Row over unexplained Surrey death of Alexander Perepilichnyy, a key witness in fraud case of £140m in tax stolen from Russia

A security vehicle at the entrance to St George’s Hill private estate near Weybridge, Surrey in November, where Alexander Perepilichnyy died in mysterious circumstances. Photograph: Olivia Harris/Reuters

Police and anti-fraud agencies have been criticised by the alleged victim of a multimillion-pound international fraud for ignoring dossiers of evidence – including death threats and intimidation – linking the crime with the UK, months before a witness connected to the case was found dead in unexplained circumstances.

The body of Alexander Perepilichnyy, 44, was found outside his Surrey home on 10 November. His cause of death is described as “unexplained” following two postmortems, with further toxicology tests to come.

He was a key witness in a fraud case involving the theft of £140m in tax revenue from the Russian government. The alleged fraudsters are said to have stolen three companies from a UK-based investment firm, Hermitage Capital, and used them to perpetrate the fraud – leaving Hermitage in the frame for the criminal acts.

The case is known as the “Magnitsky case”, after one of Hermitage’s Russian lawyers, Sergei Magnitsky, who was found dead in a Russian prison in 2009 with his body showing signs of torture.

A motion from the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe said Magnitsky had been “killed … while in pre-trial detention in Moscow after he refused to change his testimony”.

Bill Browder, the founder of Hermitage Capital, has been trying to secure convictions for the death of Magnitsky, as well as those implicated in the alleged fraud against his company, for four years.

Documents seen by the Guardian show that in January and February Browder’s lawyers passed a criminal complaint to the City of London police, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA).

The complaint alleged Britain had ties to the alleged criminal conspiracy from its earliest stages: a UK citizen, Stephen John Kelly, served as a nominee, or “sham” director, for British Virgin Islands-based offshore companies involved in liquidating the companies used to claim the allegedly fraudulent tax refunds. Separately, a crucial couriered package of evidence, used as a pretext to raid offices in Russia, was sent from UK soil.

And, significantly, the complaint alleged lawyers working in the UK for Hermitage on the case had been subject to death threats made by phone, and intimidation via surveillance of their offices.

Hermitage claim the alleged theft of the companies was carried out using documents taken from their offices during a police raid, then “representatives” of the companies engaged in an elaborate series of steps to secure a tax rebate of about £140m. The three firms, now with no assets and more than £600m of debts, were then sold on and liquidated via the British Virgin Islands.

The Conservative MP Dominic Raab wrote to the same police and anti-fraud agencies again in August also encouraging an investigation, after being contacted by Hermitage with respect to their complaints.

Raab had previously urged action in the House of Commons against individuals allegedly implicated in Magnitsky’s death, mirroring a US bill that was formally passed by the Senate on Thursday evening.

Raab also informed the Home Office last month that one of the alleged leaders of the Russian criminal gang had apparently travelled to the UK on two occasions in 2008, despite having previous convictions in relation to a multimillion-pound fraud, and asked them to investigate. He also passed details of 60 individuals allegedly involved in the plot to UK authorities to assist in monitoring of their movements.

Raab said the lack of information from any UK authorities was troubling.

“The first thing is, we don’t know about Perepilichnyy and his cause of death,” he said. “But we do know there was some sort of hit-list in Russia with his name on it and he’s obviously given evidence in these money-laundering proceedings.

“I think the key thing is the Home Office give the police all the support they can. At the moment, there’s a lack of transparency, it’s very difficult to know. We’ve got no idea if anything’s been actioned, or even how many people linked to the case have been travelling in and out of Britain. We just don’t know.”

City of London police said they had met Hermitage but had found no evidence of UK involvement in the alleged offences.

“Detectives met with the company’s solicitors and having reviewed the complaint concluded there was no evidence of criminality in the UK and would be taking no further action,” said a spokesman”.

The SFO, FSA and SOCA declined to comment, citing policies barring them from confirming or denying the existence of any specific investigations.

A spokesman for the Home Office confirmed they had been contacted by Raab and were looking into his queries, but said they did not comment on individual visa cases.

Surrey police have still been unable to establish a cause of death for Perepilichnyy, who collapsed and died outside his luxury home in Weybridge, Surrey. He had been out jogging, his wife Tatyana said, and was found in the street wearing shorts and trainers.

Perepilichnyy appears to have been part of the alleged criminal group but to have fallen out with other members of the syndicate. He fled to Britain three years ago, taking with him bank documents, details of Credit Suisse accounts and other evidence.

In the UK Perepilichnyy kept a low profile, with few Russians in the capital having heard of him. He passed a bundle of evidence to Hermitage Capital; Hermitage then handed the documents over to the Swiss police. As a result Swiss investigators closed down several accounts allegedly belonging to figures in the criminal gang.

Andrei Pavlov, a Russian lawyer, told Kommersant, Russia’s leading daily, that Perepilichnyy appeared exhausted and frightened during two meetings the men had last year. “He wanted to make peace with [ex-partner Vladlen] Stepanov,” the lawyer said. Pavlov did not respond to repeated requests for comment by the Guardian’s deadline.

Stepanov, and his ex-wife Olga Stepanova, are among those accused by Hermitage of taking part in a complex scheme to illegally funnel Russian taxes from companies once owned by Hermitage. Information released by Hermitage, and uncovered by Magnitsky, shows how Stepanova, the former head of a Moscow tax office, and her husband bought wildly expensive properties in Moscow, Montenegro and Dubai.

In a video interview with Vedomosti, a respected financial daily, in May 2011, Stepanov attempted to explain his personal wealth, which he claims was gained through investing the money he made in the 1990s from tunnel construction and optics. He called Browder’s investigations “fabricated facts”. “With these fabricated facts, they have blamed me for everything – that there is blood on my hands.”

He also said he had fallen out with Perepilichnyy, calling him a man with “many problems”.

“He ran away. He’s not here. He doesn’t answer the phone. He’s hiding. It’s like he doesn’t exist.” Perepilichnyy is believed to have fled to the UK after becoming unable to pay back debts amid the global financial crisis.

