Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Economy and Finance / / Articles
Reserve Fund hostage USA
Material posted: Publication date: 26-10-2014

The West with the help of former shareholders of oil company YUKOS opens the season on the foreign assets of the Russian state. As reported by their representative lawyer Tim Osborne in an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, in the coming weeks, owners of Yukos will appeal to courts for Germany, UK, Netherlands, France and the USA.

They will seek the confiscation of property of Russia in Europe and the United States under the controversial judgment of the International court of arbitration in the Hague. As you know, last awarded to the victims of "expropriation" by the Russian state of Yukos assets damages in the amount of $50 billion as a matter of fact, this tidbit in the form of state property, financial resources and other assets, and planned "to gnaw" of the Russian economy with the help of people in black robes from the EU and the US. Recall, the company GML, developed in the late 1990s to accommodate Yukos assets abroad, in September 2010, appealed to the Hague arbitration with the request to collect from Russia compensation for the confiscated Yukos assets valued at $ 130 billion (including interest).

The offensive against Russia in European courts is a broad front. The European court of human rights after the chamber of the Hague arbitration court partially satisfied the claim of the former owners of Yukos and obliged Russia to pay €1,866 billion as compensation for material damages and €300 000 as compensation for legal costs. The reaction from the Russian Federation was the message of the Ministry of justice, which stated that the Russian authorities can appeal against the decision of the ECtHR within three months.

However, it would be worth to hurry, because after 15 January 2015 on an unpaid penalty will begin to accrue.

In fact, the usual varieties of anti-Russian sanctions of broad-spectrum. Experts warn that the recovery in Russia of funds in favor of the "innocent victims" of the "fences" (suffice it to recall, as was held pledge auctions in the 1990s and who in the end for a pittance got the best petrodollar pieces of once public property) can have far-reaching consequences. Up to arrest accounts and property of the largest Russian energy companies Gazprom and Rosneft.

Among the possible scenarios is called even the refusal of payments for delivered to Europe Russian hydrocarbons. Although in this case outwardly respectable European bureaucracy will actually rise to the level of irresponsible Maidan authorities, who flatly refuse to pay for the purchased goods.

In fact, the follow-up algorithm of the courts of the USA and the EU is quite predictable. In Russia a similar precedent was created in 1993, when the Swiss company Noga has applied to the Luxembourg court and won the case, was arrested on foreign accounts of Vnesheconombank, the Bank of Russia and several foreign trade associations. In 1997 the Swedish court somewhat softened the appetite of the owner of the company of Nissim Gaonand reduce the financial expression of its claim to $27 million.

Despite the fairly modest (by today's standards) amount, odious company has managed pretty nerve wrecking the Russian authorities. She repeatedly managed to arrest Russian property abroad — in 2000 Noga has achieved in France of arrest of accounts of the Bank of Russia and the Russian sailing ship "Sedov". Then the team has successfully "landed" at the air show in Le Bourget the Russian aircraft. But in 2005 they shifted their attention to the masterpieces of culture: on request Noga in Switzerland was arrested collection of paintings from the Pushkin Museum.

However, at that time, the Russian government managed to recapture (in the European courts) all attempts of the controversial Swiss project to bring Russia in kind. Which is understandable, given the rather positive nature of the relationship between Russia and the West, which was formed in the middle of "zero". Which for obvious reasons can not be said about the current situation, when the level of confrontation between Russia, the U.S. and its European satellites, regularly updates a record.

The fact that about 70% of Russian production assets owned by companies registered offshore, is an extra reason for alarm for the fate of state assets, lightly placed in the countries of the Western world. Naturally, to arrest the enterprise, physically located in Russia will not work, but have the opportunity to "expropriate" the contents of Bank accounts of the relevant structures.

However, to the deduction of payments for the Russian gas business, most likely, will not happen. So says well-known economist and publicist Yury Boldyrev.

– Because Europe is interested in Russian energy resources. Although it is not clear how will be able legally to justify such selective attitude to the implementation of the decision of the Hague court of arbitration. There will have to motivate why the payments for the gas are derived from other Russian assets.

