Russia can’t be allowed to get away with the Magnitsky case

The style of “justice” disposed under Mr Putin is becoming more and more baroque, but even next to Litvinenko and Khodorkovsky, the Magnitsky case stands out
  • @peterpopham

In the 1870s, during the American craze for spiritualism, a reformer and Civil War veteran called Henry Olcott dreamed of the day when murder victims could be brought back from the dead to give evidence against their killers. But even he never conceived of putting the dead themselves on trial. After all, their fate was already in the hands of the greatest Judge of all.

So Russian President Vladimir Putin must have been a very angry man when he sanctioned the posthumous trial of Sergei Magnitsky, who died in March 2009, for tax evasion. Yesterday that strange trial concluded with a guilty verdict. No sentence was passed however, which was inconsistent, considering the gravity of the crime.

Bill Browder, the UK-based businessman who hired Mr Magnitsky to investigate allegations of tax evasion at Browder’s company, Hermitage Capital Management, was given a nine-year jail sentence in absentia. If he were so reckless as to fly to Moscow, he would risk being forced to serve it. Such a risk would only attend Magnitsky if he rose from the dead, but clearly that possibility was considered too slight for it to be worth passing sentence on him.

There are precedents for this sort of behaviour. The corpse of Oliver Cromwell was exhumed after the restoration of the British monarchy. The crime against him was the most terrible of all, regicide, but even Charles II’s lawyers were not sufficiently ghoulish to put his dead body in the dock. They merely decapitated it and displayed his head on a pole.

The style of “justice” disposed under Mr Putin is becoming more and more baroque, whether it be his regime’s suspected role in the poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko in London, the unending persecution of the expropriated oil billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky or the forthcoming trial of the stunningly courageous lawyer and activist Alexei Navalny.

But even among these cases Magnitsky stands out for the naked cruelty of retribution exacted against a man who, in the course of his professional work, had discovered a very inconvenient truth.

What Magnitsky, an investment fund lawyer, unearthed at Browder’s fund was that the taxes had been paid, but that Russian officials had stolen $230m, leaving the appearance of evasion.

In a functioning state, this shocking discovery would have forced the government to open an enquiry, resulting in the officials in question being tried for looting the coffers. In Putin’s Russia, what happened was precisely the opposite. The corrupt officials received official protection, while Magnitsky was arrested, himself accused of tax evasion, and locked up in a pre-trial detention centre.

The way he was treated while in custody is the most disturbing aspect of the entire case: he was tortured, beaten and refused treatment for the pancreatitis from which he was suffering. Aged 37, he died in agony after one year of this abuse.

Perhaps his jailers tortured him to get him to confess. Or perhaps not: there is plenty of evidence in recent years of the malleability of Russian judges; they deliver the verdicts that are required of them. Perhaps they merely wanted to show what happens to a Russian, working for an American, who dares to shame his fellow Russians.

Whatever his torturers’ motives, their actions clearly met with approval higher up. Putin pooh-poohed all talk of torture and foul play and said that Magnitsky had died of heart failure.

With the Magnitsky Act, promoted by Mr Browder, the US has barred officials who tortured Magnitsky from travelling to America. But these people are mere pawns. As Mr Browder himself said yesterday, what is needed is for the British Government to hit Putin’s mega-rich friends where it hurts, by freezing their assets and stopping them coming here. The popularity of London with wealthy Russians means that what happens here is much more significant than decisions taken in Washington.

More and more, Mr Putin is coming to resemble one of his appalling predecessors, Stalin or Ivan the Terrible. If William Hague’s boast of an ethical foreign policy is to have any credibility at all, Britain’s response to the Magnitsky outrage must be uncompromising.

Dangers of the sleeper train

If a car is a potential murder weapon, a train can cause a massacre, as Lac-Mégantic in Quebec discovered when a 73-car runaway train loaded with oil jumped the rails and blew up, causing a series of deafening fireballs. At least 15 are dead, with dozens still unaccounted for.

No one seems to pay any attention to the murderous capability of trains. While control and surveillance grow ever more elaborate and intrusive elsewhere, trains (other than the London Underground) seem to be parked in a quiet sidings of the less bothersome past. Nobody puts your bag through a metal detector; no announcements inform you that your every movement is being recorded on CCTV. There are still rubbish bins everywhere, ideal receptacles for bombs. I suppose it’s only a matter of the time before first terrorists then the authorities latch on. A train, as the awesome video from Lac-Mégantic shows, is potentially a vast bomb on wheels.

It seems that the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway decided last year that one engineer was sufficient to staff the train. He apparently left it in order to sleep, and then after a fire during the night it started to move. When you cut staffing to the bone, emergencies can turn into disasters. Like this one.