Dear Supporters
The update of 26 August contained the text of my official open letter to the judge of the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Bean. This week I received an official notification from the court that it refuses without any reasonable explanation to accept this letter I sent through a special form on the court website (case CA-2022-001211-B).
As a continuation of that update, I am posting for everyone to see the text of my application in the framework of this case (CA-2022-001211-B), which was being considered by Mr Justice Bean. This application is a complaint against previous decisions of the same Mr Justice Bean and I have requested that this complaint be considered by another judge. However, this complaint fell into the hands of the same judge, and he did not transfer it to another judge (although he could do this) and began to consider the complaint against himself.
The essence of the complaint is as follows. In previous decisions, Mr Justice Bean prohibited me from representing the plaintiffs at the hearings, citing the fact that I was making allegations of “wrongdoing” by Russian oligarch (defendants) and suggesting that all my statements could theoretically turn out to be unfounded (not a single such statement was considered on the merits by Mr Justice Bean, who simply assumed that all of them, without exception, may be unfounded).
In a very laconic decision dated 11 August, Mr Justice Bean wrote that the new circumstances described in my complaint about the “wrongdoing” of the Russian oligarchs, shocking any person, are totally without merits. Moreover, Mr Justice Bean wrote that if I would repeat my arguments, a civil restraint order will be issued against me.
It hurts the eyes that Mr Justice Bean did not, in his super concise decision, even briefly name the circumstances to which I referred and which are allegedly totally without merits.
As anyone can now see, these circumstances were the following:
- Initiation, after the previous decisions of Mr Justice Bean, of a criminal investigation in England in connection with information about ordering my assassination by the Russian oligarchs (Defendants) in connection with these proceedings. The same information contains the second important part - about the total corruption by these oligarchs in the British courts in order to pervert the course of justice. Paragraphs G to T.
- The initiation, after the previous decisions of Mr Justice Bean, of a criminal case in Latvia on the facts of numerous death threats made against me with demands to drop the lawsuit. Paragraphs 43-53.
- Confirmation by the Latvian police of the facts of attempts to kill me in a publically dangerous way. Paragraphs 54-62.
- The initiation, after all previous court decisions, of an investigation by the competent authority against my last lawyers, whose strange actions led me to suspect that they had colluded with the oligarchs. Paragraphs 21-42.
- Public information about the "wrongdoing" of these oligarchs. For example, death threats against another person in connection with another lawsuit. Paragraphs 77-81.
I excluded from the text only a small part that concerns the facts of "wrongdoing" in relation to one more person (paragraph 71). Believe me, these facts are no less shocking and are connected with such an oligarch from PhosAgro, about whom the Ukrainian authorities wrote the following to justify the sanctions: “Vladimir Litvinenko owns about 21% of Russian chemical company PhosAgro listed in London. Since 1994, Litvinenko has been the rector of Saint Petersburg Mining University, where he mentored Vladimir Putin. The allotment of PhosAgro shares to Litvinenko is widely seen as a bribe to Putin”.
I believe that the decision of Mr Justice Bean of 11 August is knowingly illegal and that it is the result of the activities of Russian oligarchs aimed at perverting the course of justice (see above). I cannot explain otherwise that the initiation of a number of investigations after the previous decisions of Mr Justice Bean is, in his opinion, totally without merits in the context that absolutely all my statements about the “wrongdoing” of Putin’s oligarchs may theoretically turn out to be unfounded. Initiating investigations, the competent authorities have become convinced that there were more than good reasons for this.
Many thanks for your support!
Igor Sychev
Since the text of the application is long, I will publish it in several parts. The full text is available here.
______________________________________________
My application in case CA-2022-001211-B (part 1)
I, Igor Sychev, will say as follows:
This is an updated version of my witness statement, and the need for updates is caused by new extraordinary events that occurred after the filing of the initial version. I will start the updated document with a description of these events, in connection with which very recently (on 9 June 2023), a criminal investigation was launched in the UK. These events are most directly related to the application in question, as they are related to “wrongdoing” on the part of the Defendants, while my previous claims of their “wrongdoing” were in fact the main reason for the Court decisions against which this application was filed. In this particular case, this “wrongdoing” consists in ordering my murder by the Defendants in connection with these proceedings, which was the reason for initiating a criminal investigation in the UK.