"SP": – How invulnerable the Reserve Fund, which is invested in US equities? Our American "partners" can't get a room, refusing to repay the debt?

When our government in 1995 adopted a law on the Central Bank, it used the wording on the independence of the Central Bank. From which it follows that this institution is not liable for the obligations of the state, and the latter similarly is not responsible for the liabilities of the Central Bank. But I fear that our geopolitical well-wishers will try to repeat the precedent that was established in the Hague in considering a claim for compensation to the victims in the "Yukos case". Let me remind you, then, taken out of context a phrase from the speech of Vladimir Putin was used as proof that the property from Yukos was taken away by the state, and not of specific commercial structures. So certainly try and find the necessary language in order to prove the relationship between the Central Bank and government.

In General, the implementation of the decisions of the Hague arbitration court awarded former Yukos shareholders $50 billion compensation for the expropriation of their assets, will be a very painful process for Russia. The holiday occurs solely outside British law firms. Because, despite the "overproduction" of lawyers in Russia, the Russian government in each of the suits will be forced to hire British law firm. They will have the opportunity to earn good money in any case, regardless of the outcome of a particular case.

"SP": – What can Russia do to protect their foreign assets?

– From my point of view, it is vital for us to adopt a special law (or similar content, the decision of the constitutional court) that the government resolution is not enough to summarize the Russian Federation under the jurisdiction of the Hague court. Accordingly, the COP does not recognize the output of the government beyond their competence in subordinating our country to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. Especially because the dispute involves property, which is located on Russian territory. Moreover, initially it was about the Russian owners, even if they hid it somewhere in the offshore. I am convinced that Russia should not accept the decision made by the Hague arbitration.

The sooner we do this step, the faster you deal with this extremely nasty traps. This could prove to be not even $50 billion, and given the costs of lawyers even more.

"SP": – Is the amendment to the Russian law adopted retroactively, will be effective? In any case, the West hardly recognizes them.

– The jurisdiction of the Hague court of arbitration has recognized our government. While the Russian Federation generally should not recognize. Due to the fact that the documents were not ratified by the Russian Parliament. It should look like an internal conflict between the Constitutional court and the Executive. If someone has gone beyond the constitutional powers, let it out of his pocket and pays the costs.

"SP": – Our authorities declare that are ready to take symmetrical measures against those countries which will encroach upon our property and assets. Will compensate our potential loss?

– This should be the next step after our constitutional court and the Parliament disassociated themselves from the government's decision on the recognition of the jurisdiction of the Hague court. Of course, the West will refuse to acknowledge this step to return Russia to judicial immunity. And then justified counter action by the confiscation of their property in the territory of the Russian Federation. And while it is not clear on what basis we will continue to produce. If we do not dispute the legality of the jurisdiction of the Hague court, its decision must be fulfilled.

I know that our authorities will appeal against the verdict of the court of the Hague on the Yukos case. In my opinion, this is an extremely weak and inadequate measure compared with what I offer. Strictly speaking, for the appeal there is no other serious reason, in addition to the thesis about the non-recognition of foreign jurisdiction in its domestic commercial disputes.

"SP": – whether to solve a problem of restoration of legal immunity of the Russian Federation at the constitutional level? It's no secret that the current basic law fixed the primacy of international treaties over domestic legislation.

– Speech can go only about the primacy of international treaties ratified (!) by the Russian Parliament. In the case of acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Hague court, our Executive had exceeded its authority. Enough, the constitutional court gave on this issue clear and unambiguous clarification.

Deputy Director of the Center for political information Alexei Panin has no doubt that national jurisdiction will accept the decision of the Hague court as a guide to action.

– In General, this is a fairly reputable institution. In addition, the decision reflects a General anti-Russian vector in the policy of Western countries. On the other hand, one of the arbitrator's decision is not enough. So now the Yukos shareholders have with this paper to refer to national courts to exact from Russia a compensation for the "loss".

"SP": – What are the foreign assets of the Russian Federation may fall under the blow?

