Dear Friends

Thank you very much for supporting my petition, which has rapidly passed another important milestone of 25,000 supporters and which describes the corruption of Russian oligarchs (PhosAgro) in the UK. Since the petition refers, among other things, to the bribery by the defendants in my lawsuit (PhosAgro) of my lawyers (law firm Candey) and English judges, I post my letter to those people through whom PhosAgro warned me that it would corrupt judges and my lawyers, unless I assign them my rights of the claimant. In addition, in the event of such an assignment, I was promised that the defendants (PhosAgro) would not kill me (threats of which I receive regularly and about which two criminal cases have been initiated in Latvia). I asked for a response to this letter by 12 January, but there is no response.

Also, there was no response to my second OPEN letter addressed to my former lawyers (the firm Candey), who were bribed by the defendants. I also asked for an answer before 12 January.

I think additional comments are unnecessary here.

Many thanks for your support!

Kind regards, 

Igor Sychev

OPEN LETTER TO CANDEY OF 9 JANUARY (UNANSWERED)

Dear Candey

1.      I refer to my previous open letter of 28 November 2022. 

2. Due to the lack of response from you, in addition to those public resources on which this letter was originally published, now it is also published on the following British information resources (this list is not full):
(1)  here

(2)  here 

(3)  here 

3. I have to be persistent, demanding answers from you to my very simple questions, since at every court hearing the question of my relationship with you is raised in one way or another and the defendants try to present the situation in such a way that allegedly the reason for the termination of our relationship has been your unwillingness to submit my 400-page witness statement containing accusations of wrongdoing against the defendants, their solicitors and experts.

4. Of course, this version is deliberately false (which is confirmed by irrefutable evidence in the form of the audio recordings of my conversations with you, in relation to which you did not provide any objections), but, for example, this version was reflected in the judgment dated 9 December. In my appeal application, I again, with reference to the irrefutable evidence in the form of the audio recordings (which were at the disposal of the judge on 9 December, but he ignored them without any explanation), have proved the already obvious - that it has been exactly I who initiated the termination of our agreement and the reason for this were your strange, obviously absurd for any sane person, but at the same time persistent and aggressive demands to formulate a response to 2600 pages of the defendants' documents only on 3-5 pages, which should have consisted exclusively of headings and hints and did not contain supporting evidence.

5. I write this next open letter for two reasons at once. First, I need this for the appeal. Secondly, on 13 January, another hearing will take place and my relationship with you will be discussed again.

6. By the way, in the appeal application, among other things, I pointed out that, contrary to the version of the defendants (supported for inexplicable reasons by the judge), which consisted in the fact that you allegedly did not agree to include in our answer information about numerous facts of wrongdoing of the defendants, their solicitors and experts, you, on the contrary, agreed with this, but were demanding that information about this be only part of a whole answer of 3-5 pages. Your agreement with the accusations against the defendants, their solicitors and experts is irrefutably proven by the fragments of our conversations listed in paragraph 4 of the attached document (the transcript of our conversations).

7. Therefore, I once again demand that my extremely simple questions from the previous open letter and from the previous correspondence be answered by the end of the working day on 12 January. 

8. In the absence of an answer, I will regard this as one more proof of (1) the correctness of my already obvious version (confirmed by the audio recordings), and (2) the fact of your collusion with the defendants (that is, committing of a very serious crime).

9. In addition, I inform you that the Latvian article, published in August last year and mentioned in paragraph 9 of my previous open letter, is now available in English on several British information resources (for example, here).

10. This letter is also open (public) and now is available here.

MY LETTERS TO THOSE WHO WARNED ME ABOUT BRIBERY OF JUDGES AND MY LAWYERS OF 9 JANUARY AND 23 DECEMBER (UNANSWERED)

The head of European Litigation Fund 

Mr Vladimir Bobylev

By email (vb@elf-capital.com) and Viber (+380672098020)

Dear Mr Bobylev

1.      I refer to my letters dated (1) 23 December 2022, (2) 17 October 2022, (3) 6 August 2022. 

2.      These letters remained unanswered, neither within the time indicated in the letters nor at all.

3.      Since on 13 January, the next court hearing in the case of CL-2016-000831 will be held, at which the questions mentioned in my letters to you and left unanswered will again be raised (including about your words about bribing English judges and my lawyers), I give you the last opportunity to answer my letters no later than the end of the working day on 12 January.

4.      I also inform you that the Latvian publication, which I attached to the letter of 17 October, is now available in English on British information resources, for example, here.  

5.      For the avoidance of doubt, I once again confirm that I am absolutely sure of my version of events with your participation described in the article (especially since you have not answered my letters and have not made any attempts to refute the information that became public).

