How Putin’s Oligarchs Bought London(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
How Putin’s Oligarchs Bought London
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/03/28/how-putins-oligarchs-bought-london
331 comments
I don't think this is limited to Russian oligarchs, I thought that because of its trust and crown dependencies system, London is a popular place for people to hide this kind of stuff. Russian oligarchs and other unsavory individuals like corrupt leaders in Africa, the Middle East and the developing world all dump their ill gotten gains into the opaque system away from prying eyes. The stuff you can actually see, like mansions in Knightsbridge are probably just the tiniest tip of the iceberg, everything else is held in such opaque ways that nobody even knows who it actually belongs to. It is so blatant that you couldn't really call it a dirty secret.
Agreed that it isn't limited to Russians, but I do think there is a scale difference when it comes to the ultra-wealthy from Russia.
For example, when I was home in London a few years ago we had dinner at a fancy Chinese restaurant in Mayfair. My wife and I were chatting with the Maître D' for a bit, and he told us that they scheduled their host staff such that at least one person was present at all times who could converse fluently in Russian, in order to cater to their big spenders.
I know this is only an anecdote but I do think it is uniquely specific to Russian oligarchs. Aside from Harrods, which have specific staff to converse with the wealthy from China, the ME, etc. I didn't encounter a similar form of catering/pandering to the wealthy Chinese, Middle Easterners, etc. elsewhere.
For example, when I was home in London a few years ago we had dinner at a fancy Chinese restaurant in Mayfair. My wife and I were chatting with the Maître D' for a bit, and he told us that they scheduled their host staff such that at least one person was present at all times who could converse fluently in Russian, in order to cater to their big spenders.
I know this is only an anecdote but I do think it is uniquely specific to Russian oligarchs. Aside from Harrods, which have specific staff to converse with the wealthy from China, the ME, etc. I didn't encounter a similar form of catering/pandering to the wealthy Chinese, Middle Easterners, etc. elsewhere.
The difference is more in style than scale. Middle-eastern royalty own more property in London but they buy unassumingly buy large developments with many tenants, whereas the oligarchs tend the buy more vanity mansions.
[deleted]
> like corrupt leaders in Africa, the Middle East and the developing world all dump their ill gotten gains into the opaque system away from prying eyes.
Not just limited to London. Vancouver is a prime example of that thanks to an out of control immigration policy coupled with almost no enforcement for financial crimes [0].
Anyone with money who can't pass the stricter bar for US immigration and investment tries to hide it there.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_washing
Not just limited to London. Vancouver is a prime example of that thanks to an out of control immigration policy coupled with almost no enforcement for financial crimes [0].
Anyone with money who can't pass the stricter bar for US immigration and investment tries to hide it there.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_washing
> Anyone with money who can't pass the stricter bar for US immigration and investment tries to hide it there.
I believe a few years ago Canada eliminated the immigration category that lets you move there just based on wealth.
I believe a few years ago Canada eliminated the immigration category that lets you move there just based on wealth.
Were you thinking of the Provincial Nominee Program(PNP)?
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
https://www.welcomebc.ca/Immigrate-to-B-C/About-The-BC-PNP
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
https://www.welcomebc.ca/Immigrate-to-B-C/About-The-BC-PNP
No - the federal government had different categories of immigration, and one of them was wealth based. They eliminated that category a few years ago.
Its not even about hiding. If you were a FANG developer with a few million and you are from Russia/Venezuela/Syria/Zimbabwe/Argentina what would you do with your assets? London property is a solid investment.
Even since brexit ? I'm not so sure.
If you're from Venezuela or Argentina you buy real estate in Uruguay.
Check Punta del Este.
Check Punta del Este.
It's not proving so solid for Russians anymore.
London is also popular because it is the best city in the world to live in if you have a lot of money. London has been very important for a very very long time.
This may even play a bigger part than any regulatory environment, especially in a world where English is the lingua franca.
This may even play a bigger part than any regulatory environment, especially in a world where English is the lingua franca.
> London has been very important for a very very long time.
This seems like a critical component. In the US or Canada, there is no "old money" in the European-magnitude sense.
In the UK, on the other hand, there are a lot of structures that seem to straddle oligarchy and democracy (see: accuser burden of proof libel laws mentioned in article). There are not just different options for ultra wealthy, but experienced options, staffed by people who have been doing this for decades, at firms who have been doing this for centuries.
Opaque South Dakota trusts look quaint against that depth of historically-earned competency.
This seems like a critical component. In the US or Canada, there is no "old money" in the European-magnitude sense.
In the UK, on the other hand, there are a lot of structures that seem to straddle oligarchy and democracy (see: accuser burden of proof libel laws mentioned in article). There are not just different options for ultra wealthy, but experienced options, staffed by people who have been doing this for decades, at firms who have been doing this for centuries.
Opaque South Dakota trusts look quaint against that depth of historically-earned competency.
But no US or Canadian city can compete on quality of life even if you fully ignore all the financial infrastructure.
Cities in the US or Canada that offer comparable accommodation, eating and shopping opportunities are pretty miserable places to live in. Central London is beautiful, green and wonderful to walk around. It takes a very specific kind of person to enjoy walking around Manhattan on a regular basis.
London is also conveniently located wrt. top holiday destinations like the Alps and south of France.
London offers so much more to the oligarchy than just banks and lawyers.
Fuck, what other cities reliably offer Uber Lux? And I don’t mean the watered down American version with Suburbans and the likes.
The oligarchs will still remain in London even if draconian KYC laws might force them to rent instead of own, there aren’t any realistic alternatives.
Of course the “normies” will never understand this, they can’t even imagine the lifestyle. They have no idea what other great cities lack, because they’d never even dream of needing such services.
Cities in the US or Canada that offer comparable accommodation, eating and shopping opportunities are pretty miserable places to live in. Central London is beautiful, green and wonderful to walk around. It takes a very specific kind of person to enjoy walking around Manhattan on a regular basis.
London is also conveniently located wrt. top holiday destinations like the Alps and south of France.
London offers so much more to the oligarchy than just banks and lawyers.
Fuck, what other cities reliably offer Uber Lux? And I don’t mean the watered down American version with Suburbans and the likes.
The oligarchs will still remain in London even if draconian KYC laws might force them to rent instead of own, there aren’t any realistic alternatives.
Of course the “normies” will never understand this, they can’t even imagine the lifestyle. They have no idea what other great cities lack, because they’d never even dream of needing such services.
It is a little bit of both influencing each other, but the system in London is definitely the killer app. My understanding of the history is that there are systems that have been entrenched in the London financial industry going back centuries due to the unique history of the City of London and how it administrates itself separately from the rest of England/ GB. It was the global hub during pax brittania, and remained the financial hub of the world after the war thanks to the Eurodollar. It was at this point that tax systems were devised involving their crown dependencies to obfuscate everything which made it a popular place to launder money. A lot of the opulence has developed along side over all these years.
So it was the case that London was the city of the world during the empire which made it the candidate for running the Eurodollar system to rebuild Europe which cemented its place as the financial capital of the world up until America financialized their economy in the late 70s, its colonies allowed for unique tax systems which made it even more popular.
I got most of this from the book entitled Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World by Nicholas Shaxson, and the documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8 that was inspired by it.
So it was the case that London was the city of the world during the empire which made it the candidate for running the Eurodollar system to rebuild Europe which cemented its place as the financial capital of the world up until America financialized their economy in the late 70s, its colonies allowed for unique tax systems which made it even more popular.
I got most of this from the book entitled Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World by Nicholas Shaxson, and the documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8 that was inspired by it.
> It is a little bit of both influencing each other, but the system in London is definitely the killer app
I’m super unconvinced this is true. I know many “oligarchs” living in London, most of them do not keep their money in the UK.
I think the people writing about London from a tax haven/money laundering perspective tend to have rather little insight into the quality of life aspect. It’s easy for them to mistakenly assume that the system is the main draw, but the reality on the ground seems rather different.
For very rich people that want to live in a city, London is absolutely the #1 destination.
I’m super unconvinced this is true. I know many “oligarchs” living in London, most of them do not keep their money in the UK.
I think the people writing about London from a tax haven/money laundering perspective tend to have rather little insight into the quality of life aspect. It’s easy for them to mistakenly assume that the system is the main draw, but the reality on the ground seems rather different.
For very rich people that want to live in a city, London is absolutely the #1 destination.
I am not saying the reason London in popular is only because of laundering, it is self evident that it is one of the major cosmopolitan metro areas in the world, but I am saying for launderers, London is a top destination. They have been the capital for the financial world for well over a century, you could even say the first globalized world with the Empire, with that there is a lot of money in the city, a lot of money in the city naturally creates the amenities, infrastructure, institutions and lifestyles that appeal and cater to that money over time (laundering being just one of those things), which in turn makes the city more attractive to people with money, creating a virtuous cycle. London exists at the intersection of new and old world globalism, no other city has even been in the game long enough to even compare.
the usual polls show Vienna being the best big city to live in, and for smaller cities there's always the Riviera or Marbella ahead.
This. London is a good city but being a finance hub that is friendly to outside investment is the real draw. There are other cities with much better architecture, food, art, culture, etc than London but I doubt anyone in Europe is better at providing financial services and to extreme wealth.
Those polls are for poor people.
I can tell you from experience that Vienna is a shithole compared to London if you have a 100k+/mo budget.
I can tell you from experience that Vienna is a shithole compared to London if you have a 100k+/mo budget.
If you're stupid wealthy you're not really tied to one place. Maybe london is the only place that has underground cabals that will torture a child in front of you for a million dollars, but nobody wants to torture children every day. The rest of the days, maybe you want to relax in a mountain villa somewhere warmer with nice ocean breezes and lots of sun.
Oh everything and everyone is for sale. I mean look, most of us have sold our souls so that we can get free web search and free email, and cheap delivery of goods to our doorstep at the touch of button on our iPhones. We prefer to look the other way if not outright deny the huge social costs of an ad-supported web, of the costs to the planet of our one-click to our doorstep shopping convenience in terms of plastic, paper and energy use, and how much of these conveniences rest on the exploitation of people who have no choice but to work for as little as possible, a tiny fraction of what we get paid.
I don't think the average person has much choice in term of whether they use ad-based products or not. Where do you go to pay for a search engine? Even paid newspapers and paid cable TV is serving us ads.
The key is that we don't try very hard to resist these things. Maybe some social media posts, or a comment on HN, or a vote on election day. All things that are free (oh there's that word again) and don't require us to actually give up anything. Because that's exactly what morality is about: the giving up of something that benefits you but causes harm to someone else.
How many people choose to take a pay cut to work for as socially responsible company as they can? How many forgo the convenience and time savings of Amazon and shop at places that are more expensive because they are local small businesses or businesses that pay and treat their workers better? How many spend less on gadgets and luxuries and redirect those funds to making the world better, or to enable them to take the aforementioned socially responsible pay cut? How many advantaged people forgo using that advantage to gentrify neighborhoods and displace the disadvantaged to less desirable places? How many advantaged people forgo hoarding education resources for their children at the expense of children for whom society is already rigged against (e.g. liberal NYC has the most segregated schools in the country)?
