Американский прокурор: "Обвинение не смогло доказать подозрения против Тимошенко"
Пункты обвинительного заключения по Лазаренко, в которых фигурировала Юлия Тимошенко были отменены, потому что Россия не хотела сотрудничать с американским следствием.
Об этом в интервью "Украинской правде" сказала помощник американского прокурора Марта Бёрш, которая почти шесть лет занималась расследованием уголовного дела против Павла Лазаренко на территории США.
"Судья Дженкинс отменил эти пункты в ходе суда в ответ на запрос адвокатов Лазаренко. Тимошенко и Лазаренко создали схему обмана украинцев путем перечисления денег, полученных ЕЭСУ за газ, на счета Лазаренко в Швейцарию. Но в ходе расследования мы столкнулись с проблемой, потому что Россия не сотрудничала с нами. Чтобы доказать схему Тимошенко и Лазаренко по обману украинцев, мы должны были провести допросы на территории России, в том числе бывшего руководителя "Газпрома" Рэма Вяхирева. Поэтому все пункты по Тимошенко были отменены.То есть Лазаренко находится в тюрьме, потому что вступил в сговор с целью отмывания денег и мошенничества. Это включало и получение Лазаренко денег от бизнесмена Петра Кириченко, а также деньги от деятельности агрофирмы "Науковая", - сказала Марта Бёрш.
Читайте также на Цензор.НЕТ: Прокурор Фролова: Дело российского генерала имеет прямое отношение к делу экс-премьераПо ее словам судья отказался принять ходатайство о привлечении Тимошенко как соответчика по делу Лазаренко, потому что обвинение не смогло доказать свои подозрения.
На вопрос, кто был конечным владельцем корпорации ЕЭСУ американский прокурор ответила: "Это был траст, созданный Александром Гравцем (третий партнер в "Корпорации Украинский Бензин" наряду с Юлией и Александром Тимошенко)".
Это уже все давно поняли
- Нет. Я вообще очень скептично отношусь к властям в Украине - как бывшим, так и нынешним.
Прокурор обвинила Кучму в создании коррупционной системы Украины, а также, и все дальнейшие правительства!!!
Омерзительно,что журналистика продалась бандюковичам!!!
Господа журналисты, если бздите - пошли вон из журналистики!!!!!!!!!
(http://posovesti.com.ua/Article.aspx?articleID=396 Как могут отнять твоё имущество по решению суда и ты узнаешь цену истинно украинского правосудия
Уже смешно. У нас по таким схемам работают ВСЕ олигархи. Нашли крайних
Путь Цензор заодно расскажет форумчанам , каковы функции помощника помощника . Может это уборка мусорных корзин и приготовление утреннего кафийу ?!
Сразу возникает вопрос , а какого она прокурора помощник помощника ? Почему сам прокурор не высказывается ? Может потому , что в отличии от помощника помощницы обязан деларировать своих доходы как всякий державный служитель и чьи транзакции на счетах журналисты быстро могут пронюхать . Ведь каждый амерский прокурор это человек публичный и лицо избираемое .
За всю историю США не было ниодного прокурора , который , скажем так - вдруг неожиданно разбогател до неприличия и ушёл спокойно в отставку ... А вот помощники , секретари , разносчики пицы - это сколько угодно !
openFSRTracker(1);
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
ELENA KAGAN
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
LANNY A. BREUER
Assistant Attorney General
JOHN-ALEX ROMANO
Attorney
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217
QUESTIONS PRESENTED1. Whether the indictment in petitioner's case omit ted an element of the alleged money laundering of fenses.2. Whether the term "extortion," as used in the fed eral money laundering statute's definition of "speci fied unlawful activity," 18 U.S.C. 1956(c)(7)(B)(ii), in cludes extortion under color of official right and other non-violent forms of extortion.In the Supreme Court of the United StatesNo. 09-49PAVEL IVANOVICH LAZARENKO, PETITIONERv.UNITED STATES OF AMERICAON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
OPINION BELOWThe opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1-45) is reported at 564 F.3d 1026.JURISDICTIONThe judgment of the court of appeals was entered on September 26, 2008. A petition for rehearing was denied on April 10, 2009 (Pet. App. 1-2). The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on July 9, 2009. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254.STATEMENTFollowing a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, petitioner was convicted on one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(h); seven counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B) and (2)(B); five counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 (1994) and 18 U.S.C. 1346; and one count of interstate transportation of stolen property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2314. He was sen tenced to 108 months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. Pet. App. 10, 45-49. The court of appeals affirmed the conspiracy and money laundering convictions, reversed the wire fraud and in terstate transportation of stolen property convictions, vacated petitioner's sentence, and remanded for resen tencing. Id. at 1-45.1. Petitioner served as a high-ranking public official in Ukraine during the 1990s. Petitioner exploited his government position to "form[] multiple business rela tionships and engage[] in a tangled series of transactions that netted him millions of dollars." Pet. App. 2-3; see id. at 3-8 (describing the five separate arrangements that formed the basis for the charges against petitioner). Petitioner "kept his money in foreign bank accounts, transferring funds from one account to another across the globe in an effort * * * to disguise and conceal the sources and ownership of the proceeds from the Ukrai nian people," and the funds "passed through bank accounts in the United States from Swiss, off-shore, and other accounts." Id. at 2. Petitioner left Ukraine around February 1999 and subsequently came to the United States. He was arrested in April 1999. Gov't C.A. Br. 22.2. A grand jury charged petitioner with a single count of conspiracy to commit money laundering (Count 1); seven counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(2) (Counts 2-5) and 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B) (Counts 6-8); 22 counts of wire fraud (Counts 9-30); and 23 