…

James Ball, Luke Harding and Miriam Elder
The Guardian, Sunday 9 December 2012 18.35 GMT

Find this story at 9 December 2012

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

A Russian whistleblower who had been helping authorities in Western Europe investigate a gigantic money-laundering scheme involving Russian government officials, has been found dead in the United Kingdom. Alexander Perepilichnyy, who had been named by Swiss authorities as an indispensible informant in the so-called Hermitage Capital scandal, was found dead outside his home in Weybridge, Surrey, on November 10. The 44-year-old former businessman, who sought refuge in England in 2009, and had been living there ever since, is the fourth person linked to the money-laundering scandal to have died in suspicious circumstances. The company, Hermitage Capital Management, is a UK-based investment fund and asset-management company, which Western prosecutors believe fell victim to a massive $250 million fraud conspiracy perpetrated by Russian Interior Ministry officials who were aided by organized crime gangs. In 2006, the company’s British founders were denied entry to Russia, in what was seen by some as an attempt by the administration of Vladimir Putin to protect its officials involved in the money-laundering scheme. The scandal widened in late 2009, when Hermitage Capital lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who had been arrested in connection with the case, died while in police custody. According to the coroner’s report, Magnitsky, who was 37 and in good physical health, died suddenly from acute heart failure at a Moscow detention facility. Some observers speculate that the lawyer was killed before he could turn into a whistleblower against some of the perpetrators of the fraud scheme. Following Magnitsky’s death, Alexander Perepilichnyy was elevated as a key witness in the case, after providing Swiss prosecutors with detailed intelligence naming several Russian government officials involved in the money-laundering scheme, as well as their criminal contacts outside Russia. This led to the freezing of numerous assets and bank accounts in several European countries. There is no word yet as to the cause of Perepilichnyy’s death. British investigators said yesterday that the first post-mortem examination had proved inconclusive and that a toxicological examination had been ordered for next week.

November 30, 2012 by Joseph Fitsanakis 3 Comments

By JOSEPH FITSANAKIS | intelNews.org |

Find this story at 30 November 2012

Hearing ahead of full inquest also hears Litvinenko was working for MI6 when he was poisoned with polonium-210

Alexander Litvinenki died in a London hospital in November 2006, three weeks after drinking poisoned tea. Photograph: Natasja Weitsz/Getty Images

The government’s evidence relating to the death of Alexander Litvinenko amounts to a “prima facie case” that he was murdered by the Russian government, the coroner investigating his death has been told.

The former KGB officer was a paid MI6 agent at the time of his death in 2006, a pre-inquest hearing also heard, and was also working for the Spanish secret services supplying intelligence on Russian state involvement in organised crime.

Litvinenko died in a London hospital in November 2006, three weeks after drinking tea which had been poisoned with the radioactive isotope polonium-210.

The director of public prosecutions announced in May 2007 that it would seek to charge Andrei Lugovoi, a former KGB officer, with murder, prompting a diplomatic crisis between the UK and Russia, which refused a request for Lugovoi’s extradition. Britain expelled four Russian diplomats, which was met by a tit-for-tat expulsion of four British embassy staff from Moscow. Lugovoi denies murder.

At a preliminary hearing on Thursday in advance of the full inquest into Litvinenko’s death, Hugh Davies, counsel to the inquest, said an assessment of government documents “does establish a prima facie case as to the culpability of the Russian state in the death of Alexander Litvinenko”.

Separately, a lawyer representing the dead man’s widow, Marina, told the coroner, Sir Robert Owen, that Litvinenko had been “a paid agent and employee of MI6” at the time of his death, who was also, at the instigation of British intelligence, working for the Spanish secret service.

“The information that he was involved [in] providing to the Spanish … involved organised crime, that’s the Russian mafia activities in Spain and more widely,” Ben Emmerson QC told the hearing.

Emmerson said the inquest would hear evidence that the murdered man had a dedicated MI6 handler who used the pseudonym Martin.

While he was dying in hospital, Emmerson said, Litvinenko had given Martin’s number to a Metropolitan police officer and, without disclosing his MI6 connection, suggested the police follow up the connection. He said Litvinenko had also had a dedicated phone that he used only for phoning Martin.

“Martin will no doubt be a witness in this inquiry, once his identity has been made known to you,” Emmerson told the coroner.

The inquest would also hear evidence that Lugovoi had been working with Litvinenko in supplying intelligence to Spain, the lawyer said, adding that the murdered man had also had a separate phone used only for his contact with the other Russian.

While he was dying in hospital, Litvinenko had phoned Lugovoi on this phone to tell him he was unwell and would be unable to join him on a planned trip to Spain, Emmerson said. The purpose of the trip was for both men to deliver intelligence about Russian mafia links to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin.

So advanced were the arrangements for the trip that the conversation “descended to the level of discussing hotels”, Emmerson said.

The case against Lugovoi centres on a meeting he and another Russian, Dmitry Kovtun, had with Litvinenko at the Palm bar at the Millennium hotel in Mayfair on 1 November 2006. It is alleged that Litvinenko’s tea was poisoned with the polonium-210 at that meeting. Kovtun also denies involvement.

At the instigation of MI6, Emmerson said, Litvinenko had been supplying information to a Spanish prosecutor, José Grinda González, under the supervision of a separate Spanish handler who used the pseudonym Uri.

Emmerson cited a US embassy cable published in the 2010 Wikileaks disclosures that detailed a briefing given by Grinda González on 13 January 2010 to US officials in Madrid. At that meeting, the lawyer said, the prosecutor had quoted intelligence from Litvinenko that Russian security and intelligence services “control organised crime in Russia”.

“Grinda stated that he believes this thesis is accurate,” the lawyer quoted.

He said that payments from both the British and Spanish secret services had been deposited directly into the joint account Litvinenko shared with his wife.

Contrary to Davies’s submission, Emmerson said the inquest should consider whether the British government had been culpable in failing to protect Litvinenko, arguing that “the very fact of a relationship between Mr Litvinenko and his employers MI6” placed a duty on the government to ensure his safety when asking him to undertake “dangerous operations”.

