BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS – Roman Abramovich, Russia’s and England’s richest man, quietly lost a court case in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) last week. But the sound of the judge’s ruling is about to toll right round the world, For the first time in one of the most successful careers in the world of what Karl Marx once called primitive capital accumulation, Abramovich is facing a court order, outside Russia, to explain how he and his oil companies seized control of a Russian oilfield the owner has accused him of stealing.

At stake in court is a group of oilfields in Khanty-Mansiisk known as Priobskoye, worth about $4 billion. The value of the theft, allegedly masterminded by Abramovich two years ago, which the court has said it will now adjudicate, is about $2 billion.

Before the court will rule on the evidence, however, and most embarrassing and serious for Abramovich personally, he has been ordered to reveal where he has hidden the proceeds – along with every asset he owns worth more than $1 million.

Until now, Abramovich has been able to evade all claims of fraud and other illegalities alleged against
Millhouse, his UK-based asset holding company, Sibneft, the oil company that serves as his principal cash cow, or the myriad of associated companies registered in tax havens across the globe. Abramovich’s spokesman John Mann publicly claimed this month, in a remark to an English newspaper, that “any attempt to drag Mr. Abramovich into litigation would be misguided, since he is not on Sibneft’s board and had no role in its dealings with Sibir.”

Sibir Energy Pic, an oil producer listed on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in London, has already filed charges of massive fraud against the Abramovich group in Russian courts. These are proceeding, although Abramovich has been winning on his home ground. Sibir’s financial statement for 2004 indicates that, minus the benefit of the Priobskoye oilfield, it had revenues of ” about $320 million, earning a pre-tax profit of about $40 million.

Sibir is principally owned by Chalva Tschigirinsky, a Moscow entrepreneur. The Priobskoye oilfield is a vital asset in a partnership which Tschigirinsky has with the Mosdcow city government and the Moscow oil refinery to create a vertically integrated structure supplying the city with petroleum products refined from its own crude oil. Sibir is accusing Abramovich and his companies of fraudulently diluting, and converting its 50% stake in Priobskoye asset to less than 1%.

In August 2002, in a fierce battle between Abramovich, D Tschigirinsky and Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, Abramovich’s Sibneft tried, but failed to take control of the refinery. For a time Sibneft cut off part of its crude oil supply to the refinery. Abramovich has personally made no secret that his subsequent takeover of Sibir’s stake in Priovskoye was, as he personally told Luzhkov, was retaliation for losing the refinery battle.

The High Court of the British Virgin Islands has taken jurisdiction over Sibir’s claim against the Russian oligarch, because, in his effort to spirit the asset out of Russian control, Abramovich used several BVI companies he secretly controls. They are listed in the court order as Gregory Trading, Richard Enterprises, Shaw Invest & Finance, and Carroll Trading. All are said to be located at the same address: Trident Chambers, Wickhams Cay, Road Town in Tortola. The court order has appointed an independent receiver to take over the shares of three of the BVI companies that are a part of the fraud claim. The other companies, including entities registered in Cyprus and Panama, as well as Abramovich himself, have been ordered not to make any move to shift the shares outside the BVI court’s jurisdiction, or the control of the companies that presently hold them. The proceeds from oil sales currently under way from the oilfield have also been frozen in place.

Details of Sibir’s claim in the BVI court, and Abramovich’s lawyers reply are still under court seal. What has already been publicly disclosed by both sides is that Sibir and Sibneft were equal stakeholders in a joint venture called Sibneft Yugra to develop the Priobskoye area. Sibneft was to fund the development, and Sibir and its Russian operating company Yugraneft, were to repay Sibneft, and then share the proceeds of oil sales equally. However, according to Sibir, Abramovich, his associate David Davidovich, and their subordinates secretly converted Sibir’s and Yugraneft’s stakes into holdings of the BVI companies and others, for Abramovich’s benefit.

Speaking for Abramovich, Mann has claimed that “everything that Sibir has done related to Sibneft Yugra has been within the framework of a set of agreements between our shareholders and their shareholders.” Sibir’s CEO Henry Cameron is reported in a Moscow newspaper as saying this is “all nonsense. We would like them to disclose to us what those agreements are.”