How many people choose to take a pay cut to work for as socially responsible company as they can? How many forgo the convenience and time savings of Amazon and shop at places that are more expensive because they are local small businesses or businesses that pay and treat their workers better? How many spend less on gadgets and luxuries and redirect those funds to making the world better, or to enable them to take the aforementioned socially responsible pay cut? How many advantaged people forgo using that advantage to gentrify neighborhoods and displace the disadvantaged to less desirable places? How many advantaged people forgo hoarding education resources for their children at the expense of children for whom society is already rigged against (e.g. liberal NYC has the most segregated schools in the country)?
I wish there were a named concept for doing the exact opposite of the example habits you’ve listed here. Right now (literally right now), anyone who can reduce/avoid using gasoline should do so to minimize the price increase levied on those who need it to drive to work. If you did this - not only would nobody reward you, I’m not sure anyone would even be aware of your deed. This is a challenge and opportunity for humanity.
It is always been the truth that small positive Deeds are unrecognized. I think the fact that people expect recognition for them is half the problem. Nobody should need a gold star or pick up a piece of litter or conserving gas in a crisis. They should be willing to do it out of self satisfaction in their personal lives, not out of shame for not doing it or recognition
GP: > I’m not sure anyone would even be aware of your deed
Agreed. Despite my tone above I think we can evolve to that, but this kind of evolution:
> They should be willing to do it out of self satisfaction in their personal lives, not out of shame for not doing it or recognition
requires cultural evolution on a different track than we are on. Our current culture has taken individualism and individual entitlement to an extreme, and we are spreading that around the world. Our economic system elevates selfishness to a virtue. And what people actually do when no one is looking is grab more cookies for themself from the cookie jar (and when people are looking they'll "share" that pilfered cookie with someone who has less).
Agreed. Despite my tone above I think we can evolve to that, but this kind of evolution:
> They should be willing to do it out of self satisfaction in their personal lives, not out of shame for not doing it or recognition
requires cultural evolution on a different track than we are on. Our current culture has taken individualism and individual entitlement to an extreme, and we are spreading that around the world. Our economic system elevates selfishness to a virtue. And what people actually do when no one is looking is grab more cookies for themself from the cookie jar (and when people are looking they'll "share" that pilfered cookie with someone who has less).
I don't think individualism is synonymous with selfishness or entitlement.
>> I’m not sure anyone would even be aware of your deed
I think this mentality exemplifies selfishness more than individualism, and is in fact anti-individualist. The idea that goodness requires recognition is a denial of independent self worth and personal values outside of a social framework.
It speaks of a postmodern moral relativism, and an inability to recognize good or act without collective permission and instruction to do so.
>> I’m not sure anyone would even be aware of your deed
I think this mentality exemplifies selfishness more than individualism, and is in fact anti-individualist. The idea that goodness requires recognition is a denial of independent self worth and personal values outside of a social framework.
It speaks of a postmodern moral relativism, and an inability to recognize good or act without collective permission and instruction to do so.
[deleted]
London is known as "The Laundry" in Russia. No one in power has cared for two decades and only care now because it serves their interests to. Maybe they will crack down on it, maybe it will get swept under the rug again if the Russian invasion of Ukraine dies down as an important news story, either way, the root issue of why this was allowed in the first place won't be addressed and it will continue to occur with nationals of other countries.
That no one in power has cared is less remarkable that the fact that democracy's supposed watchdogs (i.e. the media) don't care, until now that is. At least this is definitely the first I have heard of it.
EDIT: After fully reading the article, I realized that the author of the article deals with this issue: U.K.'s libel laws make it dangerous for media watchdogs to call out oligarchs explicitly.
EDIT: After fully reading the article, I realized that the author of the article deals with this issue: U.K.'s libel laws make it dangerous for media watchdogs to call out oligarchs explicitly.
All the weird American candy stores in London that never have any customers have suddenly shut up shop since the Ukraine invasion.
There's also this photo of a pit within one of the stores being filled with cement just before being shutting down: https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/tebfqa/almost_all_o...
I've been trying to find out more about what was going on other than money laundering but haven't been able to find much
There's also this photo of a pit within one of the stores being filled with cement just before being shutting down: https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/tebfqa/almost_all_o...
I've been trying to find out more about what was going on other than money laundering but haven't been able to find much
This is covered in the last issue of Private Eye Issue 1568. There is no online version, only in print.
From memory, the owner set up multiple other business used to secure COVID loans from UK Gov and also had the candy store business buy those business from him. The business was/is a front for these other activities.
If you are interested then I can maybe scan the article.
From memory, the owner set up multiple other business used to secure COVID loans from UK Gov and also had the candy store business buy those business from him. The business was/is a front for these other activities.
If you are interested then I can maybe scan the article.
I'm Russian and spent a fair amount of time there, but I was not aware of London being known as the laundry/laundromat until media coverage this month. Maybe I'm out of touch, but more likely the term is known not so much in Russia but among Russian oligarchs (which intersects with "in Russia" probably less than you might think).
It was never considered a "secret" in Russia. London was always the "default" destination for Russian wealth as well as for children of wealthy people.
A secret is different from something people are just unaware about. "London is known in Russia as a place to launder money" is factually incorrect and unfairly implicates the entire country.
It may be known as such among a tiny minority who have multiple citizenships and most likely do not reside in Russia. Where investing in stock market/index funds is quite uncommon for an ordinary person, what a handful of the top .0001% do to their finances is even further out there. I know a few somewhat well-off by Russian standards people and no one has been to GB much less use it for some shady financial schemes.
It may be known as such among a tiny minority who have multiple citizenships and most likely do not reside in Russia. Where investing in stock market/index funds is quite uncommon for an ordinary person, what a handful of the top .0001% do to their finances is even further out there. I know a few somewhat well-off by Russian standards people and no one has been to GB much less use it for some shady financial schemes.
How's it going in Russia, as an aside?
I am not physically there. If you are about the recently relevant events, I am hearing prices are rising, thinking people roll their eyes at new Z-decorated lollipops and get arrested for walking solo holding empty pieces of paper, foreign currency is hard to obtain, etc. For apolitical or pro-government people generally life as usual I guess.
I am realistically wondering now, what changes does this bring.
If London won't be interesting anymore for oligarchs, what will happen with prices of accomodation in center?
If Switzerland is not a neutral country anymore, where will the money go?
There should be prisoners dilemma and therefore some country should emerge to fill this "market need"
There should be prisoners dilemma and therefore some country should emerge to fill this "market need"
Dubai is currently the go-to destination of shady money. It’s the next Monaco/Swizerland. The local rulers have de facto control over government, jurisdictional and businesses. Any money is welcome as long as the right parties get their share - the rule of the law does not apply as long as you hire the right lawyer and advisors. It’s still the US ally in Middle East and so far, Dubai/UAE has had a blind eye on their lax money-laundering practice.
Here is a good article from The Economist on the situation. I apologise for the low quality of photo of the page.
https://twitter.com/moo9000/status/1504425086073413639
Here is a good article from The Economist on the situation. I apologise for the low quality of photo of the page.
https://twitter.com/moo9000/status/1504425086073413639
For those who don't want to try to read a picture of a magazine embedded in a tweet:
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2022/02/26/...
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2022/02/26/...
Archive of the economist page, to get around the paywall:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220303055330/https://www.econo...
https://web.archive.org/web/20220303055330/https://www.econo...
Archive.org is blocked by UK mobile providers. We need to go one layer deeper with a mirror of the archive of the paywall.
Not blocked here on 3. You’re right in that the networks often have the “adult content” filter (porn, gambling etc.) turned on, but you should be able to turn it off pretty easily. I suspect it’s that filtering that’s blocking archive.org for you
Yeah I am on Vodafone UK and it loads for me. I did specifically disable child filters though
> The local rulers have de facto control over government, jurisdictional and businesses
> ...the rule of the law does not apply...
All of these should be red flags - even if you yourself are shady, you want strong property rights and rule of law, not whatever the local despot feels like doing that day.
> ...the rule of the law does not apply...
All of these should be red flags - even if you yourself are shady, you want strong property rights and rule of law, not whatever the local despot feels like doing that day.
Here is an example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/03/uae-sheikh-acc... - from business associate to being tortured on tape. Edit: updated link with more context.
The article above is 12 years old. You will be shocked -- shocked! -- to hear that the prince doing the torturing was judged innocent, while the brothers who published the tape were convicted of blackmail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issa_bin_Zayed_Al_Nahyan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issa_bin_Zayed_Al_Nahyan
Indeed. If the Chinese & Indians fail to take advantage of this situation it will be a showcase of incompetence and corruption by Asian governments.
The checklist fir being an attractive investment target is large country, stable government (check, check), strong property rights and fair treatment of foreigners (don't know, don't know). If Americans start confiscating assets, then the Asians have an opportunity to absorb a lot of money if their governments can be held in check.
The checklist fir being an attractive investment target is large country, stable government (check, check), strong property rights and fair treatment of foreigners (don't know, don't know). If Americans start confiscating assets, then the Asians have an opportunity to absorb a lot of money if their governments can be held in check.
The problem is that especially in the case of China foreigners do not have any practical justice in the court. It is the rule of the party, not rule of the law. Any party member gets preferential treatment over a foreigner, as they know strings to pull and people to bribe.
Chinese elites get preferential treatment? Wow. It never happens in any other country. That's for sure.
China excels in certain categories, and protecting the rich and connected is one of those. If you get too rich and powerful independent of the government maybe you can go back to being in trouble too.
A lot of countries bend over backwards for foreign money at the expense of locals.
Wow. Never happens in Europe. Or in the US. /s
Indian Justice System is largely seen as fair, but it is tooooooooooooooooooooo slow.
Cases take years to be concluded. Sometimes, even decades. The backlog is huge and the relatively very low cost of suing creates a lot of civil suits. In the US, losing a case means paying the costs of the winning side usually - In India the costs are calculated at a ridiculously low rate, that does not deter frivolous cases at all.
Also, the Indian Govt is known for its over zealous taxation of foreign entities - termed tax terrorism. Hardly a tax haven.
Cases take years to be concluded. Sometimes, even decades. The backlog is huge and the relatively very low cost of suing creates a lot of civil suits. In the US, losing a case means paying the costs of the winning side usually - In India the costs are calculated at a ridiculously low rate, that does not deter frivolous cases at all.
Also, the Indian Govt is known for its over zealous taxation of foreign entities - termed tax terrorism. Hardly a tax haven.
Switzerland was above all stable. Perhaps one of the most stable countries on earth. The appeal was that stability paired with its murky banking.
Switzerland has some people leaking the egregious money laundering and connections to bad people parking their money there. And I want to applaud those people. Insider leaking that info is an important world wide defense against the moneyed rich getting too much power.
Indeed. The entire point of taking the money out of Russia to get away from the lack of rule of law, etc..
How are a bunch of dumb 2nd generation oil pumper warlords going to protect your money longterm?
How are a bunch of dumb 2nd generation oil pumper warlords going to protect your money longterm?