“It’s an inevitable inference from all of the evidence that prior to his death MI6 had carried out a detailed risk assessment and that risk assessment must in due course be disclosed.”

Neil Garnham QC, counsel for the Home Office, representing MI6, said the government would not comment on claims that Litvinenko was a British agent. “It is central to Mrs Litvinenko’s case that her husband was an employee of the British intelligence services. That is something about which I cannot or will not comment. I can neither confirm or deny it.”

The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation has indicated that it would like to be formally designated an “interested party” in the inquest, which would give it the right to make submissions to the coroner and appoint lawyers to cross examine witnesses.

…

Esther Addley
The Guardian, Thursday 13 December 2012 19.00 GMT

Find this story at 13 December 2012

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Inquiry told Alexander Litvinenko was spying for Britain and Spain – and Russia killed him

Secret details of Alexander Litvinenko’s life as a British intelligence agent were revealed yesterday at a preparatory hearing into the poisoned former KGB officer’s death.

The inquiry was told that the 43-year-old not only worked for MI6, but was helping the Spanish intelligence services investigating organised crime in Russia.

Mr Litvinenko died in hospital three weeks after being poisoned with radioactive polonium-210 after meeting fellow former KGB contacts for tea at a Mayfair hotel in 2006. The night before, the High Court judge Sir Robert Owen was told, he met with his MI6 handler “Martin”.

The inquest next May is likely to increase tensions between the UK and Russia, with the British government providing evidence that the foreign state was involved in the murder of its former agent.

Ben Emmerson QC, representing Mr Litvinenko’s widow Marina, claimed the British had failed to protect the former KGB officer: “At the time of his death Mr Litvinenko had been for a number of years a registered and paid agent in the employ of MI6.

“That relationship between Mr Litvinenko and his employers MI6 is sufficient to trigger an enhanced duty by the British government to ensure his safety when tasking him on dangerous operations.”

Paid through a bank account or in cash, Mr Litvinenko had a dedicated telephone to MI6, which tasked him with helping Jose Grinda Gonzalez, the Spanish prosecutor for corruption and organised crime.

A US embassy cable described how Mr Gonzalez had met the Americans and told them he was working on a thesis by Mr Litvinenko that “the Russian intelligence and security services – Grinda cited the Federal Security Service (FSB), the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) and military intelligence (GRU) – control organised crime in Russia. Grinda stated that he believes the thesis is accurate”.

As an agent to the Spanish intelligence services through a handler called “Uri”, Mr Litvinenko had been planning a trip to Madrid with Mr Lugovoi – a member of the FSB, and the man suspected of the murder – until he became ill from poisoning.

Mr Emmerson continued: “He made a phone call to Mr Lugovoi in hospital to discuss their planned trip together to Spain to provide intelligence to the Spanish prosecutor investigating Russian mafia links with the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin. He explained he was ill and could no longer go on their planned trip.”

Both Mr Lugovoi and Mr Kovtun – who also met him for tea at the Mayfair hotel – have denied any involvement in the killing but have refused to surrender to the British authorities.

Neil Garnham QC, representing the Government, responded that he could not comment on assertions that Mr Litvinenko was in the pay of MI6: “I can neither confirm nor deny.”

Hugh Davies, the barrister to the inquest, revealed that almost a year after it was invited to participate in the inquest, the Russian government had applied to be represented. On Wednesday, Mr Davies explained a letter was received requesting that the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation – sometimes compared with the American FBI – be granted “interested-person status” at the inquest in May.

He added that, having examined documents supplied by the British government, the inquiry team had failed to find evidence that supported a wide variety of theories including claims Mr Litvinenko had been murdered by the Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky, the Spanish mafia, Italian academic Mario Scaramella or Chechen organisations.

However, he added: “Taken in isolation, our assessment is that the government material does establish a prima facie case as to the culpability of the Russian state in the death of Alexander Litvinenko.”

Sir Robert, sitting as Assistant Deputy Coroner, is expected to rule early next year on what will be admissible at the inquest as well as whether there is a case under the European Convention of Human Rights that the British state was culpable in the death “either in itself carrying out, or by its agents, the poisoning or by failing to take reasonable steps to protect Mr Litvinenko from a real risk to his life”.

A tangled web: Litvinenko’s network

*Alexander Litvinenko served in the KGB and its successor the Federal Security Service (FSB) but left in 2000, having been arrested for exceeding the authority of his position, charges which were dismissed.

*In 1998, Mr Litvinenko and other FSB officers accused their superiors of ordering the assassination of the Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky. He later worked on the oligarch’s security team and the men became friends.

*Having fled to Britain seeking asylum, he began working as an agent of MI6.

…

Terri Judd
Friday, 14 December 2012

Find this story at 14 December 2012

© independent.co.uk

Allegations of involvement in Libyan rendition and the death of the Russian spy raise questions about MI6’s handling of sources

The MI6 headquarters in Vauxhall, London. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian

Spying is a dangerous game, in reality as in fiction. It is also exotic. Sometimes the sheer adrenaline and excitement can make the spy drop his – or her – guard and judgment can be affected. Spies – both spymasters and their agents – can be seduced by the prospect of praise heaped on them by their political masters.

MI6 may have succumbed to these pressures and temptations in their handling of the former KGB spy, Alexander Litvinenko – and also of two prominent Libyan dissidents it helped to abduct and render to Muammar Gaddafi. The two cases are separate but they will both bring unwelcome publicity to Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service for months to come.

Litvinenko was killed in November 2006, poisoned by the radioactive isotope polonium-210. Yesterday, at a pre-inquest hearing into her husband’s death, Litvinenko’s widow, Marina, articulated her belief that MI6 failed to protect him. Her counsel, Ben Emmerson, said: “Mr Litvinenko had been for a number of years a regular and paid agent and employee of MI6 with a dedicated handler whose pseudonym was Martin.”

He added that at the behest of MI6, Litvinenko was also working for the Spanish security services, where his handler was called Uri (the Russian was supplying the Spanish with information on organised crime and Russian mafia activity in Spain, the hearing heard). Emmerson said the inquest should consider whether MI6 failed in its duty to protect Litvinenko against a “real and immediate risk to life”.