counts of interstate transportation of stolen property (Counts 31-53). Pet. App. 8-9; see id. at 74-121 (Second Superseding Indictment). Count 1 alleged that petitioner conspired to commit money laun dering by conducting financial transactions that involved the proceeds of extortion, wire fraud, and ******* and transfer of stolen property. Id. at 76-91. The substan tive money laundering counts were likewise based on the "specified unlawful activities" of:******* and transfer of property that was stolen, un lawfully converted, and taken by fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 and § 2315; extortion as specified in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(ii); and wire fraud in viola tion of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and § 1346.Id. at 92.Petitioner moved for a bill of particulars identifying the provisions of Ukrainian law that the government alleged that he violated. The district court denied that motion. Gov't C.A. E.R. 62-66. The court stated that petitioner would, "at some point, [be] entitled to know the specific Ukrainian laws which he is accused of violat ing." Id. at 64. The court noted, however, that peti tioner was "not being charged pursuant to foreign stat utes or laws" and stated that although "a violation of Ukrainian law may be relevant to establishing an ele ment of the alleged offense, * * * it is not the offense itself." Ibid. The district court also stated that peti tioner had "offer[ed] no legal support for the proposition that such information must be included in the indictment or a bill of particulars." Ibid.; see Pet. C.A. E.R. 90-91 (denying petitioner's subsequent motion to dismiss the indictment and reiterating the court's previous rejection of the view "that a violation of foreign law is a necessary 'element' of any of the offenses pled in the indictment"); Gov't C.A. E.R. 70-72 (denying petitioner's motion to preclude the government from attempting to prove cer tain theories of liability at trial and reiterating the court's previous view that the indictment "adequately alleges the offenses for which [petitioner] * * * is cul pable").Petitioner also moved to dismiss the money launder ing charges on the ground "that the extortion allegations could not serve as a specified unlawful activity underly ing the charge[s] because only extortion by force, as opposed to extortion under color of office, could be the specified unlawful activity." Pet. C.A. E.R. 55. The dis trict court denied that motion, concluding "that the alle gations of extortion, fraud, and interstate transportation of stolen property [contained in the indictment] can ser vice as the specified unlawful activity required under the money laundering statute." Id. at 57.Petitioner was tried before a jury. At the close of the government's case in chief, the district court granted petitioner's motion for a judgment of acquittal on 12 of the 22 counts charging wire fraud and 12 of the 23 counts charging interstate transportation of stolen prop erty. The jury found petitioner guilty on the remaining counts. After the jury's verdict, the district court granted petitioner's renewed motion for a judgment of acquittal with respect to five additional wire fraud counts and ten additional interstate transportation of stolen property counts. The district court declined to disturb the jury's verdict with respect to the one count charging conspiracy to commit money laundering, the seven counts charging money laundering, and one count charging interstate transportation of stolen property. Pet. App. 9-11.3. The court of appeals affirmed petitioner's con spiracy and money laundering convictions, reversed the wire fraud and interstate transportation of stolen prop erty convictions, vacated petitioner's sentence, and re manded for resentencing. Pet. App. 1-45.a. The court of appeals rejected petitioner's argu ment that "the indictment must be dismissed because it failed to allege that his conduct violated Ukrainian law." Pet. App. 11. The court stated that "[a]n indictment is sufficient if it (1) 'contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend' and (2) 'enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecu tions for the same offense.'" Ibid. (quoting Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)). It also stated that "[a]n indictment 'should be read in its entirety, con strued according to common sense, and interpreted to include facts which are necessarily implied.'" Ibid. (quoting United States v. Berger, 473 F.3d 1080, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 874 (2008)).In this case, the court of appeals noted that "[t]he indictment tracks the statutory language in charging money laundering, wire fraud and interstate transporta tion of stolen property," language that the court of ap peals had previously held "set forth the essential ele ments of these offenses." Pet. App. 12. The court stated that petitioner was "seek[ing] to import an additional element into these offenses [by] claiming that the Ukrai nian law at issue is also an essential element because the government must prove a violation of Ukrainian law to sustain a conviction." Ibid. The court of appeals stated that petitioner's "challenge does not achieve novelty status simply because it involves foreign law" and it noted that the general rule is that, "when bringing charges of money laundering, the government need not allege all the elements of the 'specified unlawful activ ity,' i.e., the underlying offense." Ibid. "Here," the court of appeals explained, "the violation of Ukrainian law is the specified unlawful activity." Ibid.The court of appeals also determined that "the omis sion of a citation to foreign law" in the indictment had not prejudiced petitioner, noting both that "[t]he indict ment provided detailed allegations regarding the basis for the charges, including dates, amounts, account num bers, and sources of the money" and that "the [petit] jury was instructed that it had to find a violation of [Ukrainian] law and was provided with the elements of the relevant [Ukrainian] statutes." Pet. App. 12-13. The court rejected petitioner's reliance on Richardson v. United States, 526 U.