In order not to violate the previous paragraph numbering, I will present information about the new events not with the numeric paragraph numbering, but with the alphabetic one. I have compiled the documents to which I will refer in this part of my witness statement in a separate exhibit, which I will refer to in the format IS(A)2(part 1)/[Page(s)].
Update of 28 June 2023
A. In the original version of this document (paragraph 1 below), I indicated that I am a litigant in person due to lack of money, which is the result of the conflict with the Defendants that lasted almost 9 years. Unlike me, the Defendants, being Russian oligarchs, have almost unlimited financial resources and their interests are represented by dozens of highly paid lawyers. That is, in this case, the parties are initially in an unequal position (the Claimants' side is obviously in a weaker position).
B. But this situation is further aggravated by the fact that I am not just a litigant in person, but a vulnerable litigant in person. My vulnerability is based on several grounds at once mentioned in PD 1A.
C. First, PD 1A (4)(f) - (my “relationship with a party <...> (examples <...> intimidation (actual or perceived))”). I have been receiving death threats from the Defendants throughout all 9 years of the conflict and in October 2022 the police of Latvia, where I live as a refugee, opened a criminal case on death threats. More on this will be below - in the main part of this witness statement.
D. Second, PD 1A (4)(e) - (“The impact on them of the subject matter of, or facts relevant to, the case (an example being having witnessed a traumatic event relating to the case)”). Of course, (1) death threats and (2) even more information about the order to kill me, as well as (3) past real attempts to kill me (described below) - are very traumatic (to say at least). But traumatic events are not limited to this. Their number and nature are such that journalists usually call my story shocking, monstrous and the like (I think that I am still alive only because I make the story of my relationship with the Defendants public).
E. Third, PD 1A (4)(c) – “health conditions”, because as a result of the monstrous events associated with constant death threats, as well as recent information about the ordering of my murder by the Defendants in connection with these proceedings, I am in an extremely stressful state and for this reason I am on sick leave until 18 July (IS(A)2(part 1)/1-2). I am preparing this document in a really tired and stressed state. Try to imagine yourself in my place, when you are informed on a regular basis that you can be killed at any moment and that round-the-clock surveillance is organized for you.
F. I want to especially note that I was a vulnerable party before either (including when the appealed Court decisions were made), since I received death threats for a long time and I reported this to both Mr Beltrami KC and Mr Justice Bean. Being a litigant in person, at that time I did not know that there is such a thing as a vulnerable party and that such situations require a special approach on the part of the Court. In particular, according to PD 1A (6) to (8) it is the Court's responsibility to identify vulnerability as early as possible and take appropriate action. However, despite the fact that I reported death threats, Mr Beltrami KC did not take any action in this regard, and he could, in particular, in connection with this, increase the time of the hearing, so that Mr Beltrami KC himself was able to deal with this issue (death threats) in more detail. But Mr Beltrami KC limited himself to a 1.5-hour hearing, in preparation for which and during which, as he himself confirmed, he did not get acquainted with all the materials, and made a decision in which, in fact, he accused me that I tell the truth about death threats, turning this monstrous situation not in favor of me (the victim and vulnerable party), but in favor of those who threaten (the Defendants). I consider this (IGNORING OF MY OBVIOUS VULNERABILITY) one more and very important reason to overturn the decisions of Mr Beltrami KC and Mr Justice Bean.
G. So, a fundamentally important event is that on 9 June, the London Police launched a criminal investigation in connection with the events that began to develop starting on 22 May. I mean the fact that information began to arrive that the Defendants have ordered my murder in connection with these proceedings (that is, in connection with this case CA-2022-001211-B as well) and that this murder will occur in the near future by poisoning or staging an accident. I was also informed that the Defendants had organized 24/7 surveillance of me.