He suggested there was “an enhanced duty resting on the British government to ensure his safety when tasking him with dangerous operations involving engagement with foreign agents”. Emmerson continued: “It is Marina Litvinenko’s belief that the evidence will show that her husband’s death was a murder and that Andrey Lugovoy [also a former KGB officer] was the main perpetrator”.

It is easy for victims of espionage to blame the spymaster. MI6 should know that. What risks the MI6 handlers took with Litvinenko, what advice and warnings they gave him, whether or not he heeded them, may – or may not – emerge during the inquest.

MI6 did not emerge well from another inquest earlier this year. The coroner at the inquest into the death of Gareth Williams a GCHQ employee seconded to MI6 and found dead in a zipped-up bag in his London flat, sharply attacked MI6 officers for hampering the police investigation into the case. For more than a week after Williams’s disappearance, MI6 did not alert the police or get in touch with any member of his family. A senior MI6 officer identified as F blamed G, Williams’s close colleague, referring to a “breakdown in communications”.

Ironically, perhaps, in light of Emmerson’s comments at Thursday’s pre-inquest hearing, G said Williams was frustrated by the bureaucracy – what he called “the amount of process risk mitigation” – inside MI6. Williams’s family solicitor said their grief was exacerbated by MI6’s failings.

Sir John Sawers, the head of MI6 apologised “unreservedly”, saying lessons in the Williams case had been learned, “in particular the responsibility of all staff to report unaccounted staff absences”.

Lessons may have been learned over Litvinenko’s death. We can be sure they are also being learned over the abduction in 2004 of two prominent Libyan dissidents – Sami al-Saadi and Abdel Hakim Belhaj – and their families. Al-Saadi settled on Thursday, accepting an offer of £2.2m in compensation. Belhaj intends to keep fighting and pursue his court case against ministers and officials.

…

Richard Norton-Taylor
guardian.co.uk, Friday 14 December 2012 16.45 GMT

Find this story at 14 December 2012

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Louise Thomas gives evidence ahead of judicial review into government’s refusal to hold public inquiry into troop abuse claims

Iraqi prisoners stand behind razor wire. Lawyers say they have received complaints of abuse from more than 1,100 Iraqis. Photograph: Damir Sagolj/AFP/Getty Images

A former investigator into allegations that British troops abused Iraqi prisoners resigned because she did not want to be implicated in “a cover-up”, the high court has heard.

Louise Thomas, 45, left the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) in July because she thought it was not a genuine investigation but a “face-saving inquiry”, she told the court on Tuesday.

Her evidence came at a preliminary hearing in advance of a judicial review, expected next month, into the government’s refusal to hold a public inquiry into allegations of mistreatment of Iraqis between 2003 and 2008.

Lawyers say they have now received complaints of abuse from more than 1,100 Iraqis and that IHAT’s investigations are insufficiently independent because they have been conducted by Royal Military Police (RMP) officers and other members of the armed forces.

Thomas, whose claims were highlighted by the Guardian in October, is a former police constable who worked for six months with IHAT at its British headquarters in Pewsey, Wiltshire.

She admitted in court she did have second thoughts at one stage and asked for her job back.

“After speaking to a few colleagues and realising we could make a difference I asked if I could stay,” she said. “[They] said they would try to change things. It was very frustrating working at IHAT.”

Thomas denied she was angry when she was refused permission to withdraw her resignation.

Her job at IHAT had been to review evidence taken from video sessions of recordings of interrogations of Iraqi suspects. One of the exercises was to see how they matched up to standards set by the Istanbul Protocols, which assess methods of torture.

Thomas alleged that many of the sessions had been misrecorded by earlier forensic investigators.

But Philip Havers QC, for the Ministry of Defence, accused her of exaggerating the number of misrecordings and said that notebooks showed only seven such alleged occurrences out of 181 videos she had assessed – a rate of 4%.

Thomas denied she was exaggerating and said other records would show there were more occasions.

If the high court agrees in January that there should be a full inquiry into the latest allegations of military abuse during the occupation of Iraq, it will be the third such investigation following the Baha Mousa and al-Sweady inquiries.

Asked by Havers whether she was still saying that “IHAT is not a genuine investigation but merely a face-saving inquiry”, Thomas replied: “Yes, I am.”

She said she believed IHAT was a “cover-up” and that she had resigned because she no longer wanted to be implicated in it.

The court was told that the hearing would not identify any of the soldiers who worked for the Joint Forces Interrogation Team (Jfit) in Iraq, any of the military operations involved or any of the Iraqi detainees.

“The reasons for the redactions is so as not to prejudice the ongoing (IHAT) criminal investigations,” Havers said.

John Birch, a former RMP officer who has been working with IHAT, said there were seven main strands of investigations being pursued, including a “murder review team” that was looking at Iraqi deaths.

He acknowledged that tapes from the early years of the occupation before 2005 were still missing. A shortage of digital video tapes meant that some of the later sessions had been recorded over.

…

Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent
The Guardian, Tuesday 11 December 2012 19.44 GMT

Find this story at 11 December 2012

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

David Cameron deeply sorry for ‘shocking’ state collusion

They went to London in hope more than expectation. The family of Pat Finucane never supported this review of evidence by a “lawyer with strong links to the Conservative Party”, demanding instead the public inquiry they were initially promised by Tony Blair.

They leave with the personal apology of a Prime Minister for the “collusion” of British agents in Pat’s murder. But not, they say, the truth.

Mr Finucane’s wife Geraldine was in the House of Commons chamber to hear David Cameron say he was “deeply sorry” after the findings of the Da Silva report were made public today. But, ultimately, she was there to hear him refuse the public inquiry she believes her family needs and deserves.

“This report is a sham. This report is a whitewash. This report is a confidence trick dressed up as independent scrutiny and given invisible clothes of reliability. Most of all, most hurtful and insulting of all, this report is not the truth,” she told reporters afterwards.