– Everything except the property which contributes to the performance of the state task of the Russian Federation. We are talking about buildings and property of diplomatic missions. The collection will be made with assets that enable our country to generate profits. This is quite a dangerous thing, because our big companies have serious assets abroad. But here I would draw attention to the so-called "law Rotenberg", if it is adopted. The public is opposed to having to insure and to compensate for the loss of the oligarchs at the expense of the budget. However, few consider that the bill is designed to protect against the requisition of state property abroad. Because, ultimately, compensation for our losses from unjust decisions of foreign courts will be conducted at the expense of those countries that have accepted them.

Simply put, the "law Rotenberg" will allow us to confiscate the property of those who exercise judicial pressure against Russia.

"SP": – We are waiting for a repetition of the story of the hunt for Russian assets, which staged the lawyers of the Swiss company "Foot", but on a far larger scale and with far more serious consequences?

– In terms of the unprecedented nature of the claim amount is a different story. If I am not mistaken, then hunted for tens of millions, and now tens of billions. Another thing is that talking about what the Europeans will withhold payments for the delivered Russian gas, it was some law of chemistry. Because financial liabilities and assets are not one and the same.

"SP": – is There a threat to the assets of the companies in which the state acts as a minority shareholder?

– This will depend on the national legislation of the country of the court which adopts the decision on confiscation. But for the most part this measure would affect the companies in which the state owns 50% plus one share, that is controlling.

I doubt that the Americans and the Europeans will be able to impose punishment on the Russian property in the claimed amount. With regard to the Reserve Fund, is not property, and financial obligations. Although, in the face of such fierce confrontation between Russia and the West, you never can be sure. The US has a very liberal inclination to treat international law, interpreting it to their advantage. Apparently, the world Washington is not going to go, and risk to spoil relations already there – they're worse than ever. In this situation, the American authorities any of the most unpleasant "exotic".

"SP": – How did it happen that two different instances (the Hague court of arbitration and the ECHR) awarded shareholders of Yukos compensation in the same case? Even if theoretically as assumptions to assume that the decisions are competent, anyway, as you can double-fined for the same "violation"?

– Indeed, it looks very doubtful. No less controversial looks of the interim solution which has previously adopted the ECHR, justified Russia on all counts. In particular, "the Yukos affair" is not recognized politically. It turns out that the ECtHR later simply picked up the torch from the Hague court, "the signing of" Russia on $2 billion of These courts considered the same issue from different sides. In the first case we are talking about the violation of the Energy Charter.

"SP": – But the Russian Parliament has not ratified this Treaty.

– Yes, but we still signed the Charter. According to one UN conventions, if the document is signed, but not ratified, it is considered mandatory. Until then, until it is revoked signature. Russian authorities signed the Charter in the reign of Boris Yeltsin in the 1990-ies. And only in 2009 they withdrew his signature. But this happened at the conclusion of the proceedings in the Yukos case.

The Director General of the Institute of national energy Sergey Pravosudov expressed doubt that if Russia and will be ever recovered money, they will get to ordinary shareholders, as well as those whom the media portray as the main defendants in the case.

– This applies to characters such as Nevzlin or Oaks. Most likely, these former shareholders are more serious players. Back in 2003 in one of the editions of the Sunday Times article appeared that the real owner of a major stake in Yukos (about 40%) is none other than Jacob Rothschild.

More of this topic doesn't pop up in the media. However, former BP President Lord, Dr.John brown later released a memoir, which recalls how it was negotiating buying a stake in Yukos. He says that Khodorkovsky introduced by Jacob Rothschild.

"SP": – That is West of little interest to the Russian authorities alleged the violation of abstract "sacred property rights" at stake Mercantile interest of one of the most influential oligarchic clans.

Is from the to combine "pleasant with useful" – to punish Russia for geopolitical obstinacy that the West is unique in itself, plus to make your. No one is going to give money to people who are hiding in Israel, in Russia, sentenced to life imprisonment.

Basil Vanykov


RELATED MATERIALS: Economy and Finance