In order to rule on Abramovich’s defence, Judge Charles has ordered the Abramovich companies to produce these agreements in court. The court order also instructs the companies to reveal “when, from whom and for what consideration it acquired the interest in the share capital of Sibneft-Yugra presently registered in its name”. In addition, the companies have also been ordered to hand over their banking details. Although Sibneft makes its financial accounts public, the others are not. If forced to comply with the BVI court, the elaborate system through which Abramovich directs billions of dollars of oil revenues will be exposed for the first time. The evidence may then be used by UK authorities in London to investigate whether the money-laundering statutes have been violated by Abramovich’s high-profile spending in Britain. “We have not acted in any way illegally,” Mann has also claimed in a London newspaper interview. “All the court cases so far have confirmed that.” He was referring to the courts of the Khanty-Mansiisk region and the Moscow Arbitration Court. The decisions, which have gone both ways, are still pending on appeal.

In her ruling on Sibir’s claim No. 174/05, issued last Wednesday, and obtained from the court record in Tortola late Friday, Judge Indra Charles requires Abramovich to file an affidavit “stating the value, location and details of all his assets exceeding US$1 million in value wheresoever situated and whether in…his own name or not and whether solely or jointly owned, giving the value, location and details of all such assets.” The judge has set a deadline of July 22 to comply. If he fails, Abramovich and his companies face serious contempt of court claims, which can be enforced in England.

According to the court order in BVI, Abramovich has two personal UK addresses: Flat 2, 39 Lowndes Square, London SW1, and the Fyning Hill Estate, Rogate, Petersfield, Hampshire. The judge has given Abramovich until July 22 to hand over the information, or face contempt of court penalties. The safe haven Abramovich apparently thought he was acquiring from the long hand of Russian law turns out to be vulnerably to legal action in the British legal system.

The Sibir charge that Abramovich is a fraudster is not the first of its kind against Abramovich. In September 2003, Abramovich had been behind a transaction in which a company he secretly controlled sold a gold deposit called Maiskoye to Highland Gold, a London goldminer also controlled by men close to Abramovich, on terms that had been financially sweetened by the Chukotka regional administration, which Abramovich headed as governor. At the time, Abramovich’s spokesman Mann claimed that the seller of Maiskoye “is not connected in any way whatsoever with Abramovich”. Subsequent admissions by executives of Highland Gold revealed that Abramovich was the seller of Maiskoye. Russian and UK officials reportedly examined the charges in 2004, but took no action.


By John Helmer, Moscow

Agatha Christie’s whodunit entitled And Then There Were None – the concluding words of the children’s counting rhyme — is reputed to be the world’s best-selling mystery story.    

There’s no mystery now about the war of Europe and North America against Russia; it is the continuation of Germany’s war of 1939-45 and the war aims of the General Staff in Washington since 1943. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu (left) and President Vladimir Putin (right) both said it plainly enough this week.

There is also no mystery in the decision-making in Moscow of the President and the Defense Minister, the General Staff, and the others; it is the continuation of the Stavka of 1941-45.  

Just because there is no mystery about this, it doesn’t follow that it should be reported publicly, debated in the State Duma, speculated and advertised by bloggers, podcasters, and twitterers.  In war what should not be said cannot be said. When the war ends, then there will be none.  



By John Helmer, Moscow

Alas and alack for the Berlin Blockade of 1948-49 (Berliner Luftbrücke): those were the days when the Germans waved their salutes against the unification of Germany demilitarised and denazified; and cheered instead for their alliance with the US and British armies to fight another seventy years of war in order to achieve what they and Adolf Hitler hadn’t managed, but which they now hope to achieve under  Olaf Scholtz — the defeat of the Russian Army and the destruction of Russia.

How little the Germans have changed.

But alas and alack — the Blockade now is the one they and the NATO armies aim to enforce against Russia. “We are drawing up a new National Security Strategy,” according to Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. “We are taking even the most severe scenarios seriously.”  By severe Baerbock means nuclear. The new German generation — she has also declared “now these grandparents, mothers, fathers and their children sit at the kitchen table and discuss rearmament.”  