She said the family wanted to be in the Commons to hear the words from Mr Cameron’s own lips. “We could have watched it on a television screen at home but we felt that was important. We felt that, after all this time, we needed to be there,” she told the Independent.

The sombre mood in the chamber this afternoon matched the occasion: a British government denied any “over-arching state conspiracy” but admitted to the collusion of agents of the state in the murder. “It was measured, rather than being raucous. [The Commons] can often come across very rowdy on television but this was not the occasion for that,” said Mrs Finucane.

Appearing before reporters dressed all in red, she said this latest report into her husband’s murder at the hands of Loyalist paramilitaries in 1989 was the result of a “process in which we have had no input; we have seen no documents nor heard any witnesses”. In short, she said, the family has had no opportunity to see the evidence for themselves.

“We are expected to take the word of the man appointed by the British government,” she said.

Flanked by her sons Michael and John and her brother-in-law Martin Finucane, she added: “Despite all these misgivings, we have tried our best to keep an open mind until we have read and considered the final report. We came to London with the faint hope that, for once, we would be proved wrong. I regret to say that, once again, we have been proved right.

“At every turn, it is clear that this report has done exactly what was required: to give the benefit of the doubt to the state, its cabinet and ministers, to the Army, to the intelligence services, to itself.

“At every turn, dead witnesses have been blamed and defunct agencies found wanting. Serving personnel and active state departments appear to have been excused. The dirt has been swept under the carpet without any serious attempt to lift the lid on what really happened to Pat and so many others.

Michael Finucane, dressed – like his brother and his uncle – in a dark suit and tie, said that the public inquiry the family seeks has been promised to them by Ed Miliband, if he becomes Prime Minister. The refusal to grant one by successive governments, he said, was because the British state “has the most to hide”.

He said he accepted the use of the word ‘collusion’ in the report, as opposed to the stronger accusation of conspiracy because the former more accurately encapsulated “not just the deliberate acts of people who decide to do something, but also a culture that encourages and fosters them”.

…

Kevin Rawlinson
Wednesday, 12 December 2012

Find this story at 12 December 2012

© independent.co.uk

Prime minister apologises to Finucane’s family after report reveals special branch repeatedly failed to warn lawyer of threat

The prime minister’s frankest admission yet that the state colluded in the 1989 murder of the Belfast lawyer Pat Finucane has failed to quell demands from his family, human rights organisations and the Irish government for a full public inquiry.

Fresh revelations on Wednesday – about special branch’s repeated failure to warn Finucane that his life was under threat, the RUC’s “obstruction” of justice, and MI5’s “propaganda initiatives” that identified the lawyer with republican paramilitaries who were his clients – only reinforced calls for a more thorough investigation.

David Cameron’s apology to Finucane’s family in the Commons followed publication of a scathing report by the former war crimes lawyer Sir Desmond de Silva QC that cleared ministers but blamed “agents of the state” for the killing. The prime minister acknowledged there had been “shocking levels of collusion” in what was one of the most controversial killings of the Troubles.

The extent of the co-operation between the security forces and Finucane’s loyalist killers was unacceptable, Cameron added. “On the balance of probability,” he admitted, an officer or officers from the Royal Ulster Constabulary did propose Finucane as a target to loyalist terrorists.

The report made for extremely difficult reading, Cameron said. “I am deeply sorry,” he told the Finucane family, who were in the Commons gallery to hear his statement. He said he “respectfully disagreed” with the demand for a full, independent public inquiry, citing the cost of the Bloody Sunday tribunal as one reason.

Cameron, however, tried to divert blame away from the Tory former cabinet minister Douglas Hogg over comments he made before the murder in which Hogg said some solicitors in Northern Ireland were unduly sympathetic to the IRA.

The Ulster Defence Association was responsible for shooting Finucane dead in front of his family at their north Belfast home in February 1989, but de Silva said state employees “furthered and facilitated” the murder of the 38-year-old father-of-three.

The family and human rights campaigners have insisted over the past 23 years that there was collaboration between the UDA in west and north Belfast and members of the security forces.

In his report, de Silva concluded: “My review of the evidence relating to Patrick Finucane’s case has left me in no doubt that agents of the state were involved in carrying out serious violations of human rights up to and including murder.

“However, despite the different strands of involvement by elements of the state, I am satisfied that they were not linked to an overarching state conspiracy to murder Patrick Finucane.”

Dismissing the report and Cameron’s statement as a “confidence trick” and a sham, Finucane’s widow Geraldine said: “At every turn, dead witnesses have been blamed and defunct agencies found wanting. Serving personnel and active state departments appear to have been excused. The dirt has been swept under the carpet without any serious attempt to lift the lid on what really happened to Pat and so many others.”

She demanded that the government order a public inquiry so witnesses can be cross-examined and account for their actions. Her calls were echoed by the Irish government and human rights groups. The Irish premier, Enda Kenny, said he supported the Finucanes’ campaign. He said: “I spoke with prime minister Cameron … before his statement to the House of Commons, and repeated these points to him once again. I have also spoken today with Geraldine Finucane and I know that the family are not satisfied with [the] outcome.”

Micheal Martin, the current Fianna Fáil leader, who was Ireland’s foreign minister during a critical time of the peace process, said the UK government was still obliged under an international agreement to set up a public inquiry into the murder.

He said the UK government under Tony Blair had committed itself to such an inquiry.

Patrick Corrigan, Amnesty International’s director in Northern Ireland, said: “The Finucanes, and indeed the public, have been fobbed off with a ‘review of the paper work’ – which reneges on repeated commitments by the British government and falls short of the UK’s obligations under international law.”

Gerry Adams, the Sinn Féin president and Irish deputy, said: “The information provided by Desmond de Silva is a damning indictment of British state collusion in the murder of citizens. It reveals some of the extent to which this existed. It does not diminish the need for a public inquiry. On the contrary, it makes such an inquiry more necessary than ever.”

The SDLP MP Mark Durkan questioned the idea in the report that there was no overall, structured policy of collusion. He said: “Between special branch, FRU and secret services we had a culture of anything goes but nobody knows. And as far as Desmond de Silva is concerned now we still have to accept that nobody knows!”

