27 May 2019
Moscow: 06:34
London: 04:34

Consular queries:  
+44 (0) 203 668 7474  
info@rusemb.org.uk  

 
449 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     441 days have passed since the death of Nikolay Glushkov on British soil - no credible information or response from the British authorities

PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS

16.03.2017

Why Are Fugitives From Justice Welcome in the UK?

Our western partners and the media regularly raise such issues as human rights, crime and corruption in Russia. As we stated previously, we view such dubious tactics as being agenda-driven. In fact, Russia is a committed party to the fundamental international conventions on human rights. Russia is a persistent anti-corruption campaigner and participates in the relevant anti-corruption initiatives.

Curiously enough, corrupt people find their way out of Russia and they are specifically setting their sights on London as they flee from justice. This raises many questions of human rights and corruption in Great Britain.

In fact, Great Britain de facto harbours quite a few Russian citizens who face charges in Russia for committing criminal offences such as fraud on a large scale, embezzlement, misappropriation of large amounts of money, robbery, murder.

Damages from these crimes incurred by the Russian state and private companies are running into tens and hundreds of millions, not to mention damage to the wellbeing of other Russian citizens, assault on their health and life.

Over the period of 2002-2016 Britain has refused to extradite 51 Russian citizens by direct and personal decisions of Home Secretary or as a result of chicanery tactics in London court. Dozens of cases are still pending.

Britain doesn’t provide any compelling reasons for such refusals. All we hear is that those hiding in here either have acquired immigrant status de jure, or that their extradition may result in human rights violations in Russia. It appears that those who are in Russia are corrupt individuals, but once on British soil, they are protected under farfetched pretexts, including assumed violation of their rights in future. This is absurd.

With most Russian extradition requests accompanied by detailed information on the criminal charges against such individuals, comprehensive legal and inculpatory basis, we repeatedly have to point out the obvious, i.e. the requests are not politically motivated and they have nothing to do with race, religion or ethnic background. Discrimination on these grounds is simply forbidden under Russian law. However, London prefers to keep ignoring real expert opinions, even by British experts, as well as written guarantees by the Russian side that all the rights of these Russian citizens will be respected, including those envisaged by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, the relevant conventions of the UN, the Council of Europe, and their protocols.

It never fails to amaze us that the Russian citizens who fled to the UK as fugitives, while here become British subjects. Once with a legal status, such individuals can also legalize funds acquired by criminal methods – quite a handy instrument for them for laundering money and obstructing justice. Just wonder why British authorities are willing to take them under patronage?

One cannot help coming to the conclusion that refusals of extradition by the British Government are politically motivated.

By all accounts, this practice discredits the country’s judiciary, which the British are proud of. We believe that police, investigative and prosecution authorities in any country, including the UK, should adhere to the same professional and moral principles of fighting crime and protecting people. Harboring Russian fugitives does not do the British Government credit in the eyes of the Russians public opinion and the international community.

More than that, actions of this kind send a signal to people committing economic and other criminal offences in the Russian Federation and around the world, that they can flee to Britain and be all right there as long as London and Moscow are at odds politically.

Beware of whom one may be dealing with in everyday life in Great Britain.
Here is a list of some extradition refusals.

 

List of Requests for Extradition of Russian Nationals
by the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation
Refused by the British Authorities


The total number of Russian nationals the British authorities have refused to extradite to the Russian Federation over the period from 2002 to 2016 is 51 persons. Among those wanted and accused of committing various criminal offences in Russia are the following.

 

1. GLUSHKOV Nikolay Alekseevich (last, first and middle name), charged with organizing a large-scale fraud scheme with accomplices. Mr Glushkov is accused of embezzling large amounts of funds, linked to property theft of OJSC «Aeroflot - Russian Airlines».
Extradition request for Mr Glushkov was sent to the Home Office in January 2015 in order to bring him to criminal liability under Article 159 - 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for committing a number of severe financial offences on the territory of Russia.
In February 2016 the Home Secretary declined to extradite the Russian national.