Fined $9 Million for Role in Laundering $30 Million of Extortion ProceedsSAN FRANCISCO - Pavel Ivanovich Lazarenko was sentenced yesterday to 97 months in prison, ordered to pay a $9 million fine and forfeit $22,851,000 and various specified assets resulting from his money laundering convictions, First Assistant United States Attorney David Anderson announced. The court deferred decision on restitution.“The U.S. Attorney’s Office has maintained throughout this case that Pavel Lazarenko misused his office to extort tens of millions of dollars from a Ukrainian citizen, lied to the people of Ukraine about his assets, and abused our banking system in an attempt to establish a safe haven in the United States,” First Assistant U.S. Attorney Anderson said. “Yesterday’s sentence should send a strong message to corrupt foreign public officials – they will be held accountable if they misuse their office and try to make safe harbor in the United States.” After a ten and one-half week trial, Lazarenko was convicted by a jury on June 3, 2004, on twenty-nine counts of money laundering, wire fraud and interstate transportation of stolen property. During the trial, evidence showed that starting in the early 1990s, when he was the governor of an industrialized region in Ukraine, Lazarenko abused his official authority to extort Ukrainian businessman Peter Kiritchenko of 50 percent of his profits. Over time, and as Lazarenko rose in office to become the Prime Minister, Kiritchenko paid Lazarenko $30 million, which was half of Kiritchenko’s $60 million in profits. At Lazarenko’s direction, Kiritchenko assisted him in laundering the proceeds of that extortion through accounts in Poland, Switzerland, Antigua, and, ultimately, the United States, where Lazarenko used a shell company to conceal his purchase of a multi-million dollar residence in Marin, Calif. Kiritchenko pleaded guilty to one count of ******* of stolen property and testified against Lazarenko. After trial, the court dismissed fifteen counts and sentenced Lazarenko on fourteen counts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later affirmed all of Lazarenko’s money laundering convictions (eight counts) dismissed the other charges and vacated the original sentence. Yesterday’s sentencing was on the eight counts of money laundering. Because the judge who presided over the trial and initial sentencing, the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, left the federal bench, the case was reassigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer, who handled the resentencing.“We are pleased Mr. Lazarenko has been held accountable for his crimes,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Stephanie Douglas. “The wanton abuse of official power undermines people’s faith in their elected leaders and the effectiveness of any government. In this age of internationalization, we must diligently pursue corruption wherever it takes hold to help ensure public officials act for the benefit of their constituency, not for their own personal gain.”“Uncovering the trail of money was key in identifying the corrupt actions of Mr. Lazarenko,” said Scott O’Briant, Special Agent in Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation. “If you put illegal money gain ahead of obeying the law, you can expect to be investigated, prosecuted and sent to prison." This case is the first prosecution of a foreign leader for laundering the proceeds of extortion through financial institutions in the United States.Peter B. Axelrod, Stephanie Hinds, Patricia Kenney and Hartley West are the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who are prosecuting the case with the assistance of Wilson Wong, Alicia Chin and Carolyn Jusay. The Department of Justice Organized Crime and Racketeering Section supported this prosecution. The prosecution is the result of a six-year investigation by the FBI and IRS.
Further Information: Case #: 00-284 CRBA copy of this press release may be found on the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s website at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can www.usdoj.gov/usao/can . Electronic court filings and further procedural and docket information are available at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl .Judges’ calendars with schedules for upcoming court hearings can be viewed on the court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ www.cand.uscourts.gov. All press inquiries to the U.S. Attorney’s Office should be directed to Jack Gillund at (415) 436-6599 or by email at .This site does not contain all press releases or court filings and is not an official record of proceedings. Please contact the Clerk of Courts for the United States District Court for official copies of documents and public information.
Louis Vuitton Borse http://www.casavacanzeariccia.it/Borse-Louis-Vuitton.html