So, for Russia to survive the continuation of this war, the Germans and their army must be fought and defeated again. That’s the toast of Russian people as they salute the intrepid flyers who are beating the Moscow Blockade.  



By John Helmer, Moscow

Last week the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) board of governors voted to go to war with Russia by a vote of 26 member countries against 9.

China, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Senegal and South Africa voted against war with Russia.  

The IAEA Secretary-General Rafael Grossi (lead image, left) has refused to tell the press whether a simple majority of votes (18) or a super-majority of two-thirds (23) was required by the agency charter for the vote; he also wouldn’t say which countries voted for or against. The United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres then covered up for what had happened by telling the press: “I believe that [IAEA’s] independence that exists and must be preserved is essential. The IAEA cannot be the instrument of parties against other parties.” The IAEA vote for war made a liar of Guterres.

In the IAEA’s 65-year history, Resolution Number 58, the war vote of September 15, 2022,  is the first time the agency has taken one side in a war between member countries when nuclear reactors have either been attacked or threatened with attack. It is also the first time the IAEA has attacked one of its member states, Russia, when its military were attempting to protect and secure a nuclear reactor from attack by another member state, the Ukraine, and its war allies, the US, NATO and the European Union states. The vote followed the first-ever IAEA inspection of a nuclear reactor while it was under active artillery fire and troop assault.

There is a first time for everything but this is the end of the IAEA. On to the scrap heap of good intentions and international treaties, the IAEA is following the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and the UN Secretary-General himself.  Listen to this discussion of the past history when the IAEA responded quite differently following the Iranian and Israeli air-bombing attacks on the Iraqi nuclear reactor known as Osirak, and later, the attacks on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons sites.



By John Helmer, Moscow

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) decided this week to take the side of Ukraine in the current war; blame Russia for the shelling of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP); and issue a demand for Russia to surrender the plant to the Kiev regime “to regain full control over all nuclear facilities within Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, including the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant.”      

This is the most dramatic shift by the United Nations (UN) nuclear power regulator in the 65-year history of the organisation based in Vienna.

The terms of the IAEA Resolution Number 58, which were proposed early this week by the Polish and Canadian governors on the agency board, were known in advance by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres when he spoke by telephone with President Vladimir Putin in the late afternoon of September 14, before the vote was taken. Guterres did not reveal what he already knew would be the IAEA action the next day.  



By John Helmer, Moscow

Never mind that King Solomon said proverbially three thousand years ago, “a merry heart doeth good like a medicine.”  

With seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, Solomon realized he was the inventor of the situation comedy. If not for the sitcom as his medicine, the bodily and psychological stress Old Solly had to endure in the bedroom would have killed him long before he made it to his death bed at eighty years of age,  after ruling his kingdom for forty of them.

After the British sitcom died in the 1990s, the subsequent stress has not only killed very large numbers of ordinary people. It has culminated today in a system of rule according to which a comic king in Buckingham Palace must now manage the first prime minister in Westminster  history to be her own joke.

Even the Norwegians, the unfunniest people in Europe, have acknowledged that the only way to attract the British as tourists, was to pay John Cleese of Monty Python and Fawlty Towers to make them laugh at Norway itself.   This has been a bigger success for the locals than for the visitors, boosting the fjord boatman’s life expectancy several years ahead of the British tourist’s.  

In fact, Norwegian scientists studying a sample of 54,000 of their countrymen have proved that spending the state budget on public health and social welfare will only work effectively if the population is laughing all the way to the grave. “The cognitive component of the sense of humour is positively associated with survival from mortality related to CVD [cardio-vascular disease] and infections in women and with infection-related mortality in men” – Norwegian doctors reported in 2016. Never mind the Viking English:  the Norwegian point is the same as Solomon’s that “a sense of humour is a health-protecting cognitive coping resource” – especially if you’ve got cancer.  

The Russians understand this better than the Norwegians or the British.  Laughter is an antidote to the war propaganda coming from abroad, as Lexus and Vovan have been demonstrating.   The Russian sitcom is also surviving in its classic form to match the best of the British sitcoms, all now dead – Fawlty Towers (d. 1975), Black Adder (d. 1989), You Rang M’Lord? (d. 1988), Jeeves and Wooster (d. 1990), Oh Dr Beeching! (d.1995), and Thin Blue Line (d. 1996).