I think the idea is to transit your money through there to launder it. part of a internation shell company game. sure the money coming from businesses and companies there look shady but not enough to cause anyone to investigate it as enough powerful and politically connected people from multiple countries would not like it to be looked at.
Agreed. Maybe Dubai the least worst choice.
You want lose rules and the appearance of legitimacy to wash the money and then move it to a safe place with the rule of law.
I’m guessing the money is made, moved to Dubai then on to the UK, Canada, USA, etc for it to be parked.
I’m guessing the money is made, moved to Dubai then on to the UK, Canada, USA, etc for it to be parked.
I don't think OP's characterization is accurate at all.
Rule of law very much exists in the UAE. So much so that they have carved out a distinct common law system (so called DIFC courts) which effectively provide English language common law as a service. This was explicitly done to make investment and commercial activity in the country attractive, and within DIFC boundaries (and IIRC at this point nation-wide) supersedes the authority of Dubai's own courts on a whole range of matters.
Those 'financial free zones' basically function like charter cities so international investors do not have to deal with the domestic Shariah law system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIFC_Courts
Rule of law very much exists in the UAE. So much so that they have carved out a distinct common law system (so called DIFC courts) which effectively provide English language common law as a service. This was explicitly done to make investment and commercial activity in the country attractive, and within DIFC boundaries (and IIRC at this point nation-wide) supersedes the authority of Dubai's own courts on a whole range of matters.
Those 'financial free zones' basically function like charter cities so international investors do not have to deal with the domestic Shariah law system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIFC_Courts
Do those courts help prevent the king or his brothers from torturing business partners?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issa_bin_Zayed_Al_Nahyan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issa_bin_Zayed_Al_Nahyan
If that's a non-rhetorical question no they don't because that's a criminal matter, not a commercial one that was handled in an Emirati court in 2009. But distrust as a consequence of failures of the domestic system where exactly why they bothered to built an entire parallel judicial system largely in the decade afterwards.
Why would I trust the leaders of a country that make a parallel legal system to make themselves seem legitimate?
That type of judicial theater screams of corruption at the highest level.
That type of judicial theater screams of corruption at the highest level.
In 2019, in DIFC, the anti-money laundering officer, whose job is to stop money laundering, was sacked on whistle blowing instead of money-laundering stopped:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50205956
DIFC harly has a reputable track record. While on a paper it might sound independent, in reality is it just another extension to Sheik’s tentacles. Any compliance is just lip services.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50205956
DIFC harly has a reputable track record. While on a paper it might sound independent, in reality is it just another extension to Sheik’s tentacles. Any compliance is just lip services.
Cyprus is also a big location for Russian money.
Long before Dubai registered on the map, their speciality was gold smuggling towards India. It's also no coincidence their entire economy is run by British expats, the native citizens are an indolent rentier class that just skims off the top.
I really don’t understand the appeal of Dubai unless the only thing you care about is living in a resort
There's no income tax.
There's less appeal if you're an American since the USG taxes you anywhere in the world, but if you're Canadian there's a lot of appeal to live there for a few years as a resident.
The people I've known in this category do something like this:
- Canadian Citizen
- Move to Dubai
- Trade crypto, make eight digit returns, liquidate funds
- Move back to Canada eventually without having had to pay tax on those funds
You can't do this as a US citizen without renouncing citizenship, but you can do this for most countries in the world (at least that's what people doing this have told me, I haven't looked into it that deeply myself).
There's less appeal if you're an American since the USG taxes you anywhere in the world, but if you're Canadian there's a lot of appeal to live there for a few years as a resident.
The people I've known in this category do something like this:
- Canadian Citizen
- Move to Dubai
- Trade crypto, make eight digit returns, liquidate funds
- Move back to Canada eventually without having had to pay tax on those funds
You can't do this as a US citizen without renouncing citizenship, but you can do this for most countries in the world (at least that's what people doing this have told me, I haven't looked into it that deeply myself).
It's more complex. If you just move to Dubai you will be considered a resident for tax purposes based on your links back to the Old Country. Examples of such links include if you own a property, have a bank account, have healthcare policies and registration, or if you are a member of a society or group. So, having links boils down to either owning a substantial asset back in Canada or continuing to being a part of day-to-day operations there.
This use to be popular with working at sea for 6 months to avoid taxes until it changed. You could be sailing around the world for the next two years any income you make would be taxable even if you renounce your citizenship (unless you take another citizenship or become a resident in a physical location)
So you could do this but for the effort you would be better off trading cryto from Canada avoiding popular exchanges and not reporting
This use to be popular with working at sea for 6 months to avoid taxes until it changed. You could be sailing around the world for the next two years any income you make would be taxable even if you renounce your citizenship (unless you take another citizenship or become a resident in a physical location)
So you could do this but for the effort you would be better off trading cryto from Canada avoiding popular exchanges and not reporting
The latter option is illegal though?
My understanding was you could legally move to the UAE for a time as a Canadian citizen and do what I described.
It seems easy enough to not have day to day operations in Canada during that time. This seems like a way better option than tax evasion and prison imo.
My understanding was you could legally move to the UAE for a time as a Canadian citizen and do what I described.
It seems easy enough to not have day to day operations in Canada during that time. This seems like a way better option than tax evasion and prison imo.
If you are willing to completely cut ties. No bank account, no property, no memberships, no ties at all. Then you have to wait for a period of time. It won't be easy and they may retroactivity tax you.
If you got married had a family took another citizenship and lived for many years away your plan could work.
The easiest legally would be to set it up under a company and pay a much lower tax rate.
If you got married had a family took another citizenship and lived for many years away your plan could work.
The easiest legally would be to set it up under a company and pay a much lower tax rate.
I don't think this is unique to Canadians. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the US the only country that makes you file your taxes in the home country no matter if you live abroad.
US & Eritrea..
Not great company - though you have to escape Eritrea in the first place, they don’t allow young people to leave (coworker I used to work with escaped and would talk about what it was like).
In practice no way anyone living abroad pays taxes to Eritrea (and probably few would go back given the risks).
In practice no way anyone living abroad pays taxes to Eritrea (and probably few would go back given the risks).
Yeah I think you’re right, but I’m American so haven’t looked into it that much since I wouldn’t give up citizenship for it.
>The local rulers have de facto control over government, jurisdictional and businesses.
isn't that a tautology?
isn't that a tautology?
It isn't normal (at least in a democracy) for the local rulers to have that kind of control over businesses. "Jurisdictional" I presume means that they don't have an independent judiciary either. Those things matter quite a bit.
> It isn't normal (at least in a democracy) for the local rulers to have that kind of control over businesses.
Democracies are preventing businesses from operating in russia. What exactly makes democracies so special that it isn't beyond corruption or evil? People have said democracies don't commit genocide, democracies don't invade and steal territory, democracies don't enslave, etc. When the truth is that democracies have committed the greatest genocides, stolen the most land, committed the worst evils. I've yet to get a satisfactory response. Russia is a democracy and the current bogeyman was elected. It's like people are so brainwashed by propaganda that they can't see the truth.
Democracies are preventing businesses from operating in russia. What exactly makes democracies so special that it isn't beyond corruption or evil? People have said democracies don't commit genocide, democracies don't invade and steal territory, democracies don't enslave, etc. When the truth is that democracies have committed the greatest genocides, stolen the most land, committed the worst evils. I've yet to get a satisfactory response. Russia is a democracy and the current bogeyman was elected. It's like people are so brainwashed by propaganda that they can't see the truth.
> When the truth is that democracies have committed the greatest genocides, stolen the most land, committed the worst evils.
Yeah... re-read history without the biases, and you'll see that that is absolutely false.
> Russia is a democracy and the current bogeyman was elected.
Well, Russia has elections. It also jails those who are trying to run against Putin, and Putin controls the media. So you wind up with the trappings of democracy without the reality. (At least today. I think the original election that he won may have been fair.)
Yeah... re-read history without the biases, and you'll see that that is absolutely false.
> Russia is a democracy and the current bogeyman was elected.
Well, Russia has elections. It also jails those who are trying to run against Putin, and Putin controls the media. So you wind up with the trappings of democracy without the reality. (At least today. I think the original election that he won may have been fair.)
> Yeah... re-read history without the biases, and you'll see that that is absolutely false.
I have re-read history. Who has committed more genocides than the US? What non-democratic country has nuked a city? I don't think I'm the one with the bias here. Just in the post cold war era, almost all the invasions have been carried out by democracies.
> Well, Russia has elections. It also jails those who are trying to run against Putin, and Putin controls the media. So you wind up with the trappings of democracy without the reality.
Right. And who do you think controls the media in other democracies?
> (At least today. I think the original election that he won may have been fair.)
So ultimately, democracy gave us Putin? So democracies are bad.
Instead of just blindly accepting propaganda, maybe you should ask why the propaganda doesn't align with facts and reality. Perhaps, as socrates said, democracies are not good to begin with.
I have re-read history. Who has committed more genocides than the US? What non-democratic country has nuked a city? I don't think I'm the one with the bias here. Just in the post cold war era, almost all the invasions have been carried out by democracies.
> Well, Russia has elections. It also jails those who are trying to run against Putin, and Putin controls the media. So you wind up with the trappings of democracy without the reality.
Right. And who do you think controls the media in other democracies?
> (At least today. I think the original election that he won may have been fair.)
So ultimately, democracy gave us Putin? So democracies are bad.
Instead of just blindly accepting propaganda, maybe you should ask why the propaganda doesn't align with facts and reality. Perhaps, as socrates said, democracies are not good to begin with.
> Right. And who do you think controls the media in other democracies?
Nobody “controls” the media. Any clown can start a media company and many do, across the full spectrum of opinion. Media also has far less share of communications now anyway. Everyone can publish, as you are here. Go ahead, write what you want. I’m far more likely to be arrested in eg Russia than you are in eg US. Remember https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ ? That’s still up and nobody is in jail. Try post this a few times in Russia and see how that goes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukra...
Or better yet, https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/150442684419966976...
Nobody “controls” the media. Any clown can start a media company and many do, across the full spectrum of opinion. Media also has far less share of communications now anyway. Everyone can publish, as you are here. Go ahead, write what you want. I’m far more likely to be arrested in eg Russia than you are in eg US. Remember https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ ? That’s still up and nobody is in jail. Try post this a few times in Russia and see how that goes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukra...
Or better yet, https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/150442684419966976...
Just a few years ago we had Trump banning certain media outlets he disagreed with from the White House. Or the UK government attacking hard disks at the Guardian with an angle grinder. You could say that neither of these governments are “democratic”, but then it becomes somewhat of a no-true Scotsman argument. We have to accept that control of the media happens in democracies. It’s not as bad as in Russia, but it is an overt goal of many democratic governments, and many media outlets go along with it in the name of access.
He could ban it from while White House but not from your house. It’s not control like where you go to jail, it’s minor influence over very few selected places.