…

Henry McDonald and Owen Bowcott
The Guardian, Wednesday 12 December 2012 21.17 GMT

Find this story at 12 December 2012

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

G4S will face its “next big test” of government support as early as next month after it was stripped of a key prison contract in the wake of the company’s Olympics security shambles.
FTSE 100 security group is waiting to hear whether it will be reappointed on a contract to provide electronic tagging of offenders. MPs stopped short of calling for the resignation of chief executive Nick Buckles after the Olympics fiasco.

The FTSE 100 security group is waiting to hear whether it will be reappointed on a contract to provide electronic tagging of offenders services across England and Wales, worth £50m of annual revenue to the company.

G4S and Serco gained an extension to an existing contract in 2009, which is due to expire in March 2013. It is understood that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is considering bids for the next phase of the contract with an announcement expected next month.

Under the existing contract G4S and Serco manage the entire process including the technology, tagging, and monitoring of offenders, in two regions each. Under the next phase, the contract will not be split into regions but “services”, with one company providing technology across England and Wales and the other providing tagging for example. In September G4S won a contract to provide tagging services in Scotland.

G4S declined to comment on the contract in England and Wales, but David Brockton, analyst at Espirito Santo, said it would be “the next big test”.

The MoJ said on Thursday it would strip G4S of its contract to manage HMP Wolds in East Yorkshire when its contract expires in July 2013, with management reverting to the public sector.
Related Articles
Olympics security firm G4S loses contract to run Wolds prison 08 Nov 2012
G4S rebounds after Olympics fiasco 06 Nov 2012
Olympics fiasco: G4S to be frozen out in future 22 Jul 2012
Political risks are getting too hot for private companies 08 Nov 2012.

…

By Angela Monaghan

7:30AM GMT 11 Nov 2012

Find this story at 11 November 2012

© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2012

Another shambles as security giant leaves asylum seeker living in squalor

An asylum seeker with a five-month-old baby claims she was placed in a property by the private contractor G4S that was infested with cockroaches and slugs. The woman, who was trafficked to the UK and sold into prostitution before seeking asylum, claims she and her baby were left in the house for weeks before the local council intervened to ensure they were rehoused.

Leeds City Council contacted G4S, and their property sub-contractors Cascade, earlier this week after their inspectors found the property was a “Category 1 Hazard” and unfit for human habitation in its current condition. G4S holds contracts to supply accommodation to asylum contracts across much of England as part of the UK Border Agency’s COMPASS project.

The woman, known as Angela, says she was “dumped” at the property after she refused to accept an alternative place offered to her on the basis that the filth, mould and damp there would pose a health risk to her child.

She made repeated complaints to both G4S and Cascade and was told by the firms that they had carried out their own inspections and were satisfied the accommodations was “decent”.

“One of the people said to me when I rang ‘slugs are not harmful, even if your baby eats one of them’” she told The Independent.

Angela, who was forced into prostitution after being trafficked to the UK in 2000, was initially housed in a “nice” one-bed flat by UKBA after seeking refuge from her handlers.

But when her son was born she was moved to an area contracted to G4S and sub-contracted to property firm Cascade. “When I came here I said ‘this house doesn’t look safe for me and my child to live in’, there were cockroaches and slugs,” Angela recalls. “They took me to another property and that was absolutely disgusting, worse than this one. The kitchen smells of wee, the whole place, words cannot describe I was crying, I was screaming”.

…

Charlotte Philby
Friday, 14 December 2012

Find This story at 14 December 2012

© independent.co.uk

AMSTERDAM – Skype heeft illegaal persoonsgegevens verstrekt aan een bedrijf tijdens het onderzoek naar massale cyberaanvallen op PayPal. Het betalingsbedrijf werd aangevallen in reactie op blokkades van donaties aan Wikileaks.
Foto: AFP

Skype verstrekte persoonsgegevens van een 16-jarige jongen aan een bedrijf dat ermee naar de politie stapte.

Dat blijkt uit het dossier van het strafrechtelijk onderzoek naar de aanvallen op diverse financiële instellingen in 2010. NU.nl heeft dat dossier ingezien.

Het onderzoek met de codenaam Talang richtte zich op twee personen. Zij zouden een rol hebben gespeeld in de dagenlange aanvallen op de websites van Mastercard, VISA en PayPal. De aanval werd uitgevoerd onder de vlag van Anonymous en stond bekend als Operation Payback.

Paypal

Om de aanvallen te onderzoeken schakelde PayPal Joep Gommers in. Hij is senior director global research van beveiligingsbedrijf iSIGHT Partners, en ontdekte via een chatkanaal dat er ook Nederlanders bij de zaak betrokken waren. Op basis van een pseudoniem kwam een 16-jarige jongen in beeld.

Daarop nam Gommers contact op met Skype, een andere klant van zijn bedrijf. Skype was niet betrokken bij de zaak, maar hij wilde de inloggegevens en persoonsgegevens van de verdachte krijgen.

In een e-mail aan de politie, de OPTA en Govcert, dat inmiddels is opgegaan in het National Cyber Security Center, schrijft hij: “Hey, Ik heb spoedig inloginformatie, maar nu nog niet.”

Politiedossier

In het politiedossier staat dat Skype gegevens heeft verstrekt, zoals de gebruikersnaam, naam van de persoon, gebruikte e-mailadressen en het huisadres dat bij betaling is gebruikt. Dat adres bleek vervolgens overeen te komen met de gemeentelijke basisadministratie. Zo kwam de verdachte in beeld.

De informatie is vrijwillig verstrekt en niet gevorderd, zoals gewoonlijk gebruikelijk is.

Gommers stelt tegenover NU.nl dat zijn bedrijf niet in opdracht van opsporingsinstanties werkt, maar slechts in opdracht van klanten. Ook benadrukt hij kennis in producten en rapporten te stoppen en doorgaans niet bewijs te leveren.

