14 December 2018
Moscow: 20:46
London: 17:46

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

 
285 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     277 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

13.12.2018 - Statement of the Russian Federation on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, Marrakesh, December 11, 2018

The Russian Federation supports the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. This compromise document covers many dimensions of international migration, including humanitarian aspect, development issues, human rights and fight against crime.


12.12.2018 - Embassy comment on the state of the investigation into the death of Nikolay Glushkov

Nine months have passed since former Deputy General Director of Aeroflot Nikolay Glushkov, a national of the Russian Federation, mysteriously died in London.


11.12.2018 - Joint statement by Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bolivia (plurinational state of), Burundi, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russian Federation, State of Palestine, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Zimbabwe at the Fourth review conference of the chemical weapons convention, the Hague, November 30, 2018

We, the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC), committed to achieving the goal of freeing the world of chemical weapons, strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere and under any circumstances.


09.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the accusations of “Russian involvement” in the cases of Scott Young and Alexander Perepilichny

Question: The Sunday Times articles today speculate on the possibility that, despite earlier claims, Mr Scott Young and Mr Alexander Perepilichny were killed, while also hinting at the alleged “Russian link”. How could the Embassy comment on that? Answer: These and similar “sensations” follow the same traditional pattern. As always, no official information is provided, only leaks in the media from unknown sources. Upon this rickety foundation, fancy theories are built, with a remarkably rich collection of modal verbs used. And as always, publications appear on the eve of an important political event, such as Brexit deal vote. It is really hard to avoid the impression that we witness a pre-meditated political game to draw the public attention from the less glamorous sides of UK foreign and internal affairs.


09.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the UK position on chemical weapons attack in Aleppo, Syria

Question: How would you comment on the statement by the UK FCO spokesperson on chemical weapons use in Aleppo? Answer: The statement reflects the worst traditions of the modern UK diplomacy in both form and substance: no attempts are made to present any evidence supporting its allegations, instead phrases of little value, such as “likely”, “highly likely” or “highly unlikely”, are being used excessively.


07.12.2018 - Embassy Comment on the situation with Russian nationals Sergei and Yulia Skripal

More than nine months have passed since the incident with the Russian citizens Sergei and Yulia Skripal. The British authorities have been in breach of their obligations under five basic international conventions as they persistently refuse to work together with the Russian side, fail to use official channels for bilateral exchange of information and make every effort to cover up the circumstances of the incident. The Skripals have not been seen alive for a long time. Their whereabouts and health status are unknown.


06.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning recent publications in the British media concerning alleged increase of Russian intelligence activity

Question: How would you comment on British media reports claiming that British security services are currently witnessing intensive activity of Russian intelligence officers allegedly working under diplomatic cover? Answer: Unfortunately, the spy hysteria in the British society is aggravating. The content of such publications, which regularly appear in the British media with the connivance of the authorities, shows that the current Conservative government is increasing its efforts to create a “toxic” image of the Russian Embassy in order to complicate our interaction with the British public as much as possible. Embassy staff travelling across the country is an absolutely normal, lawful and indispensable part of their work and daily life. Yet it is displayed as some kind of intelligence missions. This amounts to an attempt to limit the Embassy’s routine operations to a minimum.


05.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the UK Government’s assessment of Ukraine’s actions

Question: The UK Government openly distorts the circumstances of the incident in the Kerch Strait on 25 November. What do you think is the reason for that? Answer: Unfortunately, the Ukrainian provocation in the Black Sea, as well as the general situation in the region, continues to be used by a number of Western countries, including the UK, to stir anti-Russian rhetoric. The details of the incident, most notably the blatant and deliberate violation of the territorial waters of the Russian Federation by the Ukrainian ships, are ignored by the UK Government. A number of British media outlets have also given a biased assessment of Russian actions in the Kerch Strait.


05.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning recent appeals of the British officials to impose new sanctions against Russia

Question: Recently British government officials have been actively urging to step up pressure on Russia by imposing new sanctions. How would you comment on this matter? Answer: We have taken note of such calls. Those statements have clearly shown the anti-Russian essence of the current Conservative government’s policies. The British officials are doing their utmost to avoid conducting a normal intergovernmental dialogue with Russia, while using only the language of ultimatums and sanctions, and are actively urging their partners, first and foremost in Europe, to act in a similar manner.


04.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning accusations of “spying” made against Channel One Russia journalists

Question: How would you comment on the publications in British media claiming that “Channel One Russia” journalists were involved in some sort of “spying activity”? Answer: We have taken note of the numerous publications with accusations against “Channel One Russia” journalists of “spying”, as well as of the instruction by the British Ministry of Defence that soldiers should not talk to Russian journalists and report them to the police if they ever see them near military installations. Such ungrounded accusations raise much concern. “Channel One Russia” works in the UK officially and openly, with all the necessary paperwork, in accordance with British law. In fact, this cannot always be said about certain UK journalists working in Russia.



all messages