The Russian situation comedies, alive and well on TV screens and internet streaming devices across the country, are also increasingly profitable business for their production and broadcast companies – not despite the war but because of it. This has transformed the Russian media industry’s calculation of profitability by removing US and European-made films and television series, as well as advertising revenues from Nestlé, PepsiCo, Mars, and Bayer. In their place powerful  Russian video-on-demand (VOD) streaming platform companies like Yandex (KinoPoisk), MTS (Kion),  Mail.ru (VK), and Ivi (Leonid Boguslavsky, ProfMedia, Baring Vostok)  are now intensifying the competition for audience with traditional television channels and film studios for domestic audiences.  The revenue base of the VOD platforms is less vulnerable to advertisers, more dependent on telecommunications subscriptions.

Russian script writers, cameramen, actors, designers, and directors are now in shorter supply than ever before, and earning more money.  “It’s the Russian New Wave,” claims Olga Filipuk, head of media content for Yandex, the powerful leader of the new film production platforms; its  controlling shareholder and chief executive were sanctioned last year.  



By Olga Samofalova, translated and introduced by John Helmer, Moscow

It was the American humourist Mark Twain who didn’t die in 1897 when it was reported that he had. Twain had thirteen more lively years to go.

The death of the Russian aerospace and aviation industry in the present war is proving to be an even greater exaggeration – and the life to come will be much longer. From the Russian point of view, the death which the sanctions have inflicted is that of the US, European and British offensive against the Soviet-era industry which President Boris Yeltsin (lead image, left) and his advisers encouraged from 1991.

Since 2014, when the sanctions war began, the question of what Moscow would do when the supply of original aircraft components was first threatened, then prohibited, has been answered. The answer began at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 1947 when the first  Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) or Parts Manufacturing Approval (PMA) was issued by Washington officials for aircraft parts or components meeting the airworthiness standards but manufactured by sources which were not the original suppliers.   

China has been quicker to implement this practice; Chinese state and commercial enterprises have been producing PMA components for Boeing and Airbus aircraft in the Chinese airline fleets for many years.  The Russian Transport Ministry has followed suit; in its certification process and airworthiness regulations it has used the abbreviation RMA, Cyrillic for PMA. This process has been accelerating as the sanctions war has escalated.

So has the Russian process of replacing foreign imports entirely.



By John Helmer, Moscow

The weakest link in the British government’s four-year long story of Russian Novichok assassination operations in the UK – prelude to the current war – is an English medical expert by the name of Guy Rutty (lead image, standing).

A government-appointed pathologist advising the Home Office, police, and county coroners, Rutty is the head of the East Midlands Forensic Pathology Unit in Leicester,  he is the author of a post-mortem report, dated November 29, 2018,  claiming that the only fatality in the history of the Novichok nerve agent (lead image, document), Dawn Sturgess, had died of Novichok poisoning on July 8, 2018. Rutty’s finding was added four months after initial post-mortem results and a coroner’s cremation certificate stopped short of confirming that Novichok had been the cause of her death.

Rutty’s Novichok finding was a state secret for more than two years. It was revealed publicly   by the second government coroner to investigate Sturgess’s death, Dame Heather Hallett, at a public hearing in London on March 30, 2021. In written evidence it was reported that “on 17th July 2018, Professor Guy Rutty MBE, a Home Office Registered Forensic Pathologist conducted an independent post-mortem examination. He was accompanied by Dr Phillip Lumb, also an independent Home Office Registered Forensic Pathologist. Professor Rutty’s Post-Mortem Report of 29th November 2018 records the cause of death as Ia Post cardiac arrest hypoxic brain injury and intracerebral haemorrhage; Ib Novichok toxicity.”  

Hallett, Rutty, Lumb, and others engaged by the government to work on the Novichok case have refused to answer questions about the post-mortem investigations which followed immediately after Sturgess’s death was reported at Salisbury District Hospital; and a cause of death report signed by the Wiltshire Country coroner David Ridley, when Sturgess’s body was released to her family for funeral and cremation on July 30, 2018.  