Toch komt het wel voor dat kennis ‘wordt gedeeld met opsporingsinstanties als publieke dienstverlening’. De leeftijd van een verdachte valt volgens hem moeilijk vast te stellen, omdat hackers online bijna altijd anoniem zijn.

Vordering

De gang van zaken tijdens het onderzoek verbaast Gerrit-Jan Zwenne, hoogleraar recht en informatiesamenleving in Leiden en advocaat bij Bird & Bird te Den Haag.

“Opmerkelijk. Je zou verwachten dat abonnee-gegevens niet zomaar worden prijsgegeven. De gegevens moeten worden verstrekt als de politie een geldige vordering heeft, of als de rechter het opdraagt. Anders niet”, vertelt hij aan NU.nl.

“Je kan je afvragen of de telecom en privacywetgeving toestaan dat abonneegegevens worden verstrekt zonder vordering of rechterlijk bevel. Je kan kan je ook afvragen of politie die gegevens wel mag gebruiken als ze op deze wijze zijn verkregen. Had de politie die gegevens niet gewoon moeten vorderen, met alle waarborgen die daarbij horen?”

…

Door: NU.nl/Brenno de Winter

Find this story at 4 November 2012

Copyright © 1998-2012 NU.nl is onderdeel van het netwerk van Sanoma Media Netherlands groep

Boys were targeted at close range witnesses claim, as defence secretary asked to launch urgent inquiry

Defence secretary Philip Hammond has been asked to launch an inquiry. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

The defence secretary, Philip Hammond, has been asked to launch an urgent inquiry into claims that British forces led a counter-insurgency operation in Afghanistan during which a 12-year-old boy and three teenagers were shot dead while they were drinking tea.

Lawyers acting for the brother of two of the victims have written to Hammond describing an incident on 18 October in the village of Loi Bagh in Nad Ali, Helmand province, where British forces have been based since 2006.

According to statements given to the lawyers by other family members and witnesses, the operation involved Afghan and UK forces, but it was British soldiers – possibly special forces – who were said to have been in the lead.

“We submit that all of the victims were under the control and authority of the UK at the times of the deaths and ill-treatment,” states the letter to Hammond.

“The four boys killed all appear to have been deliberately targeted at close range by British forces. All were killed in a residential area over which UK forces clearly had the requisite degree of control and authority.”

The four victims are named as Fazel Mohammed, 18, Naik Mohammed, 16, Mohammed Tayeb, 14 and Ahmed Shah, 12.

Britain contributes soldiers to Nato’s International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf), which has already confirmed that an operation took place in the village on that date.

The incident has been reported in the Afghan media. Major Adam Wojack, a spokesman for Nato-led forces in Afghanistan, confirmed the “joint Afghan-coalition forces” operation in Nad Ali on 18 October. He said the result was the “killing of four Taliban enemies in action”. That claim is rejected by relatives of the victims.

Military sources also said it was unusual for UK forces to take the lead in operations of this kind because the Afghans are supposed to be in control as part of the transition process. The MoD said it would give the claims “full consideration before responding”.

According to a statement sent to Hammond on Tuesday by Tessa Gregory, lawyer for Noor Mohammad Noorzai, brother of two of the dead youths, the boys were “shot and killed at close range” in a family guesthouse. Gregory, of the law firm Public Interest Lawyers, obtained written sworn statements from witnesses in a visit to Afghanistan last month. They allege that British soldiers, who were engaged in a joint operation with Afghan forces, hooded some of those arrested despite a ban on the practice.

“The soldiers walked through the village calling at various houses asking to be told where the claimant’s brother Fazel Mohammed lived”, says Gregory’s statement. “It is alleged that the soldiers entered the house of a neighbour dragged him from his bed, hooded him and his son and beat them until under questioning they showed the soldiers the house of Fazel which was across the street.”

According to the document sent to Hammond, the families and neighbours “reject outright any suggestion that any of the four teenagers killed were in any way connected to the insurgency. All four were innocent teenagers who posed no threat whatsoever to Afghan or British forces”.

Gregory told the Guardian: “On 18 October 2012, during a joint British-Afghan security operation, four innocent Afghan teenagers were shot whilst drinking tea in their family’s mud home in Helmand province. Our client, the elder brother of two of the teenage victims, wants to know why this happened. As far as we are aware no investigation into these tragic deaths has taken place. We hope that in light of our urgent representations the Ministry of Defence will act swiftly to ensure that an effective and independent investigation is carried out without any further delay.”

In her statement to Hammond, Gregory says: “After the soldiers left, the claimant’s family and some neighbours entered the “guesthouse” where they found the bodies of the four teenagers lying in a line with their heads towards the doorway”.

The statement adds: “It was clear that the bodies had been dragged into that position and all had been shot in the head and neck region as they sat on the floor of the guesthouse leaning against the wall drinking tea..”

Gregory says the British soldiers involved in the operation are bound by the European Convention of Human Rights which enshrines the right to life and outlaws inhumane treatment. Unless the MoD could show it has carried out a full investigation, lawyers representing the victims’ families will ask the high court to order one.

…

Richard Norton-Taylor and Nick Hopkins
The Guardian, Tuesday 4 December 2012 20.42 GMT

Find this story at 4 December 2012

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Campaign seeks to accelerate work on case of 15-year-old Kevin Williams while his terminally ill mother is still alive

Anne Williams in 2009. She campaigned relentlessly against the original Hillsborough inquest. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian

More than 88,000 people have signed an online petition calling for a new inquest to be brought forward for Kevin Williams, a 15-year-old victim of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, whose mother, Anne, has been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, is preparing a high court application to quash the original Hillsborough inquest verdict, after the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel in September discredited its principal findings.

The petition seeks to enable Anne Williams, who has campaigned relentlessly against the inquest since its jury reached a verdict of accidental death 21 years ago, to see it quashed in her lifetime.

Elkan Abrahamson, Williams’s solicitor, said he believed it should be possible for Grieve to complete his application by the end of November and for the high court to hold the hearing before Christmas.

However, Grieve’s office, which has said he will make the application “as soon as he possibly can”, hopes only to have a draft completed by the end of this month. When the online petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the issue will have to be considered for a debate in parliament.