Every elite seems to want to cement their power and we have to combat it, always. But democracies in general don’t have “control” in any way recognisable to Russians, Chinese, North Koreans. In South Africa we had the most corrupt shit going on and the media drive politicians nuts. There’s some doublespeak and us/them but that’s just humans for you. In Russia those journalists would be dead or in exile. 30 years ago in SA we had some of that. Incomparable to political influence over media in a democracy, which is typically only over part of it. Not all.
Besides you don’t need to control the media. That’s far too much work. Just have an alternative that your tribe prefers. It seems you can make up any shit and a lot of people will take it as gospel.
Every elite seems to want to cement their power and we have to combat it, always. But democracies in general don’t have “control” in any way recognisable to Russians, Chinese, North Koreans. In South Africa we had the most corrupt shit going on and the media drive politicians nuts. There’s some doublespeak and us/them but that’s just humans for you. In Russia those journalists would be dead or in exile. 30 years ago in SA we had some of that. Incomparable to political influence over media in a democracy, which is typically only over part of it. Not all.
Besides you don’t need to control the media. That’s far too much work. Just have an alternative that your tribe prefers. It seems you can make up any shit and a lot of people will take it as gospel.
> Just a few years ago we had Trump banning certain media outlets he disagreed with from the White House
He tried. Then those banned reporters went to a judge and he told the White House to let them back in. And they were let back in.
The US press is free.
He tried. Then those banned reporters went to a judge and he told the White House to let them back in. And they were let back in.
The US press is free.
Who controls the media in the US? Not the president. That's an improvement over Russia.
Who has done more genocides than the US? Seriously? Imperial Spain. The Mongol Horde. The Muslim conquest of much of the near east. Imperial Japan. Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany. The Aztec Empire. That's with about two minutes' thought. If I were a historian or bothered to do research, I'm sure I could expand the list.
Your bias is blinding you. Take an actual look at actual history.
Who has done more genocides than the US? Seriously? Imperial Spain. The Mongol Horde. The Muslim conquest of much of the near east. Imperial Japan. Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany. The Aztec Empire. That's with about two minutes' thought. If I were a historian or bothered to do research, I'm sure I could expand the list.
Your bias is blinding you. Take an actual look at actual history.
> Who controls the media in the US? Not the president. That's an improvement over Russia.
Is it? The people who control the media also control the president. Don't think it is any better.
> Who has done more genocides than the US? Seriously?
Yes. Show me one nation/empire that genocided an entire continent full of peoples. Completely wiped out dozens of peoples, cultures and languages. To a point where we don't even know the etymology and meanings of the names of a bunch of states, cities, etc.
> Imperial Spain.
Not even close. There are tens of millions of full blooded native americans all over spanish colonies. There are hardly any in the US.
> The Mongol Horde.
Who did the mongol horde genocide? The russians? Ukrainians?
> The Muslim conquest of much of the near east.
Who did the muslims genocide? Persians? Spanish?
> Imperial Japan.
Who did the imperial japanese genocide?
> Nazi Germany.
Are you claiming nazi germany committed more genocide than the US? They committed 1 genocide. Now compare that to the dozens of peoples we wiped out.
> That's with about two minutes' thought.
It shows. 2 minutes seems about right. There have been dozens of native american nations wiped out. Dozens of native languages wiped out. Dozens of native cultures. Show me another peoples who wiped out a continent full of nations. I'll wait.
> Your bias is blinding you. Take an actual look at actual history.
Says the person who claims imperial japan committed more genocides than the US. Imperial Japan committed 0 genocides. US committed dozens. Are you going to claim imperial japan nuked more cities too?
It seems like you are confused about what the word genocide actually means. It doesn't mean conquering. It doesn't even mean killing a lot of people. It has a specific meaning which makes it one of the most evil acts in human history.
Is it? The people who control the media also control the president. Don't think it is any better.
> Who has done more genocides than the US? Seriously?
Yes. Show me one nation/empire that genocided an entire continent full of peoples. Completely wiped out dozens of peoples, cultures and languages. To a point where we don't even know the etymology and meanings of the names of a bunch of states, cities, etc.
> Imperial Spain.
Not even close. There are tens of millions of full blooded native americans all over spanish colonies. There are hardly any in the US.
> The Mongol Horde.
Who did the mongol horde genocide? The russians? Ukrainians?
> The Muslim conquest of much of the near east.
Who did the muslims genocide? Persians? Spanish?
> Imperial Japan.
Who did the imperial japanese genocide?
> Nazi Germany.
Are you claiming nazi germany committed more genocide than the US? They committed 1 genocide. Now compare that to the dozens of peoples we wiped out.
> That's with about two minutes' thought.
It shows. 2 minutes seems about right. There have been dozens of native american nations wiped out. Dozens of native languages wiped out. Dozens of native cultures. Show me another peoples who wiped out a continent full of nations. I'll wait.
> Your bias is blinding you. Take an actual look at actual history.
Says the person who claims imperial japan committed more genocides than the US. Imperial Japan committed 0 genocides. US committed dozens. Are you going to claim imperial japan nuked more cities too?
It seems like you are confused about what the word genocide actually means. It doesn't mean conquering. It doesn't even mean killing a lot of people. It has a specific meaning which makes it one of the most evil acts in human history.
Australia
qiskit, it's silly to compare the situation in russia with the democratic world and see some equivalency. Russia kills the opponents of the leaders, they actively subvert opponents in the sense of killing them with poison, put them in prison, shoot them down in the night.
Not sure what yardstick of horrors matter to you, but the Soviets were definitely in the running for “winning” the trophy for most senseless murder in the 20th century — no small feat.
Do you know what I'm hoping for? I'm hoping for more natural, for more "organic" communities.
Walking around the residential areas of Chelsea or Knightsbridge I found it to be some of the most boring places in London. Beautiful houses and no one on the streets, pedestrian hostile roads, generally boring perfection.
I think optimising the city for the wealthy when these wealthy are not invested in the community kills the spirit of the city. London doesn't have particularly beautiful nature or weather, so if you make it about perfect streets and expensive buildings you can build something much better somewhere else. What London actually offers that is extremely valuable is a great culture and institutions and all these rich people who occupy a place in London without being in London are undermining it.
London has much more to offer than hiding the elites money, just as the Switzerland. These are advanced communities that has a lot of more going on for them beside accommodating the rich people of the world. The accumulated wealth in these places is not like the wealth in Silicon Valley, it is stale.
IMHO the dilution of the artificial wealth saturation will result in talented people having their impact amplified.
Walking around the residential areas of Chelsea or Knightsbridge I found it to be some of the most boring places in London. Beautiful houses and no one on the streets, pedestrian hostile roads, generally boring perfection.
I think optimising the city for the wealthy when these wealthy are not invested in the community kills the spirit of the city. London doesn't have particularly beautiful nature or weather, so if you make it about perfect streets and expensive buildings you can build something much better somewhere else. What London actually offers that is extremely valuable is a great culture and institutions and all these rich people who occupy a place in London without being in London are undermining it.
London has much more to offer than hiding the elites money, just as the Switzerland. These are advanced communities that has a lot of more going on for them beside accommodating the rich people of the world. The accumulated wealth in these places is not like the wealth in Silicon Valley, it is stale.
IMHO the dilution of the artificial wealth saturation will result in talented people having their impact amplified.
Yeah I agree absolutely. I find it quite amusing when people say “move out of London” and completely miss the whole of what West End has to offer at least.
The US ironically enough.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-estate/russian-money-f...
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-estate/russian-money-f...
When those assets get seized and auctioned off, it might reduce some pressure in the housing market.
Their yachts are apparently escaping to the Maldives [1], so that's an option, as long as it's not underwater. But then again, they have yachts.
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-02/russian-o...
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-02/russian-o...
I love the Maldives but if they become a haven to escape sanctions, it could be taken in a few hours, confiscate the yachts, then return Maldives to their government.
You're suggesting invading a country to impose sanctions on individuals from a different country? This seems extreme and unjustified.
You mean like forcing down a plane going between two other countries because you wanted to arrest a journalist who was on it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Protasevich
(Russia's puppet BTW)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Protasevich
(Russia's puppet BTW)
No, violating a countries sovereignty is objectively worse than redirecting a plane flying in your airspace.
And speaking of forcing a plane going between two countries to land try to make a political arrest, who did it first?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
And speaking of forcing a plane going between two countries to land try to make a political arrest, who did it first?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
And before that, there was the highly picaresque story of Abu Abbas, the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking (and ensuing murder of American Jewish tourist Leon Klinghoffer). There are so many twists and turns in this story, involving diplomatic crises between the US, Italy, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and various Palestinian groups that it beggars belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro_hijacking#Interc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro_hijacking#Interc...
mole, a bad action is still a bad action. I'm in the us and I can admit that bombing endless wedding parties in Afghanistan in an attempt to kill terrorist is wrong. That doesn't excuse russia from bombing hospitals in Ukraine.
> That doesn't excuse russia from bombing hospitals in Ukraine.
What made you think I suggested anything of the sort? I'm sorry but your whole comment is a non sequitur.
What made you think I suggested anything of the sort? I'm sorry but your whole comment is a non sequitur.
Maldives might cooperate if US and EU force them to choose sides.
Yes agree it might be possible, and that's the point here.
So, your takeaway from the whole Ukraine episode is that it's perfectly fine for large countries to invade small countries for utterly farcical reasons?
To restate your idea: You want to invade a country at peace, kill its citizens and overthrow its government just to inconvenience some rich thugs.
To restate your idea: You want to invade a country at peace, kill its citizens and overthrow its government just to inconvenience some rich thugs.
and by that logic all poor countries with rampant corruption should have legal protection if they attack Switzerland or any tax havens which do not share data. Off course, not possible in reality due to difference in the countries' powers. Ukraine has galvanized the Western world unlike any other event prior to it, however it is mostly because it is immediate, has visual impact and the impacted are similar in appearances.
You refer to genocide as an "episode"?
episode: noun
an event or a group of events occurring as part of a sequence; an incident or period considered in isolation.
Is there something in the above definition that preculudes it from being used to refer to a genocide? And a more pertinent question: Was there a point to you comment apart from the feigned indignation?
an event or a group of events occurring as part of a sequence; an incident or period considered in isolation.
Is there something in the above definition that preculudes it from being used to refer to a genocide? And a more pertinent question: Was there a point to you comment apart from the feigned indignation?
Most people would far rather live in London than Dubai.
I've lived in Dubai for a few months. I'm writing this right now from central London.
I agree.
I agree.
What is life at those wealth numbers? Anywhere you go would be the same lifestyle. Granted you’d need to be a lot more underground in Dubai but I’m sure they can figure out how to get coke and high end escorts and hang out on boat off the gulf coast. Ditch all all the alcohol in the ocean and head back like a good Muslim, no questions asked.
Not at all, I suspect the more money you have the more you care about what your city has to offer. Restaurants, clubs, sporting events, galleries, museums, theater, society -- London has far more amusements for the wealthy than Dubai.
For a Russian Oligarch London offered a community where other Oligarchs, western elites could mingle. The galleries, museums of London's are impressive but Dubai has some of the finest galleries/museums/restaurants in the world. They offer a wealth of everything and much more like Swim Amongst Sharks at the Dubai Aquarium and other things banned in the western world.