2. SHEMYAKIN Boris Yurievich, charged with assistance in large-scale embezzlement in collusion through abuse of power, linked to property theft of OJSC “Bank Moskvy” (Moscow Bank). Extradition request for Mr Shemyakin was sent to the Home Office in July 2015 in order to bring him to criminal liability under Article 160 – 4, Article 33 - 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The Home Secretary officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


3. BORODIN Andrey Fridrihovich, charged with assistance in large-scale embezzlement scheme through abuse of power, with the help of accomplices, linked to the property theft of OJSC “Bank Moskvy” (Moscow Bank).
Extradition request for Mr Borodin was sent to the Home Office in October 2014 in order to bring him to criminal liability under with Article 160 – 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In March 2015 the Home Secretary officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


4. AKULININ Dmitry Victorovich, charged with assistance in large-scale embezzlement scheme through abuse of power, with the help of accomplices, linked to the property theft of OJSC “Bank Moskvy” (Moscow Bank).
Extradition request for Mr Akulinin was sent to the Home Office in October 2014 in order to bring him to criminal liability under Article 160 – 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In March 2015 the Home Secretary officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


5. NIKITIN Yuri Vladimirovich, charged with organizing and heading a criminal group, 4 counts of abuse of power with serious consequences, 4 counts of embezzlement through abuse of power by an organized group in large amounts, 2 counts of money laundering of funds acquired through committing crime by an organized group in large amounts (Articles 210 -1, Artcle 210 - 2, Article 160 – 4, 174.1 – 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation respectively).
Extradition request for Mr Nikitin was sent to the Home Office in August 2013 in order to bring him to criminal liability in compliance with the Russian legislation.
In August 2015 the Home Office officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


6. SKARGA Dmitry Yuryevich, charged with being part of a criminal group, abuse of power leading to serious consequences, embezzlement through abuse of power by an organized group, money laundering of funds acquired through committing crime by an organized group in large amounts (Articles 210 – 3, 201 – 2, 160 – 4, 174.1 – 3 of the under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation respectively).
Extradition request for Mr Skarga sent to the Home Office in August 2013.
In August 2015 the Home Secretary officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


7. IZMAYLOV Tagir Kadirovich, charged with being part of a criminal group, abuse of power resulting in serious consequences, embezzlement through abuse of power by an organized group in large amounts (Articles 210 – 3, 201 – 2, 160 – 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation respectively).
Extradition request for Mr Izmaylov sent to the Home Office in August 2013.
In August 2015 the Home Secretary officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


8. ZHELYABOVSKIY Yuri Anatolyevich, charged with fraud.
Request was sent to the Home Office in May 2015 in order to bring him to criminal liability under Article 159 - 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In June 2016 the Home Secretary Office officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


9. CHERVYAKOV Ruslan Anatolyevich, charged with abuse of power for the purpose of deriving advantages and privileges for oneself, conflicting with the legal interests of the organization he was working for, which resulted in damage to its interests.
Extradition request for Mr Chervyakov was sent to the Home Office in November 2013 in order to bring him to criminal liability under Article 201 – 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In October 2015 the Home Secretary officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


10. MUROMTSEVA Tatiana Anatolievna, has been charged with having committed several serious crimes on the territory of Russia, including fraud. Request was sent to the Home Office in May 2015 in order to bring her to criminal liability under Article 159 – 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In June 2016 the Home Secretary officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


11. GAVRIKOV Dmitry Gennadyevich, charged with large-scale fraud in collusion through abuse of power by an organized group under Article 159 – 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Extradition request for Mr Gavrikov was sent to the Home Office in December 2013.
In October 2015 the Home Secretary officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


12. KAPCHUK Sergey Aleksandrovich, charged with large-scale fraud in collusion through abuse of power under Article 159 – 3of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Extradition request for Mr Kapchuk was sent to the Home Office in August 2010.
In June 2014 the Home Secretary officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


13. ALEXANDROVICH Alexander Eduardovich, charged with organizing large-scale embezzlement through abuse of power, as well as money laundering.
Extradition request for Mr Alexandrovich was sent to the Home Office in August 2006 in order to bring him to criminal liability under Article 33 – 3, Article 159 – 4 (fraud by an organized group in large amount), Article 174.1 – 4 (organized money laundering, acquisition of property through criminal actions by an organized group) and Article 201 – 2 (abuse of power) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In February 2007 the Home Secretary officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