“It is fate,” said Williams, who has now moved to a hospice in Southport, Merseyside. “I have known all along what the inquest said about Kevin was wrong, that witnesses were pressured to change their evidence. I couldn’t let go, for my son. I do want to see the inquest quashed.”

Williams said she has not asked her doctors how long she has to live: “I am taking each day as it comes.”

She always contested the account given at the inquest that Kevin died from traumatic asphyxia and so could be considered irrecoverable by 3.15pm on the day of the disaster. That was the time limit for inquest evidence set by coroner Dr Stefan Popper, thereby excluding the emergency response from being considered. Williams was part of an application for a judicial review by six families in 1993 which saw the inquest upheld; she made three applications to the attorney general for the inquest to be quashed, which were refused; and her 2006 application to the European court of human rights failed because she was out of time.

In September, the report by the panel, chaired by James Jones, the bishop of Liverpool, vindicated the campaign by Williams and the other Hillsborough families who protested that the inquest did not reach the truth or justice about the disaster. The panel found 41 of the 96 people who died might have been saved after 3.15pm had the medical response been competent.

…

David Conn
The Guardian, Sunday 18 November 2012 16.50 GMT

Find this story at 18 November 2012

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Mark Kennedy, who infiltrated environmental movement until his cover was blown, demands up to £100,000 for ‘personal injury’

Former police spy Mark Kennedy, who was known as Mark Stone, claims the undercover operation ‘destroyed his life’. Photograph: Philipp Ebeling for the Guardian

A former spy is suing the Metropolitan police for failing to “protect” him from falling in love with one of the environmental activists whose movement he infiltrated.

Mark Kennedy, who was known as Mark Stone until the activists discovered his identity in late 2010, filed a writ last month claiming damages of between £50,000 and £100,000 for personal injury and consequential loss and damage due to police “negligence”.

“I worked undercover for eight years,” he told the Mail on Sunday. “My superiors knew who I was sleeping with but chose to turn a blind eye because I was getting such valuable information They did nothing to prevent me falling in love.”

Kennedy says since he was unmasked he has been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. His wife, Edel, has filed for divorce, and is seeking compensation for “emotional trauma”.

…

Amelia Hill
The Guardian, Sunday 25 November 2012 16.54 GMT

Find this story at 25 November 2012
© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Mark Kennedy, 43, is claiming damages for ‘personal injury’ and ‘consequential loss and damage’
Ten women and one man are also suing the Met for emotional trauma
The landmark case is due to be heard at the High Court next year

A former undercover police officer is suing Scotland Yard for failing to ‘protect’ him against falling in love with a woman in the group of eco-warriors he was sent to infiltrate.

In a landmark case due to be heard at the High Court next year, Mark Kennedy says his superiors at the Metropolitan Police knew he was sleeping with women he had been sent to spy on, but turned a blind eye because of the quality of intelligence he was providing.

In a writ filed last month, Kennedy, 43, is claiming damages of between £50,000 and £100,000 for ‘personal injury’ and ‘consequential loss and damage’ due to police ‘negligence’.

Ex-undercover PC Mark Kennedy, 43, pictured, is suing Scotland Yard for failing to ‘protect’ him from falling in love with an activist he was sent to spy on

Mr Kennedy, who went undercover as an eco-warrior for eight years, is now divorcing his wife, Edel, pictured

Kennedy, who went under the alias of Mark Stone, a tattooed climber, is claiming damages for ‘personal injury’ and ‘consequential loss and damage’

He has been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome and is seeking compensation for the ‘emotional trauma’ suffered.

Last night he said: ‘I worked undercover for eight years. My superiors knew who I was sleeping with, but chose to turn a blind eye because I was getting such valuable information. The police had access to all my phone calls, texts and emails, many of which were of a sexual and intimate nature.They knew where I was spending the night and with whom. They did nothing to prevent me falling in love.

‘When my cover was blown it destroyed my life. I lost my job, my girlfriend and my reputation. I started self-harming and went to a shrink who diagnosed me with post-traumatic stress syndrome. The blame rests firmly at the feet of my superiors at the Met who had a duty to protect me.’

Ten women and one man are also suing the Met for emotional trauma saying they were duped into having sex with undercover officers. Three of the women are ex-lovers of Kennedy.

Their lawsuit states: ‘The men .  .  . used techniques they had been trained in to gain trust and thereby create the illusion they might be a “soulmate” to the women. There is no doubt that the officers obtained the consent of these women to sexual intercourse by deceit.’

Their case hit the headlines last week when police made a controversial bid to have it thrown out of the High Court and heard behind closed doors.

A legal source familiar with Kennedy’s case said: ‘He is as much a victim as the women are. The police failed to look after his psychiatric well-being and as a result he suffered post- traumatic stress for which the Met is responsible.’

Married Kennedy, who is now going through a divorce from his wife Edel, operated under the alias of Mark Stone, a long-haired heavily tattooed climber. The father of two worked for the secretive National Public Order Intelligence Unit. He says he cost the taxpayer £250,000 a year in wages and costs.

The landmark case is due to be heard at the High Court, pictured, next year. Ten women and one man are also suing the Met for emotional trauma

Kennedy was exposed when a £1 million trial against activists who allegedly planned to occupy a power plant in Nottinghamshire fell apart. Taped evidence he had made using a concealed microphone, which would have cleared the men, had not been presented in court.

All three of the women who had relationships with Kennedy have requested anonymity. He fell deeply in love with a red-haired Welsh activist he started sleeping with in 2004 and lived with from the end of 2005 until his cover was blown in 2010.

Kennedy says he had to have sex with the protesters to protect his cover. ‘The world of eco-activists is rife with promiscuity. Everyone sleeps with everyone else. If I hadn’t had sex they would have rumbled me as an informant,’ he said.

…

By Daily Mail Reporter and Caroline Graham

PUBLISHED: 22:00 GMT, 24 November 2012 | UPDATED: 15:09 GMT, 25 November 2012

Find this story at 24 November 2012

Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd

Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group
© Associated Newspapers Ltd