These things are tourist attractions. People who reside in a place don't usually habitually visit tourist attractions.
Dubai is vulgar place. Even an oik with a helipad on his yacht knows that.
Plus any multi billionaire can have world class chefs on retainer.
Part of the eating at exclusive restaurants thing is to see and be seen in public doing the things people know to be exclusive. Private chefs don't quite do that.
>If London won't be interesting anymore for oligarchs, what will happen with prices of accomodation in center
i might be able to afford a house there
i might be able to afford a house there
The geographic or political consolidation of tyranny is not a bad thing.
The sooner we get to a point where tyranny overtly seeks tyranny, for all to see, the better.
The sooner we get to a point where tyranny overtly seeks tyranny, for all to see, the better.
Canada is on it (and has been for a couple decades now).
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/03/18/news/canada-prim...
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/03/18/news/canada-prim...
In London there'd probably a bit of a drop in prices at the super lux end but life would go on as normal. The tax laundering stuff is a small percentage of the market except maybe in the £10m+ properties.
If money can't be explained it should be seized. The properties should be nationalised and then sold on auctions. Money should be used to rebuild Ukraine and legal assistance to get war criminals tried.
The UK does have unexplained wealth orders. The haven't been used much though, at least so far.
Guilty, until proven innocent.
Excellent starting point, I wonder what other rights should we dispense with.
Excellent starting point, I wonder what other rights should we dispense with.
I doubt property values would really change unless we started talking about getting Chinese money out of London, because it's just a way bigger thing from all that I've seen.
The US attracts plenty of shady money. Places like Delaware, South Dakota, Nevada, Wyoming create all sorts of opportunities for hijinks.
I doubt much will change in London over the long term.
Johnson and his government are doing with the Ukraine/Russia issue what they have done on virtually every other topic: talk loudly and carry a very small stick. They have made some grand statements about punishing these oligarchs, while moving at a glacial pace, so as to allow these oligarchs to liquidate as much as possible and flee.
I think, once the war in Ukraine is over (please God that's soon), the next Tory government (it's always the Tories!) will simply revert to type, take money from the Russian oligarchs who still want access for their kids to schools such as Eton, Harrow, etc. and allow the laundering to continue.
As long as the Murdoch press continues to misinform the British public on these issues, Johnson and his Tory ilk will have enough air cover to continue allowing these oligarchs to finance their party (political), their parties (social), and further corrupt the entire political system (see "Lord Lebedev").
Johnson and his government are doing with the Ukraine/Russia issue what they have done on virtually every other topic: talk loudly and carry a very small stick. They have made some grand statements about punishing these oligarchs, while moving at a glacial pace, so as to allow these oligarchs to liquidate as much as possible and flee.
I think, once the war in Ukraine is over (please God that's soon), the next Tory government (it's always the Tories!) will simply revert to type, take money from the Russian oligarchs who still want access for their kids to schools such as Eton, Harrow, etc. and allow the laundering to continue.
As long as the Murdoch press continues to misinform the British public on these issues, Johnson and his Tory ilk will have enough air cover to continue allowing these oligarchs to finance their party (political), their parties (social), and further corrupt the entire political system (see "Lord Lebedev").
>their kids to schools such as Eton, Harrow
How is it bad? If the Russian elite would be at least partly be indoctrinated in the western values it could only do good.
How is it bad? If the Russian elite would be at least partly be indoctrinated in the western values it could only do good.
The assumption you’re making is that they soak up liberal values and not just lucrative training and connections. I’d be interested to see if anyone has compiled any evidence one way or the other, but at the very least we, in liberal democracies, should consider it an injustice to allow someone who has imprisoned and tortured their own citizens and pilfered their own country to use their ill-gotten gains to buy the most elite educations available. Spots not even within grasp of the vast majority of English or Americans in their own countries. I’m an American and I’d never even have a dream of attending an Ivy League, yet Xi Jinping’s daughter went to Harvard and Carrie Lam’s son is a postdoc at Stanford right now. Surely all these tyrants’ children aren’t the smartest, highest IQ students by coincidence, actually deserving of the spots. They’ve been able to buy their way in with blood money, and we should look at look at institutions that enable that with shame and disgust.
From my experience of easier European background living in London most of the kids who are indoctrinated will just stay in London completely cutting off their parents in the end. But they will not change that country for the better.
Having gone to school with a number of their “elite”. On the whole, They don’t integrate and are never indoctrinated into western values. They’re there for the education and london.
China.
Nothing will substitute that well because these are prestige luxury goods. Xi wants to send his daughter to Harvard, not to a university in Moscow. Abramovich wants to sail in Europe, not China.
It was the case in the Soviet Union too that even though the West was the enemy, the status symbols were still all Western. In a weird way the elites aspired and lusted over the produce of Western consumerism.
It was the case in the Soviet Union too that even though the West was the enemy, the status symbols were still all Western. In a weird way the elites aspired and lusted over the produce of Western consumerism.
So did the non elites, of what they were able to see, which is why such a large emphasis was put on concealing the wealth of the commoner westerner. Something that is still huge in China. If the average Chinese person learns that even the poorest of the western world doesn't live in 10sq meter "apartment" and work 9-9/6 the party would lose control.
Hundreds of thousands of Chinese international students have been coming to the US every year for the past decade. I'm sure they've seen homelessness as well as the middle class lifestyle in the US. So far so good
Any Chinese person coming to the US is from the most privileged class. The Chinese commoner isn't even able to move freely around China.
I mean, to be fair, the poorest of the western world don't live in 10sq metre apartments...
Just look at this recent speech by Putin[1] on the matter.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FguV-zo2wpI
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FguV-zo2wpI
I doubt it. Anyone with any money or power in China already has a foot out the door, in almost all cases in a country with strong property rights and rule of law. Russian oligarchs won't find anything in China that they don't already have at home.
Highly doubtful. The last decade or so of CCP direction has been to control and punish the huge outflow of capital by rich Chinese into various western asset pools (like US and Canadian real estate) that are outside the party's reach. See also the recent controls on various cryptocurrencies. A lot of this got washed through Hong Kong and Taiwan and Singapore.
Nobody outside is going to want to secure their wealth there. If kleptocratic Russians wanted that sort of arrangement, they could just keep it in Russia.
Nobody outside is going to want to secure their wealth there. If kleptocratic Russians wanted that sort of arrangement, they could just keep it in Russia.
Dubai
[deleted]
> Russian oligarchs have donated millions of pounds to the Conservative Party
I don't understand how this is possible. Is it legal in Britain for foreigners to finance political parties?
I don't understand how this is possible. Is it legal in Britain for foreigners to finance political parties?
Naturalised citizens in the USA can donate too, can't they?
The point is these guys have visas, residency etc., they aren't a criminal class, in the UK.
It's funny how until the Ukraine crisis, every time I mentioned how serious a problem this was, people told me I was exaggerating. Even in the first week of the war, that happened here on HN.
The London Laundromat is a significant corrosive influence.
The point is these guys have visas, residency etc., they aren't a criminal class, in the UK.
It's funny how until the Ukraine crisis, every time I mentioned how serious a problem this was, people told me I was exaggerating. Even in the first week of the war, that happened here on HN.
The London Laundromat is a significant corrosive influence.
Yep and this is also a problem due to "birth tourism." Particularly, when you consider it's mostly rich Chinese and Russians who are capitalizing on it to obtain US citizenship for their children.
Doesn't take a genius to see the potential long-term negative implications this creates. It's clearly not going to liberalize China or Chinese diaspora temporarily living abroad at large, let's not make that catastrophic error again. It was just a couple days ago that a Chinese student in the US stabbed a Tiananmen activist Chinese defector to death, in public. Thanks Henry Kissinger.
It's kind of time to take this stuff seriously before it catches us by surprise more than it already has.
Doesn't take a genius to see the potential long-term negative implications this creates. It's clearly not going to liberalize China or Chinese diaspora temporarily living abroad at large, let's not make that catastrophic error again. It was just a couple days ago that a Chinese student in the US stabbed a Tiananmen activist Chinese defector to death, in public. Thanks Henry Kissinger.
It's kind of time to take this stuff seriously before it catches us by surprise more than it already has.
But sometimes it works. Kissinger, et al were working off the post-WWII model where the authoritarian governments of Japan and Germany (in the Western half, at least) were successfully replaced by democratic regimes. Yes, it didn't work in China nor Russia nor the Middle East nor much of Eastern Europe. But why, exactly?
Exact is too hard, but I can take an estimated guess. Off the top of my head here, but a combination of institutional differences, proximal exposure to supporting institutional systems, strong national identity, and sustained economic growth (shared). I don't have much time and this is will be exceedingly reductionist, but...
It worked for Western Germany, not for Eastern Germany. The West was rebuilt by an Allied council and the East by a Soviet Bloc. After the economic collapse of the USSR and reunification of Germany, Western Germany extensively prepared for the transition process. Another example of this is North and South Korea, prior to Korean War North Korea was the dominant economy. North has not collapse due to Chinese support.
Japan was also rebuilt with the US's help under the condition of democratic reforms. Japan saw immense economic growth afterward under that system.
The Middle East is difficult due to a lack of cohesive national identities in the countries stemming from longstanding tribalistic tendencies, without proximally supporting liberal institutions. Well, except Israel, but that's an obvious conflict of interest. Autocrats and monarchies overcome culture barriers with force and threat of force.
As for China, they were handed a MASSIVE economic opportunity for reestablishing diplomatic relations--lopsided exchange in China's favor IMO. This is also why the US has the "Rust Belt" and other economic dead zones throughout middle America that were once manufacturing towns. It may even help explain, the roaring-80s. The US did not anticipate an economic transfer as fast as it occurred. Different topic... Rapid Chinese economic growth empowered the CCP to maintain its status as a champion of the people for improving the quality of life across the nation as a product of the CCPs policies, which occurred at the rate and ease that it did largely thanks to Kissinger coaxing Nixon to made a "great deal" with Mao. And, this isn't meant to dismiss the Chinese population's agency fostering the growth, only that it wouldn't have happened anywhere near as fast as it did without the US trade deal.
As for much, not all, of Eastern Europe, and, including Russia. Soviet corruption remained and didn't see enough economic growth to justify embracing liberal democracy. Many people think or are lead to believe that life was better under Soviet rule, even though the mechanism of economic growth it implemented was doomed to fail in the long-run.
It worked for Western Germany, not for Eastern Germany. The West was rebuilt by an Allied council and the East by a Soviet Bloc. After the economic collapse of the USSR and reunification of Germany, Western Germany extensively prepared for the transition process. Another example of this is North and South Korea, prior to Korean War North Korea was the dominant economy. North has not collapse due to Chinese support.
Japan was also rebuilt with the US's help under the condition of democratic reforms. Japan saw immense economic growth afterward under that system.
The Middle East is difficult due to a lack of cohesive national identities in the countries stemming from longstanding tribalistic tendencies, without proximally supporting liberal institutions. Well, except Israel, but that's an obvious conflict of interest. Autocrats and monarchies overcome culture barriers with force and threat of force.