14. BEYLIN Yury Arkadyevich, accused of illegal entrepreneurship, committed by an organized group, accompanied by the deriving large amount of revenue.
Extradition request for Mr Beylin was sent to the Home Office in February 2009 in order to bring him to criminal liability under point a) and b) of Article 171 – 2 (illegal entrepreneurship of an organized group) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In March 2009 the Home Secretary officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


15. DIDYCHUK Lada Grigoryevna, charged with 8 acts fraud and large-scale embezzlement (Article 159 - 3 and 159 - 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation respectively).
Extradition request for Ms Didychuk was sent to the Home Office in December 2010 in order to bring her to criminal liability in compliance with the Russian legislation.
In August 2012 the Home Secretary officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


16. LOMAKO Oxana Veniaminovna, charged with large-scale fraud and embezzlement in an organized group.
Extradition request was sent to the Home Office in April 2011 in order to bring her to criminal liability under Article 159 – 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In April 2012 the Home Secretary officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


17. STROGANOV Dmitry Alexandrovich, charged with assistance in large-scale embezzlement through abuse of power with the help of accomplices. A criminal case was opened in connection with theft of property of OJSC “Bank Moskvy” (Moscow Bank)
Extradition request for Mr Stroganov was sent to the Home Office in February 2015 in order to bring him to criminal liability under Article 33 – 5 and Article 160 – 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In March 2016, Westminster Magistrate’s Court officially declined to extradite the Russian national.


18. DUBOV Yuli Anatolyevich, accused of large-scale fraud by organized group under Article 147 – 3 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. Extradition request for Mr Dubov was sent to the Home Office in November 2002. In October 2003 Bow Street Magistrates’ Court refused to extradite the Russian national.

 

19. ERESHCHENKO Anatoly Vladimirovich, charged with large-scale fraud in an organized group and property damage through deception and abuse of trust, committed by an organized group in large amounts. A request was sent to the Home Office in November 2013 in order to bring him to criminal liability under Article 159 – 4 (fraud and embezzlement) and point a) and b) of Article 165 - 2 (property damage through deception by an organized group) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (charged with five crimes total).
In May 2015, A.V.Ereshchenko was arrested in compliance with the warrant issued by a District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. During the court hearing on the same day, he was released on bail until June 2015.
In December 2015, a District Judge at Westminster Magistrate’s Court discharged the Russian national from extradition proceedings.


20. MUZIKYAVICHUS Kyastutis, charged with attempt of illegal trade of large quantities of narcotics and psychotropic drugs in collusion, as well as drug smuggling and illegal acquisition, storage and transit of narcotic substances for the purpose of sale.
Extradition request for Mr Muzikyavichus was sent to the Home Office in June 2010 in order to bring him to criminal liability under
Article 30 – 3 and Article 228 – 4 (attempt of illegal trade of narcotics and psychotropic substances), Article 188 – 2 (drug smuggling) and Article 228 - 4 (illegal acquisition, storage and transit of narcotic substances for the purpose of sale) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In December 2010, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court granted the request to extradite Mr Muzikyavichus. In February 2011, the Home Secretary has issued a certificate on this case. In May 2011, HM High Court of Justice in England has accepted the appeal and returned the case for reconsideration. In October 2011, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court officially declined to extradite Mr Muzikyavichus.


21. GORNOVSKY Nikolay Nikolayevich, charged with abuse of power. A request was sent to the Home Office in June 2007 in order to bring him to criminal liability under Article 201 – 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In February 2009, the proceedings were dropped by the court, the extradition request was returned. In August 2011 after another request the Magistrates’ Court refused to issue an arrest warrant.


22. TREFILOV Georgiy Yuryevich, charged with 16 counts of large-scale fraud by an organized group under Article 159 – 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. An Extradition request was sent in September 2011.
The Westminster Magistrates’ Court refused the request in November 2012.




LATEST EVENTS

24.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question regarding Russian position on the UNGA Resolution on the Chagos Archipelago

Question: How can you comment on Russian position on the UN Resolution, based on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965? Answer: The Russian Federation has backed the Resolution, because it is being considered as part of the process of decolonization.


