
- Justice for Journalists Foundation (JFJ)
- European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
- Transparency International UK (TI-UK)
- PEN International
- ARTICLE 19
- Global Witness
- Spotlight on Corruption
- RECLAIM
- Whistleblowing International Network (WIN)
- The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
- Rainforest Rescue (Germany)
- Mighty Earth
- Publish What You Pay UK
- English PEN
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
23 Mar 2021 | News and features, Slapps, Statements, Sweden
Twenty-four organisations express their solidarity with the Swedish business and finance publication, Realtid, its editor, and the two journalists being sued for defamation in London. Realtid are due before the High Court tomorrow for a two-day remote hearing that will decide whether England and Wales is the appropriate jurisdiction for the case to be heard.
Realtid is being sued by Swedish businessman, Svante Kumlin, and his group of companies Eco Energy World (EEW), for eight articles that they published last year. Realtid had been investigating EEW ahead of an impending stock market launch in Norway, a matter of clear public interest. Prior to publication, the journalists contacted Kumlin and EEW to request an interview and reply, but neither were provided. In November 2020, Kumlin and EEW filed a defamation lawsuit at the High Court in London against Realtid, its editor-in-chief, and the two reporters behind the investigations.
“We are concerned about the use of litigation tactics to intimidate journalists into silence,” five international freedom of expression and media freedom organisations wrote in a statement last December, which condemned the legal action and deemed it a strategic lawsuit against public participation (Slapp). Slapps are a form of vexatious legal action used to silence public watchdogs, including journalists.
The hearing is expected to conclude at lunchtime on Thursday 25 March, but the judgement that will decide whether England and Wales is an appropriate jurisdiction for the case to be heard is likely to be reserved for a later date. Although Realtid is a Swedish-language outlet based in Sweden and Kumlin is domiciled in Monaco, Kumlin and EEW claim to have “significant business interests” in England that, they claim, provide sufficient grounds for the case being brought in the UK.
Ahead of the hearing we, the undersigned organisations, express our solidarity with Realtid. We are extremely concerned that this Slapp appears to be an effort to discredit the journalists and force them to remove their investigative articles.
Signed:
Index on Censorship
ARTICLE 19
Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties)
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
IFEX
International Press Institute
OBC Transeuropa
Reporters without borders (RSF)
National Union of Journalists in the UK and Ireland (NUJ)
Justice for Journalists Foundation
Swedish Union of Journalists
Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project
Mighty Earth
PEN International
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
English PEN
Swedish PEN
Blueprint for Free Speech
Protect
Media Defence
International Media Support
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
Global Witness
Publicistklubben