As for China, they were handed a MASSIVE economic opportunity for reestablishing diplomatic relations--lopsided exchange in China's favor IMO. This is also why the US has the "Rust Belt" and other economic dead zones throughout middle America that were once manufacturing towns. It may even help explain, the roaring-80s. The US did not anticipate an economic transfer as fast as it occurred. Different topic... Rapid Chinese economic growth empowered the CCP to maintain its status as a champion of the people for improving the quality of life across the nation as a product of the CCPs policies, which occurred at the rate and ease that it did largely thanks to Kissinger coaxing Nixon to made a "great deal" with Mao. And, this isn't meant to dismiss the Chinese population's agency fostering the growth, only that it wouldn't have happened anywhere near as fast as it did without the US trade deal.
As for much, not all, of Eastern Europe, and, including Russia. Soviet corruption remained and didn't see enough economic growth to justify embracing liberal democracy. Many people think or are lead to believe that life was better under Soviet rule, even though the mechanism of economic growth it implemented was doomed to fail in the long-run.
Don't forget the authoritarian government of Italy. Italy had several competing political parties before fascism. They were basically outlawed but they were still alive when eventually Mussolini was overthrown at the end of a lost war 20 years later. Maybe that's why it worked for Italy.
FWIW, not just naturalized citizens, if you expand the 'Foreign Nationals' entry under 'Who can't contribute' in [0] it expands to:
An individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States and has not been lawfully admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20); or ...
Suggesting that you can also donate if you have permanent resident status (aka 'green card holder'), regardless of citizenship.
[0] https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate...
An individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States and has not been lawfully admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20); or ...
Suggesting that you can also donate if you have permanent resident status (aka 'green card holder'), regardless of citizenship.
[0] https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate...
Thanks for the clarification. I did wonder about that.
Our citizenship systems are similar but not completely identical.
Our citizenship systems are similar but not completely identical.
Even if they were barred from contributing directly to political candidates or parties they would just funnel the money into 527 organizations.
> they aren't a criminal class, in the UK.
Well, they _are_ a criminal class here. It's just they've been getting away with it for some time because they're under the protection of another criminal class - our leaders. With any luck the ramifications of this Russia/Ukraine business will cause the unravelling of much more than that little squirt Putin.
Well, they _are_ a criminal class here. It's just they've been getting away with it for some time because they're under the protection of another criminal class - our leaders. With any luck the ramifications of this Russia/Ukraine business will cause the unravelling of much more than that little squirt Putin.
I see your point (and upvoted it).
It depends how you see it, I suppose.
What I mean is this:
Basically all of these oligarchs come here to do legitimate business, just with unexplained wealth. And that's the loophole; unexplained wealth. You have to spend it in a way that brings you attention, before anyone even asks.
So here they are not acting criminally; their wealth is only criminal if someone can prove it was illegally obtained in Russia, and that is quite a high bar, considering the source of the wealth and the system in which it was created.
It's not just for Russian oligarchs, either; unexplained wealth is at least as big a problem from the middle east.
And as you likely know, campaigners even tried to get Donald Trump to explain how he bought a golf course with cash using an unexplained wealth order. I do wonder if that will get revisited, since it was almost certainly cash of dubious, and quite likely Russian, origin.
It depends how you see it, I suppose.
What I mean is this:
Basically all of these oligarchs come here to do legitimate business, just with unexplained wealth. And that's the loophole; unexplained wealth. You have to spend it in a way that brings you attention, before anyone even asks.
So here they are not acting criminally; their wealth is only criminal if someone can prove it was illegally obtained in Russia, and that is quite a high bar, considering the source of the wealth and the system in which it was created.
It's not just for Russian oligarchs, either; unexplained wealth is at least as big a problem from the middle east.
And as you likely know, campaigners even tried to get Donald Trump to explain how he bought a golf course with cash using an unexplained wealth order. I do wonder if that will get revisited, since it was almost certainly cash of dubious, and quite likely Russian, origin.
Appreciated, thank you.
As I see it, It's not "unexplained wealth" per se that's at issue. I find that concept (the assumption that having money you can't account for is _alone_ automatic grounds for suspicion) quite despotic and authoritarian. In the US it's become a means by which police can just "legally" confiscate someone's savings. That can only go to dark places for ordinary people who have some luck with their speculations.
It's not the money, it's what they do with it and the sort of behaviour they "buy". There's a litany of serious crime (SOCA) and actions by NCA or local police that mysteriously dead-end. Intimidation of judges, police and journalists, bribery, legal threats designed to silence investigations (SLAPP) has multiplied within Britain thanks to "oligarchs".
For years our own leaders have allowed this to fester, turned a blind eye, or been involved more closely - a connection between Peter Mandelson and Oleg Deripaska is just one of the few exposed. Earlier economic crime bills have stalled, and existing "investigatory powers" legislation has rarely, if ever, been used successfully against these people.
This has led to new intelligence groups, think-tanks and university research departments set up around countering "Lawfare". Corruption is global, as you say. But let's be honest here; just because someone is not a _technically_ convicted criminal it doesn't mean they not de-facto criminals to a standard most ordinary people would accept. The problem is getting anything through a courts system so underfunded, amidst a society so corrupted by money.
What I said is that I hope this Russo-Ukraine war has side effects (far beyond ousting Putin) that blow-back on our own corrupt officials.
As I see it, It's not "unexplained wealth" per se that's at issue. I find that concept (the assumption that having money you can't account for is _alone_ automatic grounds for suspicion) quite despotic and authoritarian. In the US it's become a means by which police can just "legally" confiscate someone's savings. That can only go to dark places for ordinary people who have some luck with their speculations.
It's not the money, it's what they do with it and the sort of behaviour they "buy". There's a litany of serious crime (SOCA) and actions by NCA or local police that mysteriously dead-end. Intimidation of judges, police and journalists, bribery, legal threats designed to silence investigations (SLAPP) has multiplied within Britain thanks to "oligarchs".
For years our own leaders have allowed this to fester, turned a blind eye, or been involved more closely - a connection between Peter Mandelson and Oleg Deripaska is just one of the few exposed. Earlier economic crime bills have stalled, and existing "investigatory powers" legislation has rarely, if ever, been used successfully against these people.
This has led to new intelligence groups, think-tanks and university research departments set up around countering "Lawfare". Corruption is global, as you say. But let's be honest here; just because someone is not a _technically_ convicted criminal it doesn't mean they not de-facto criminals to a standard most ordinary people would accept. The problem is getting anything through a courts system so underfunded, amidst a society so corrupted by money.
What I said is that I hope this Russo-Ukraine war has side effects (far beyond ousting Putin) that blow-back on our own corrupt officials.
> That can only go to dark places for ordinary people who have some luck with their speculations.
I'm unconcerned about this with respect to UWOs. They don't seem to be too difficult to fight off with documentation, for one thing.
> Intimidation of judges, police and journalists, bribery, legal threats designed to silence investigations (SLAPP) has multiplied within Britain thanks to "oligarchs".
This is true, but it's far from uniquely the work of the wealthier end of the Russian diaspora. There are other examples wherein all the money has been made in the UK.
The difference with the oligarch money is that everyone knows it is stolen wealth and pretends not to see it. You can take a donation from some hedge fund viper and hold your head up that it's just business. When you accept donations without due diligence that you know would fail due diligence, you've been suborned. It's a double victory: the oligarch both pays for the legislation (or non-legislation) he wants, and also envelops the politician in the stink that he himself is used to.
But the true corrupting power gained from getting someone to turn a blind eye is in getting them to do it more than once, because then they are compromised without deniability; that's why you make the big donations, over a long period of time.
I'm unconcerned about this with respect to UWOs. They don't seem to be too difficult to fight off with documentation, for one thing.
> Intimidation of judges, police and journalists, bribery, legal threats designed to silence investigations (SLAPP) has multiplied within Britain thanks to "oligarchs".
This is true, but it's far from uniquely the work of the wealthier end of the Russian diaspora. There are other examples wherein all the money has been made in the UK.
The difference with the oligarch money is that everyone knows it is stolen wealth and pretends not to see it. You can take a donation from some hedge fund viper and hold your head up that it's just business. When you accept donations without due diligence that you know would fail due diligence, you've been suborned. It's a double victory: the oligarch both pays for the legislation (or non-legislation) he wants, and also envelops the politician in the stink that he himself is used to.
But the true corrupting power gained from getting someone to turn a blind eye is in getting them to do it more than once, because then they are compromised without deniability; that's why you make the big donations, over a long period of time.
> But the true corrupting power gained from getting someone to turn a
blind eye is in getting them to do it more than once, because then
they are compromised without deniability;
Insightful observation. I am reminded of the Bluttkit (Blood cement?) treatement used by SS officers on new recruits.
Insightful observation. I am reminded of the Bluttkit (Blood cement?) treatement used by SS officers on new recruits.
I thought part of the problem is the jurisdiction for the investigating lies with parts of the government and Parliament that are under control of the party in power - there are investigations of Russian influence that has been withheld from the public for more than four years https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51417880
This would be legal in the United States as well. They would just first form a corporation and then donate it from there.
This is why the "Citizens United" decision was so horrible and should be reversed.
This is why the "Citizens United" decision was so horrible and should be reversed.
The Citizens United decision doesn't allow corporations to donate unlimited or anonymized funds to campaigns. Citizens United wanted to release and promote an independent, short, anti-Hillary Clinton documentary film, and the decision was that this was protected free speech.
> Citizens United wanted to release and promote an independent, short, anti-Hillary Clinton documentary film, and the decision was that this was protected free speech.
This is what Citizens United wanted, but it's not the outcome of the Supreme Court case.
The outcome of the case was the gutting of BCRA 2002[1], which previously prevented unlimited corporate and union spending in political campaigns. The rest (anonymized funding, "super" PACs) are logical consequences of the overturning of that law and American corporate structure.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
This is what Citizens United wanted, but it's not the outcome of the Supreme Court case.
The outcome of the case was the gutting of BCRA 2002[1], which previously prevented unlimited corporate and union spending in political campaigns. The rest (anonymized funding, "super" PACs) are logical consequences of the overturning of that law and American corporate structure.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
To be clear, I was responding to a comment which specifically said:
>" This would be legal in the United States as well. They would just first form a corporation and then donate it from there."
These statements were factually incorrect. You are making different claims.
>" This would be legal in the United States as well. They would just first form a corporation and then donate it from there."
These statements were factually incorrect. You are making different claims.
So they form a corporation and donate to several Super PACs that are technically (though not functionally) independent from the campaigns they wish to support, and that will do with the money what the campaign would have done (buy millions of dollars' worth of ads on TV and social media).
Technically you are right, they can't donate directly to campaigns by forming a corporation here, but they can get close enough that if you squint you can't tell the difference.
Technically you are right, they can't donate directly to campaigns by forming a corporation here, but they can get close enough that if you squint you can't tell the difference.