23 December 2022 

The head of European Litigation Fund 

Mr Vladimir Bobylev

By email (vb@elf-capital.com) and Viber (+380672098020)

Dear Mr Bobylev

Introduction

1.      On 21 June 2021, you and Mr Baryshnikov came to me in Riga to sign the agreement on the assignment of the claimants’ rights, under which it was assumed that I should assign to you the rights of the claimants in the English court case CL-2016-000831 with complete deprivation of my rights to influence the further course of the proceedings.

2.      Before that, you informed me 14 times that you were ready to become a funder for this court case and that your lawyers were preparing a draft contract and carefully (for several weeks) checking and rechecking it. 

3.      However, you sent me the text of the contract only on the day of our meeting, 21 June 2021, a few hours before the meeting. The contract contained a huge number of typos and phrases in several languages combined together. That is, it is quite obvious that you drew up the contract in a great hurry and that, contrary to your numerous statements, no one has checked or rechecked it for several weeks. That is, you lied to me.

4.      The details of our meeting are described in the attached document (the description is based on the audio recording of the conversation). When I received the contract, I was finally convinced that you were playing a show and acting together with the defendants in the CL-2016-000831 case, so I began to record our conversations on a dictaphone.

5.      When you "persuaded" me to assign the claimants' rights to you, you reasoned that if this happened, it would eliminate the risk of my killing by the defendants. For example, on the day we met, you said literally the following:

"Bobylev: 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". 

6.     You raised the issue of my safety many times later either (which is already public information), and at the same time, I began to receive emails from fake addresses with the offer to order my funeral in advance, for which I was promised a discount of 500 English pounds.

YOUR WORDS ABOUT A BRIBED JUDGE (minutes 22-23 of the personal meeting in Riga on 21 June 2021)

7.      I am writing this letter in order to receive your comments on the fragment of our conversation on 21 June, in which you used the words "bribed judge" four times in half a minute. The literal content of this fragment is as follows:

"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 the defendant. 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".

8. The defendants provided their own version of the transcript of this fragment (attached), which in fact does not differ from the one given above. 

9. This fragment of our conversation now is often mentioned during the proceedings, including at the court hearings, because there have been situations that were very similar to your words about a bribed judge who needs to cling to something in order to fulfil the obligations under a bribe. For example, at the hearing on 27 May 2022, deputy judge Mr Beltrami KC ruled that I could not proceed without lawyers, knowing that I had no money to pay for the services of lawyers, and that my last lawyers who agreed to work on a basis of "paying after the win" had been bribed by the defendants (I will return to this below).

10. Mr Beltrami KC has written in his judgment, in particular, 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”. 

11. That is, without analyzing any of my statements about the defendants' behavior on the merits, Mr Beltrami KC actually forbade me from proceeding without lawyers on the basis of the very fact that I am making allegations of wrongdoing of the defendants, and knowing that I will not be able to find lawyers.

12. After the hearing, I found out that Mr Beltrami KC was closely associated with the defendants' lawyers and, contrary to the mandatory requirements, did not disclose this information to me either before or during the hearing, thereby depriving me the opportunity to apply for his recusal. 

13. Given the set of facts outlined above, I have more than a good reason to suspect that Mr Beltrami KC has been bribed by the defendants and acted exactly according to the scenario described in your words. 

14. However, the defendants try to parry and, in particular, refer to your words “This is not possible in an English court”. These words are followed by the words “but we will imagine for a moment that you are the bribed judge”, which the defendants forget about.

15. Since your words have given rise to different interpretations in the course of the proceedings, I decided that it would be best to address directly the person whose words are the subject of discussion, that is, you. I ask you to comment on your words and their background (the train of your thoughts) and, in particular, I ask you to answer the following questions:

(1)   Why did you say that it is allegedly impossible to bribe judges in an English court, that is, what is the basis for this statement (personal experience; the experience of your friends who may have unsuccessfully tried to bribe judges; some publicly available information; or something else)? Or is it just your subjective opinion?

(2)   If, according to you, it is impossible to bribe English judges, what made you so persistently ask me about what a bribed judge can find fault with, using the phrase "bribed judge" four times at once? Why even start a conversation about something that is supposedly impossible in principle?

(3)   Do you often ask similar questions to other potential "clients"?

16. For the avoidance of doubt, I regard this fragment of our conversation as an attempt to find out from me what weak points I see in my case, to which a bribed judge who needs to work off a bribe can cling. Since you acted in collusion with the defendants, I regard these words as a direct warning (threat) that they can bribe judges, and therefore they are looking for what exactly the judge bribed by them can find fault with.

17. Separately, I ask you to answer the question about your final phrase from this fragment “Is everything going so fine for you? But in principle, we were told the same thing”. Who exactly told you the same thing (that in my case even a bribed judge has nothing to cling to)? Only I and the defendants have full information about the case, and in this phrase you meant, of course, not me. I conclude that it has been the defendants who told you this.
 

18. Please provide a response within one week. If there is no response, I will assume that you agree with me.