H. The second part of the incoming information is related to the fact that the Defendants are using corruption in the British judicial system to stifle this lawsuit and that this corruption is total in nature. The name of a specific person who directly deals with corruption issues in the interests of the Defendants is mentioned - Edward Crosse (of Simmons & Simmons), solicitor of the First Defendant and former head of the London Solicitors Litigation Association (https://www.lsla.co.uk/
I. These events began to develop shortly after I officially (informing the Court) made an offer to the Defendants about negotiations about a settlement of the conflict (IS(A)2(part 1)/3-6). The Defendants considered my offer until the very last day and finally rejected it, but shortly after that, the information appeared that the Defendants had ordered my murder.
J. I started informing the Court about these events immediately. I mean the letters dated 22 and 25 May, 1, 2, 12, 14, 15 and 16 June – IS(A)2(part 1)/7-8, 9-11, 12-13, 14, 15-21, 22-30, 31-32 and 33 respectfully.
K. Some of these letters (including the very first, dated 22 May) I also sent to the Defendants, who, to my surprise and contrary to their previous behavior (a formal bare denial of any accusations made just for the record), have not yet commented on the information about their order to kill me and their corrupt activities through Mr Crosse. The only exception is a short email from Mr Crosse dated 14 June in response to my letter of the same date (IS(A)2(part 1)/22-30), paragraph 15 of which was as follows: “if the information about the Defendants' corrupt activities through Mr Crosse is true, then these proceedings are corrupt and we are talking about perverting the course of justice, which requires taking appropriate measures”.
L. In his email, Mr Crosse did not deny anything, but wrote that he was at the disposal of the Court if the Court had any questions for him. However, to my reply letter dated 15 June (IS(A)2(part 1)/31-32), in which I asked to clarify the procedure in the framework of which Mr Crosse intended to answer the possible questions of the Court, Mr Crosse did not respond. Thus, given that there is no such procedure and the only way to express the position is to do it in writing, it turns out that for 36 days from the moment when the information about the order for my murder appeared, the Defendants and Mr Crosse did not deny or comment on this monstrous information.
M. I also informed the Latvian police, which in October 2022 opened the criminal case on numerous death threats made against me (more on this will be below), as well as the London police.
N. As a result, while I was in London in connection with these events, I was advised by the police to resubmit my crime report, which I did on 9 June (IS(A)2(part1)/34-61), and a criminal investigation was initiated on the same day with crime reference 23000352662 (IS(A)2(part 1)/62). The police took what was happening very seriously, as it is about extremely serious things and serious crimes. I described the details in the letter to the Court dated 12 June (IS(A)2(part 1)/17-21).
O. On 23 June, in London, a police investigator interrogated me[1] for many hours and confirmed that we were talking about very serious things. The investigator also said that the subject of the investigation would be the previous death threats, many of which came from English phone numbers and emails. Thus, we are talking about very serious crimes directly related to these proceedings, and the investigation is at an early stage and now, as I understand it, the question is being decided whether the police will continue the investigation or whether they will transfer this case to The National Crime Agency, because it is about very serious crimes and organized crime of an international scale. During the interrogation, I expressed the opinion that the most appropriate body is the NCA. The investigator said that based on the results of the interrogation, which was video recorded, a statement (protocol) would be drawn up, which would be sent to me (as of the time of writing this document, this statement has not yet been prepared, so I cannot attach it, but I will do it after receiving this statement).
P. Below I provide a list of received information about the order to kill me by the Defendants in connection with these proceedings and their corrupt activities.
Q. In following paragraphs R to T, I will provide excerpts (IS(A)2(part 1)/64-67) from my testimony as a victim in the Latvian criminal case of death threats to demonstrate why the Latvian authorities agreed to apply the witness and victim protection program to me.
__________________
R. I also want to emphasize that the information about ordering my murder fully correspond to what I have previously been told in the direct text by people acting in collusion with PhosAgro shareholders. I mean:
(1) Maxim Lushkin (2018, lines 8-15 of the list of threats (Schedule 2)). He said in plain text that if I did not drop the lawsuit in England against PhosAgro and its shareholders, the main owners of PhosAgro, A.G. Guryev and I.D. Antoshin, would kill me in Latvia (line 9 of the list of threats). His words were recorded on a dictophone and also confirmed by Valery Stepanov and Maris Celms in their written witness statements, which they gave in the framework of the English trial and which are available in the materials of this criminal case. So, Mr Stepanov (being an experienced lawyer), based on the results of listening to the audio recording, has confirmed that it was precisely about death threats and a demand to drop the lawsuit[2]. Maris Celms was personally present during my telephone conversation with Lushkin and confirmed the content of the conversation[3].