Citizens United wanted to pay for commercials for their movie on cable within 30 days of the last primary election. They were free to distribute their movie as far and as wide as they desired.
as far as I know, there's nothing wrong with creating 1,000,000 corporations and having each donate $1,000 for each election.
But it's easier to create a super pac, accept unlimited money, and then pay out in whatever way is effective.
But it's easier to create a super pac, accept unlimited money, and then pay out in whatever way is effective.
Money in politics is a symptom of a larger problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv5mI6ClPGc
Capitalism and Free Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv5mI6ClPGc
Capitalism and Free Speech
> They would just first form a corporation and then donate it from there.
Corporations can't donate money to campaigns, either. (They can spend money on them, or donate funds to non-campaign groups that spend money independently of campaigns, but not donate to politicians.)
Corporations can't donate money to campaigns, either. (They can spend money on them, or donate funds to non-campaign groups that spend money independently of campaigns, but not donate to politicians.)
And we all know that these honorable non-campaign groups truly operate "independently of [the] campaigns".
I think it's just as questionable a practice for both nationals and foreigners to be honest. When it involves large amounts of course. Not talking about the 50-odd bucks membership most parties charge yearly.
But donating millions like it's commonplace in the US I find pretty questionable. And it leads to corruption like the "pay to play" lists.
But donating millions like it's commonplace in the US I find pretty questionable. And it leads to corruption like the "pay to play" lists.
"Questionable" is being extremely lenient, it is corruption on the face, nothing less. $100,000 speaking fees, millions in donations to foundations are the same thing, it's not even hidden. It's just double speak.
Assuming they'd care (unlikely): how hard could it be to introduce a middleman?
I don't understand taking other people property is legal if they legally acquired the property in the first place. I specifically don't get how you can take Roman Abramovich, Chelsea Football Club or his yachts away without proving in court him acquiring these things broke the law.
And if you do start retrospectively punishing people, why not go after someone like Bill Gates who is just an American Oligarch just doesn't get called that, but rather a billionaire. He too used all kinds of shady connections to aquaria his wealth.
I get the instinctive hatred for extremely rich people and their wealth. But the one thing I've come to realize as I myself become richer, every new thing I buy atomically means I get less time to enjoy my previous possessions. We all just have 24 hours in a day. So practically all those possession of the ultra rich are often just paper deeds. There is on sum, a much greater benefit of something like a Mega Yacht to all the people that work there, worked to build it, work to maintain in, crew it, dock it in ports, and so on. He himself only probably get to use it on rare occasions.
To me it seems like theft to do it. Perhaps why I'm personally opposed to it, is that a few a years back I read about a government trying to take over the teachers pensions fund in Ontario. The teachers were paying out to a private firm to invest their pensions, and the firm did so well, it was worth billions of dollars.
The government running a large deficit at that time, seeing that huge sum (worth 227 Billions now) started getting wet dreams how they could take it over. They backdown.
But just seeing this kind of thing is off putting. It's just thievery.
I get the instinctive hatred for extremely rich people and their wealth. But the one thing I've come to realize as I myself become richer, every new thing I buy atomically means I get less time to enjoy my previous possessions. We all just have 24 hours in a day. So practically all those possession of the ultra rich are often just paper deeds. There is on sum, a much greater benefit of something like a Mega Yacht to all the people that work there, worked to build it, work to maintain in, crew it, dock it in ports, and so on. He himself only probably get to use it on rare occasions.
To me it seems like theft to do it. Perhaps why I'm personally opposed to it, is that a few a years back I read about a government trying to take over the teachers pensions fund in Ontario. The teachers were paying out to a private firm to invest their pensions, and the firm did so well, it was worth billions of dollars.
The government running a large deficit at that time, seeing that huge sum (worth 227 Billions now) started getting wet dreams how they could take it over. They backdown.
But just seeing this kind of thing is off putting. It's just thievery.
It was kind of a hear-say thing that was presumed about the Vancouver, British Columbia (and surrounding area) Real estate market too
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/russian-money-canada-1.4102...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/russian-money-canada-1.4102...
There was a case where a guy committed a multi million $ fraud in some Indian state and safely ran after to BC. The BC police did not cooperate in investigation or so I heard. Rich countries are happy to accept shady money as long as it is not done loudly and impacts lie in some third world country far away without strong legal capabilities.
"But, by making it perilous to publish allegations, however well documented, that haven’t yet resulted in a criminal conviction, the legal system can grant well-financed malefactors a free pass from scrutiny."
Wow. Kudos to London for having this. Publishing allegations without proof is something that should be punished. Throwing out unsubstantiated allegations without paying for it destroys all faith in the media.
Wow. Kudos to London for having this. Publishing allegations without proof is something that should be punished. Throwing out unsubstantiated allegations without paying for it destroys all faith in the media.
"Unsubstantiated allegations" and "hasn't yet resulted in a criminal conviction" are substantially different things. Investigative journalism plays an important role in our (American) society and justice system, and I think we're much better off for it.
To make it concrete: it seems perfectly reasonable for a journalist to publish a first-person story about an event, potentially a crime, that they witnessed. The fact that Britain's legal system threatens journalists who would do that isn't great.
To make it concrete: it seems perfectly reasonable for a journalist to publish a first-person story about an event, potentially a crime, that they witnessed. The fact that Britain's legal system threatens journalists who would do that isn't great.
Lol. Yes the British press is well respected for truth telling.
Once again posting these old docs for the benefit of anyone wanting to understand where these oligarchs come from and what their relationship is to Putin:
The Rise and Fall of the Russian Oligarchs (ARTE 2006)
https://youtu.be/oLNKqbwec0s
Russian Godfathers (BBC 2005)
https://youtu.be/ZLPxyDlQfBc
Also highly recommended: Paul Klebnikov's Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia. Berezovsky, for a while London's best-known oligarchic resident, this article doesn't even bother to mention. Berezovsky, who likely had Klebnikov murdered in 2004 for exposing him.
The Rise and Fall of the Russian Oligarchs (ARTE 2006)
https://youtu.be/oLNKqbwec0s
Russian Godfathers (BBC 2005)
https://youtu.be/ZLPxyDlQfBc
Also highly recommended: Paul Klebnikov's Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia. Berezovsky, for a while London's best-known oligarchic resident, this article doesn't even bother to mention. Berezovsky, who likely had Klebnikov murdered in 2004 for exposing him.
This book about Berezovsky is also good:
https://www.amazon.com/Once-Upon-Time-Russia-Oligarchs_A/dp/...
https://www.amazon.com/Once-Upon-Time-Russia-Oligarchs_A/dp/...
I'm about a third of the way through "All The Kremlin's Men", and it's been really good so far. Some really interesting stories from Putin's early days.
Here's hoping for more transparency and analytical rigour with regards to the volume and cost of prime real estate ownership within London (and other cities worldwide)
I hope so too, but I think this is very wishful thinking. If Oligarch owned properties somehow get returned to the market, they'll just get snapped up by a different collection of semi-anonymous billionaires.
Yeah it's not suddenly going to make hosting more affordable sadly. It would be great if investors would be banned from the housing market though. Houses should be bought to live in, not as investments. It used to be like that but due to this practice it's almost impossible for our generation to buy a house now :(
So much this. Shelter is a basic necessity. If someone told you they were supporting a policy because it would cause food and water to outpace the rate of inflation, you would call them a greedy asshole.
Yet when people do this for housing, its accepted as normal.
Yet when people do this for housing, its accepted as normal.
I agree, though I also wonder what could be the unintended consequences.
Agreed; it's not really a free market, in that sense. They share information among themselves and have common interests that they try to develop over time. It's all very shady.
But fewer of them. Shrinking demand is good.
> amassed a giant fortune by taking control of businesses that once belonged to the Soviet state.
The Soviet Union was so vast and disorganized, both accidentally and intentionally, that for decades after it collapsed they showed a trade surplus based on selling the resources hoarded to meet future central planning goals. You had a huge trade surplus, but the money just seemed to disappear. Officially there was nothing to spend it on, but individuals bringing back anything cheap and in-demand within their personal allowance ($2000 I think?) created an enormous grey/black market with no regulation, taxation or statistics. Many of these oligarchs were cogs in the middle of this machine and ideally suited to essentially become "fixers" on both sides of the market.
The Soviet Union was so vast and disorganized, both accidentally and intentionally, that for decades after it collapsed they showed a trade surplus based on selling the resources hoarded to meet future central planning goals. You had a huge trade surplus, but the money just seemed to disappear. Officially there was nothing to spend it on, but individuals bringing back anything cheap and in-demand within their personal allowance ($2000 I think?) created an enormous grey/black market with no regulation, taxation or statistics. Many of these oligarchs were cogs in the middle of this machine and ideally suited to essentially become "fixers" on both sides of the market.
Do you know any trusted sources about the structure of the soviet union and its collapse ?
_Secondhand Time_ is good, although a Russian friend who lived through it has quibbles with parts of it.
For coverage of the formation of the "new Russia", _Nothing is True and Everything is Possible_ is good.
For coverage of the formation of the "new Russia", _Nothing is True and Everything is Possible_ is good.
This article https://www.ft.com/content/503fb110-f91e-4bed-b6dc-0d09582dd... touches on it, mostly with a focus on the transition from Yeltsin's robber-barons to Putin's inner circle of billionaire nationalists.
Thanks, I already saw this earlier. I was more interested in the systemic flaws of the USSR. Failure in economic modeling, blinding ideology, that sort of thing.
Kotkin (of the New Yorker interview recently making the rounds, the Stalin bio, etc) wrote Armageddon Averted - one interesting and fairly brief summary.
[deleted]
Does anyone know of an infographic that bluntly shows where the Russian oligarch wealth comes from originally and how it is aggregated and concentrated?
It comes from the privatization of government-run businesses during the fall of the Soviet Union.
Specifically, resource extraction businesses, like mining metals or drilling oil and natural gas. There may be some exceptions, but it seems to be the vast majority of them.
> in England, a person bringing a libel suit does not have to prove that an assertion is untrue, so long as there’s evidence of “serious harm”; instead, the author must prove that it is true. This is a fiendishly burdensome standard
This standard has been proposed for US libel law, though so far the efforts have not made progress.
This standard has been proposed for US libel law, though so far the efforts have not made progress.
All I can think of is that in Dubai (and similar places) the real-estate dealers must be exceedingly pleased.
And the outcome may not be that bad overall, perhaps lower prices in London and more activity in places that want it will work out better for everybody.
And the outcome may not be that bad overall, perhaps lower prices in London and more activity in places that want it will work out better for everybody.
Property in (certain parts of) london is just an asset class.
In the UK in general.
e.g. there are funds that allow you to own fractional shares of rental properties spread across the entire country -- REITs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_investment_trust#U...
Commercial properties, obviously, but also residential properties.
e.g. there are funds that allow you to own fractional shares of rental properties spread across the entire country -- REITs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_investment_trust#U...
Commercial properties, obviously, but also residential properties.
The Russians did not come to London to corrupt the political elite. The elite was already corrupt, they just came to avail themselves of this corruption.
> The elite was already corrupt, they just came to avail themselves of this corruption.