After another three years, Ridley was replaced as coroner in the case by Hallett in March 2021. Hallett was replaced by Lord Anthony Hughes (lead image, sitting) in March 2022.

The cause-of-death documents remain state secrets. “As you have no formal role in the inquest proceedings,” Hallett’s and Rutty’s spokesman Martin Smith said on May 17, 2021, “it would not be appropriate to provide you with the information that you have requested.” 

Since then official leaks have revealed that Rutty had been despatched by the Home Office in London to take charge of the Sturgess post-mortem, and Lumb ordered not to undertake an autopsy or draw conclusions on the cause of Sturgess’s death until Rutty arrived. Why? The sources are not saying whether the two forensic professors differed in their interpretation of the evidence; and if so, whether the published excerpt of Rutty’s report of Novichok poisoning is the full story.   

New developments in the official investigation of Sturgess’s death, now directed by Hughes, have removed the state secrecy cover for Rutty, Lumb, and other medical specialists who attended the post-mortem on July 17, 2018. The appointment by Hughes of a London lawyer, Adam Chapman, to represent Sergei and Yulia Skripal, opens these post-mortem documents to the Skripals, along with the cremation certificate, and related hospital, ambulance and laboratory records. Chapman’s role is “appropriate” – Smith’s term – for the Skripals to cross-examine Rutty and Lumb and add independent expert evidence.

Hughes’s appointment of another lawyer, Emilie Pottle (lead image, top left), to act on behalf of the three Russian military officers accused of the Novichok attack exposes this evidence to testing at the same forensic standard. According to Hughes,  it is Pottle’s “responsibility for ensuring that the inquiry takes all reasonable steps to test the  evidence connecting those Russian nationals to Ms Sturgess’s death.” Pottle’s responsibility is to  cross-examine Rutty and Lumb.



By John Helmer, Moscow

The US Army’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has been firing several hundred million dollars’ worth of cyber warheads at Russian targets from its headquarters at MacDill Airforce Base in Florida. They have all been duds.

The weapons, the source, and their failure to strike effectively have been exposed in a new report, published on August 24, by the Cyber Policy Center of the Stanford Internet Observatory.  The title of the 54-page study is “Unheard Voice: Evaluating Five Years of Pro-Western Covert Influence Operations”.

“We believe”, the report concludes, “this activity represents the most extensive case of covert pro-Western IO [influence operations] on social media to be reviewed and analyzed by open-source researchers to date… the data also shows the limitations of using inauthentic tactics to generate engagement and build influence online. The vast majority of posts and tweets we reviewed received no more than a handful of likes or retweets, and only 19% of the covert assets we identified had more than 1,000 followers. The average tweet received 0.49 likes and 0.02 retweets.”

“Tellingly,” according to the Stanford report, “the two most followed assets in the data provided by Twitter were overt accounts that publicly declared a connection to the U.S. military.”

The report comes from a branch of Stanford University, and is funded by the Stanford Law School and the Spogli Institute for Institutional Studies, headed by Michael McFaul (lead image).   McFaul, once a US ambassador to Moscow, has been a career advocate of war against Russia. The new report exposes many of McFaul’s allegations to be crude fabrications and propaganda which the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has been paying contractors to fire at Russia for a decade.

Strangely, there is no mention in the report of the US Army, Pentagon, the Special Operations Command, or its principal cyberwar contractor, the Rendon Group.



By John Helmer, Moscow

Maria Yudina (lead image) is one of the great Russian pianists. She was not, however, one who appealed to all tastes in her lifetime, 1899 to 1970.

In a new biography of her by Elizabeth Wilson, Yudina’s belief that music represents Orthodox Christian faith is made out to be so heroic, the art of the piano is diminished — and Yudina’s reputation consigned again to minority and obscurity. Russian classical music and its performers, who have not recovered from the Yeltsin period and now from the renewal of the German-American war, deserve better than Wilson’s propaganda tune.


Copyright © 2007-2017 Dances With Bears

Copyright © 2007-2017 Dances With Bears

Education Template