24.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer replies to a media question regarding a statement by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt on cybersecurity

Question: How would you comment on the statement by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt accusing Russia of “targeting the critical national infrastructure” and trying to “change the result of elections” in many countries? Answer: Over the recent weeks, both Mr Hunt and his ministerial colleagues including Home Secretary Sajid Javid and Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt have been rather restrained in the way they spoke of Russia. Today, the Foreign Secretary has returned to the usual militant anti-Russia rhetoric that has nothing to do with the reality. As accusations against Russia over manipulation of US presidential elections or poisoning Sergey and Yulia Skripal are falling apart, Mr Hunt has turned to another well-known topic.


20.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s comment concerning new articles in the British media on the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents

On 20 May “The Guardian” published a new leak concerning last year’s incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury. Its contents, based, as before, on information from “sources close to the investigation”, lead to following conclusions. First and foremost, it becomes increasingly clear that the loud-voiced accusations against Russia made right after the incident by Prime Minister Theresa May in March 2018 were not supported by any facts. For many months, investigators have attempted to credibly corroborate the government’s interpretation of those events, but, apparently, without any success. If one is to believe the newspaper’s source, law enforcement professionals are getting frustrated by constant political pressure they are experiencing.


20.05.2019 - Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at the UN Security Council Meeting on Syria

Frankly speaking, we again have a feeling of deja vu. We heard same calls and laments many times already, when reconciliation of Eastern Aleppo and Ghouta was in progress. However, let me ask why the “humanitarian troika” did not hurry to convene a Security Council meeting, when the so-called coalition was razing Baghouz and Hajin to the ground? Back then civilians died, air strikes destroyed civil infrastructure, including schools and hospitals. What about Raqqa? Almost no one bothered about the fate of this city that in fact was destroyed.


17.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media questionon an anti-Russian article in the “Financial Times”

Q: How would you comment on the FT article of 17 May stating that “a US-Iran conflict would provide cover for Russia to further their ambitions”, in particular “to annex eastern Ukraine or take a chunk of one of the Baltic states”? A: Such kind of “analysis” in the FT, well-known by its professionalism and strive for objectivity, is quite surprising.


17.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer's letter to the Editor of the Financial Times

Embassy Press Officer's letter to the Editor of the Financial Times regarding the newspaper's piece dated 17 May 2019 on the Crimea Bridge - “Russian bridge throttles Ukraine ports”.


17.05.2019 - Embassy press officer’s reply to a media question concerning the BBC’s announcement of a new film about the incident in Salisbury

Question: How would you comment on the BBC’s plans to make a drama about the incident in Salisbury which took place in March last year? Answer: Undoubtedly, we will study this film carefully when it is released. At the same time we would like to recommend the filmmakers to rely upon real facts as well as official and credible information of the investigation. So far, no meaningful results of the inquiry have been presented either to the Russian side or to the public. In these circumstances, the film risks becoming another propaganda tool imposing on the audience the political version of the incident supported by no evidence.


16.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question regarding biased approach of the British authorities towards holders of Russian diplomatic passports.

Question: Has there been any improvement in the working environment for the Russian diplomats in the UK? What’s the situation with the issuance of visas to the Embassy staff? Answer: Despite isolated statements of the British authorities, we are not observing any qualitative improvements of the situation. Moreover, in certain aspects it is only getting worse. Recently, there has been an increase in the number of cases of biased approach of the UK Border Force officials towards Russian diplomats arriving to the UK on short-term assignments, as well as guests of the Embassy staff members.


15.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question regarding calls from British MPs to impose sanctions against Russia

Question: How would you comment on media publications that British MPs are calling to impose additional sanctions against Russia? Answer: We have taken note of the publications in local media that the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Russia, Chris Bryant, has urged Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt to impose sanctions against Russia using the so-called “Magnitsky clause” to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act.


15.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the state of the investigation into the death of Nikolay Glushkov

Q: Does the Embassy have any further information in relation to the investigation into the death of the Russian national Nikolay Glushkov in London? A.: More than a year has passed since Nikolay Glushkov’s death. Through all this time, the British authorities have been performing a strange political play, refusing to provide information on the investigation or to cooperate with the competent Russian authorities. The British side continues to ignore our numerous enquiries, including the official request of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation for legal assistance over Russia’s own criminal case into the death of Nikolay Glushkov and the Embassy’s proposal to arrange a meeting between the Russian Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko and the Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick.



all messages