(2) Vladimir Bobylev and others, who in 2021 acted together as one team, posing as "investors", also said in plain text that if I do not assign the lawsuit to them, then PhosAgro shareholders would organize my contract murder in Latvia. In the list of threats, these are lines 16-27 (Schedule 2), of which I will especially highlight line 16, which reproduces verbatim (based on the audio recording) Bobylev's words, which he said at our personal meeting on 21.06.21 in Riga, that if I assign the lawsuit to them, it will eliminate the risk of my contract murder by PhosAgro shareholders.
S. Against this background, today's information that PhosAgro shareholders have actually ordered my murder is completely consistent with previous events. Moreover, I (1) did not drop the lawsuit (as PhosAgro shareholders demanded in 2018 through Lushkin, who then officially worked for Antoshin, and lied to me that he was unemployed[4]), and (2) did not assign the lawsuit to Ukrainian-Latvian "investors" (as PhosAgro shareholders demanded in 2021). Not only have I not complied with these demands, accompanied by death threats (which is extortion), but I am actively continuing the English proceedings and using all legal mechanisms available to me to achieve justice. Therefore, ordering my assassination looks like a completely logical step on the part of PhosAgro shareholders.
T. And the fact that PhosAgro shareholders are really capable to make such a radical step (my murder) is convincingly confirmed by the fact that they have already tried to kill me in Russia. And they tried to do it exactly in the form that is mentioned now - by staging an accident.
Update of 16 July to the update of 28 June 2023
U. Firstly, these extraordinary events could not but attract the interest of mass media and on 7 July they were described in the article of The Mirror (IS(A)2(part 1)/68-72). Among other things, the author quoted the words of the London police representative: “We have had a report of malicious communications. We treat any such allegations seriously”.
V. Also, this publication describes the previous numerous death threats against me, as well as the real attempts to kill me.
W. Separately, I would like to draw attention to the following fragment of the article: “Around 15 to 20 emails have been sent in total, he added, with the most recent being received on July 2. They make reference to PhosAgro's shareholders, including Guryev - a "known close associate" of Putin who has an estimated net worth of $9.7billion, and is subject to sanctions in the UK”.
X. Mr Guryev (the Fifth Defendant and the main owner of PhosAgro - the Fourth Defendant) is mentioned in the emails in the sense that he is the one who has ordered my murder and ordered and organized corruption crimes in England in order to stifle this lawsuit.
Y. 10 days have passed since the publication of the article, but Mr Guryev did not comment on the situation in any way, having the opportunity to do so, including to comment publicly, for example, using the right provided by the law to respond to the publication.
Z. However, PhosAgro commented on the situation (the comment is given in the text of the article). This comment surprised me extremely and I even sent the letter to the Court about it on 10 July (IS(A)2(part 1)/73-76). What struck me most of all was that PhosAgro (1) did not even try to deny that the Defendants had ordered my murder and (2) did not state that they were not involved in sending these emails.
AA. Secondly, in connection with the same extraordinary events, on 3 July, I was summoned as a victim to the Latvian police, which has been investigating the criminal case of death threats made against me since October 2022. I was urged to use the witness and victim protection program as the police assess the risk of my murder as high. I informed the Court of these developments in the letters of 4 and 12 July (IS(A)2(part 1)/77-79 and 80-87). Several days ago I informed the police of my consent.
BB. Thirdly, I would like to draw the attention of the Court to another article in the British press, which was published on 26 February 2023[5] (IS(A)2(part 1)/88-106) and which describes the death threats against me, as well as the real attempts to kill me.
CC. I will quote several fragments:
(1) “In phone calls heard by MailOnline, Sychev was told the lives of his wife and children would be at risk unless he stopped trying to expose the oligarchs”.
(2) “In recorded phone calls translated by MailOnline, a man called Max, who Sychev said was Maxim Lushkin, spoke with the Russian exile.
He said: 'You don't understand that you can be killed today or tomorrow, Igor?!
'Especially since everyone knows that you are in Riga, everyone knows!
'Stop the court claim, you will save your life, do you understand?
<…>
'I beg you. You will lose everything, do you understand?
'You'll lose your kids, you'll lose your wife.'”[6]
DD. In addition, the article explicitly states that this Maxim Lushkin is closely associated with Mr Antoshin (the First Defendant) and that all these threats come from the Defendants.
EE. The article ends with the words “MailOnline has contacted PhosAgro for comment”. However, the Defendants did not provide a comment before or after the publication (more than 100 days have passed since then). Also, they did not make any attempts to refute the published information (did not use the right of reply, did not make claims of defamation, etc.), that is, they did not do anything that probably any public company (whose shares are, moreover traded on the London Stock Exchange) and its main owners would do, if this shocking information would not be true.
FF. The silence of the Defendants, if we look at it essentially, is actually very "loud" and very revealing. I cannot imagine that, for example, such large and public companies as British Petroleum, British Airways and the like (comparable to PhosAgro) would remain silent after such shocking publications about their activities, if the published information did not correspond to reality.
Conclusions arising from the publications and reactions to them by the Defendants
GG. Before processing to the conclusions, I must inform you that in addition to the two publications directly mentioned above, several more articles[7] were published this year, as well as my video interview (that is, all these publications came out after the Courts decisions which are being considered in the framework of this case).
HH. All these publications are (among other things) about the attempts to kill me and about death threats in connection with these proceedings.
II. I must also draw the attention of the Court to the fact that all publications were being carefully prepared. As a rule, from the moment when journalists show interest in my story, and before the publication of the article, it takes several weeks (about a month). During this time, the information is carefully checked. In particular, in paragraph CC above, I demonstrated that the journalists themselves listened to the audio recordings (about death threats with demands to drop the lawsuit) and themselves translated them into English.
JJ. Mr Beltrami KC, as he himself admits, unlike the journalists, did not have the opportunity and time to consider correctness of my words about the “wrongdoing” of the Defendants, including the most egregious facts of “wrongdoing” - death threats with demands to drop the claim (which is extortion), as well as the real attempts to kill me. Thus, the journalists have done the work that Mr Beltrami KC had no time for.
KK. Let me remind you (more on this in the original version of my witness statement, the text of which is below) that Mr Beltrami KC, in making his decision due to lack of time, proceeded from the theoretical premise that all my words about all facts of “wrongdoing” by the Defendants may turn out to be unfounded, and it was this premise that became the main argument of Mr Beltrami KC. The journalists have refuted this premise. The original version of this witness statement (below) contains information that this premise was subsequently refuted also by the competent authorities, including the Latvian police, which, after the decisions of Mr Beltrami KC and Mr Justice Bean, opened the criminal case on death threats made against me.
LL. The original version of this witness statement (below) also emphasizes that only one story of death threats with demands to drop the lawsuit is enough to dot the i's both on the merits of the dispute and in terms of jurisdiction. No adequate defendant will threaten a plaintiff with murder, demanding that a claim be dropped if the claim is unfounded and/or filed in the wrong jurisdiction.
MM. Generally speaking, in order to fully understand my relationship with the Defendants, it is enough to read the articles published in 2023. Despite the Defendants' attempts to complicate these proceedings, in fact the situation is extremely simple and fully meets the criteria for a summary judgment. And - most importantly - the obviousness of the situation and its shocking nature are now publicly known things and, as far as I understand, no longer require additional proving.
NN. Another important conclusion is related to such a criterion as the unusual nature of the case. The presence of unusual circumstances is significant both in the context of applications under CPR 39.6 (which was being considered by Mr Beltrami KC) and in the context of applications under CPR 52.30 (this case).
The story of my relationship with the Defendants has attracted such significant interest from the mass media precisely because of its extreme unusualness or, to be more precise, its shocking and extraordinary nature.
PP. The most revealing in this sense (and the most surprising to me personally) was the fact that the article of The Mirror was even translated into Arabic by someone and reprinted on an information resource specializing in those regions of the world to which this story has nothing to do.
________________________________
To be continued