The wealthy of all civilizations at all times in history have been corrupt. There is nothing interesting about that.
What is interesting about this situation is that London is incidentally a good place for Russian money. No one is trying to argue that London would be a magical, affordable Utopia without them.
It's just interesting that the conditions in London were most suitable for so many of these people exfiltrating money from their home country.
The wealthy of all civilizations at all times in history have been corrupt. There is nothing interesting about that.
What is interesting about this situation is that London is incidentally a good place for Russian money. No one is trying to argue that London would be a magical, affordable Utopia without them.
It's just interesting that the conditions in London were most suitable for so many of these people exfiltrating money from their home country.
The difference between London and, say Paris, Amsterdam or Berlin is that the UK hasn't had a democratic revolution since Cromwell or land reform. Its entire political, legal and economic structure is organized to protect the interests of the aristocracy starting with the Queen, including such things as draconian libel laws whose intent is illustrated by the jailing of Oscar Wilde for daring to importune a Marquess. The hereditary aristocracies of every other European country have been successfully defanged. No wonder why Russian oligarchs felt so congenial (except for the old money turning its nose down at them).
In russian satire London is often depicted as a laundry/safe haven for stupid and ignorant oligarchs from esUSSR. It's more a status symbol that something really useful.
Super-heavy and long article, at least for me (italian mothertongue). Still, quite interesting.
Personal random excerpts (not pointing to anything specific, they just popped up when I read the article):
- these oligarchs were mere capos, who answered to the don
- England itself has been a silent and handsomely compensated partner in Putin’s kleptocratic designs
- “We must go after the oligarchs,” Prime Minister Boris Johnson declared after the invasion of Ukraine, doing his best to sound Churchillian. But, as the international community labors to isolate Putin and his cronies, the question is whether England has been too compromised by Russian money to do so.
- At a fund-raising auction at the Tory summer ball in 2014, a woman named Lubov Chernukhin—who was then married to Vladimir Chernukhin, one of Putin’s former deputy finance ministers—paid a hundred and sixty thousand pounds for the top prize: a tennis match with Johnson and David Cameron, who was Prime Minister at the time. Johnson defended the match, decrying “a miasma of suspicion” toward “all rich Russians in London.” A Russian magnate told Catherine Belton, “In London, money rules everyone. Anyone and anything can be bought.” The Russians came to London, the source said, “to corrupt the U.K. political elite.”
- Libel tourism is another chronic English problem that everyone bemoans but nobody does anything about. This has meant terrific business for the oligarchs’ morally flexible attorneys; according to the British trade publication The Lawyer, some law firms charge a “Russian premium” for their services, of up to fifteen hundred pounds an hour.
Disclosure: I work for a swiss bank (therefore a potentially indirect antagonist to the London Exchange/Marketplace - but I'm just an IT-guy :P ).
During the past years I kept reading in the news and saw on TV some docs about russian interests in London (they never mentioned anything about other cities/regions, it was always all about "London", I don't know why), therefore none of these news should be surprising, but apparently they still are?
Additionally I'm totally/absolutely surprised by UK's government's attitude change:
not just a sudden 360-degrees change from "welcome investors" to "don't you dare to talk to us" but even a "what you owned here is history" (maybe I'm mis-interpreting but I understood that that's the general direction of where things are going there - maybe I'm wrong??).
Cheers
Personal random excerpts (not pointing to anything specific, they just popped up when I read the article):
- these oligarchs were mere capos, who answered to the don
- England itself has been a silent and handsomely compensated partner in Putin’s kleptocratic designs
- “We must go after the oligarchs,” Prime Minister Boris Johnson declared after the invasion of Ukraine, doing his best to sound Churchillian. But, as the international community labors to isolate Putin and his cronies, the question is whether England has been too compromised by Russian money to do so.
- At a fund-raising auction at the Tory summer ball in 2014, a woman named Lubov Chernukhin—who was then married to Vladimir Chernukhin, one of Putin’s former deputy finance ministers—paid a hundred and sixty thousand pounds for the top prize: a tennis match with Johnson and David Cameron, who was Prime Minister at the time. Johnson defended the match, decrying “a miasma of suspicion” toward “all rich Russians in London.” A Russian magnate told Catherine Belton, “In London, money rules everyone. Anyone and anything can be bought.” The Russians came to London, the source said, “to corrupt the U.K. political elite.”
- Libel tourism is another chronic English problem that everyone bemoans but nobody does anything about. This has meant terrific business for the oligarchs’ morally flexible attorneys; according to the British trade publication The Lawyer, some law firms charge a “Russian premium” for their services, of up to fifteen hundred pounds an hour.
Disclosure: I work for a swiss bank (therefore a potentially indirect antagonist to the London Exchange/Marketplace - but I'm just an IT-guy :P ).
During the past years I kept reading in the news and saw on TV some docs about russian interests in London (they never mentioned anything about other cities/regions, it was always all about "London", I don't know why), therefore none of these news should be surprising, but apparently they still are?
Additionally I'm totally/absolutely surprised by UK's government's attitude change:
not just a sudden 360-degrees change from "welcome investors" to "don't you dare to talk to us" but even a "what you owned here is history" (maybe I'm mis-interpreting but I understood that that's the general direction of where things are going there - maybe I'm wrong??).
Cheers
> a sudden 360-degrees change
That's amusing: you're end up in the same position, but appearing to have changed?
That's amusing: you're end up in the same position, but appearing to have changed?
A short video on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ9RQrcv3T8
Jonathan Pie: How Putin Weaponized London’s Greed | NYT Opinion
https://youtu.be/YAblAQENQhE
https://youtu.be/YAblAQENQhE
The Russian oligarchs and Putin had friends in conservative parties in many countries in the West (and maybe elsewhere?), including the US and UK. How are those parties escaping a reckoning?
In the US, many people blame the liberal party for things regarding Ukraine that didn't even happen, but what the conservative party has openly done is somehow overlooked. It's not the first issue on which we've seen this phenomenon (economics, etc.), but it's an excellent example.
In the US, many people blame the liberal party for things regarding Ukraine that didn't even happen, but what the conservative party has openly done is somehow overlooked. It's not the first issue on which we've seen this phenomenon (economics, etc.), but it's an excellent example.
Apple should create a special update for all iOS devices that are Russian language. This update can include feeds of real news and images and videos from the Ukraine.
This could have a seriously important effect on the war by opening Russian's eyes to what is going on.
This could have a seriously important effect on the war by opening Russian's eyes to what is going on.
London is the worst by far but there is a lot of Russian money floating around in other countries as well and lots of it was gained through illicit means and whitewashed in all manner of ways, including gifts to politicians and start-up investments.
Yep... NYC as well.
I remember when I was looking to buy a place back in 2014. I saw one I liked in Brooklyn, and asked the agent to see it.
He said that there were already two all cash offers, and one was over price. I said: who buys them all cash? He said: Russians, for their kids.
Large cities, like NYC, SF, London, Paris, and Vancouver are seen as good places to park money in real estate, as they are international hubs.
He said that there were already two all cash offers, and one was over price. I said: who buys them all cash? He said: Russians, for their kids.
Large cities, like NYC, SF, London, Paris, and Vancouver are seen as good places to park money in real estate, as they are international hubs.
[deleted]
"Putin's Oligarchs" ... as if a man from a working class family rose to power without the consent of Russia's oligarchy. Why does western media always obsessively focus on the front man?
My sincere hope is that the Ukraine war might actually lead to changes such that people (both foreigners and domestic) won't be able to hide or park money in real estate. I'm not hopeful that this will happen but I can but hope.
In the UK in particular the government is beholden to the bankers in the City of London and they want no such crackdown.
It's already the case where when you buy real estate in the UK with an LLC (which should be illegal IMHO) you need to declare who the beneficial owner is with the company registered with Companies House. This is routinely not done and there is absolutely no enforcement. That would be a start but it doesn't go near far enough.
Another example: all US citizens and permanent residents have to declare all their foreign assets to the government every year, typically twice: once to the IRS, another time to the Treasury Department. These forms are known as Form 8939 and FBAR respectively.
Guess what you don't have to declare? Real estate holdings. Why is there a carve-out for real estate? It's disgusting.
We have a housing crisis in the West. It's a complex problem but there are a number of factors:
1. NIMBYism stopping building of denser living;
2. Tax advantages and policies that make it more profitable to build ultra-luxury housing; and
3. The ease to which the wealthy can park their money in such real estate, which creates a lot of demand.
I would like to see this all go much farther. If you own real estate in a given jurisdiction you should be a resident for tax purposes in that jurisdiction. That should allow the government to tax your worldwide income. Want the anonymity of ownership through an LLC? Without a clear beneficial owner established then just punitively tax such property. Anonymity is a privilege you should pay through the nose for.
I'd accept a carve-out for owning "working" property, which is to say an apartment building where the units are rented out. But individual residential property? Get the hell out.
And any property where no beneficial owner can be established (and thus taxed) should just be seized. We seem totally fine with seizing the assets of poor people (ie civil forfeiture). Let's apply that to wealthy tax evaders, oligarchs and despots instead.
In the UK in particular the government is beholden to the bankers in the City of London and they want no such crackdown.
It's already the case where when you buy real estate in the UK with an LLC (which should be illegal IMHO) you need to declare who the beneficial owner is with the company registered with Companies House. This is routinely not done and there is absolutely no enforcement. That would be a start but it doesn't go near far enough.
Another example: all US citizens and permanent residents have to declare all their foreign assets to the government every year, typically twice: once to the IRS, another time to the Treasury Department. These forms are known as Form 8939 and FBAR respectively.
Guess what you don't have to declare? Real estate holdings. Why is there a carve-out for real estate? It's disgusting.
We have a housing crisis in the West. It's a complex problem but there are a number of factors:
1. NIMBYism stopping building of denser living;
2. Tax advantages and policies that make it more profitable to build ultra-luxury housing; and
3. The ease to which the wealthy can park their money in such real estate, which creates a lot of demand.
I would like to see this all go much farther. If you own real estate in a given jurisdiction you should be a resident for tax purposes in that jurisdiction. That should allow the government to tax your worldwide income. Want the anonymity of ownership through an LLC? Without a clear beneficial owner established then just punitively tax such property. Anonymity is a privilege you should pay through the nose for.
I'd accept a carve-out for owning "working" property, which is to say an apartment building where the units are rented out. But individual residential property? Get the hell out.
And any property where no beneficial owner can be established (and thus taxed) should just be seized. We seem totally fine with seizing the assets of poor people (ie civil forfeiture). Let's apply that to wealthy tax evaders, oligarchs and despots instead.
> And any property where no beneficial owner can be established (and thus taxed) should just be seized.
Amen. Social contract dodgers are wrecking the west. We can't afford to let crazy rich people run things, it isn't efficient or right.
Amen. Social contract dodgers are wrecking the west. We can't afford to let crazy rich people run things, it isn't efficient or right.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'd love a similar article on how America's oligarchs are buying America.
For some weird reason they get called "elites" if they're American, but oligarchs if only if they're Russian, even though they're the same class of wildly disproportionately powerful people.
For some weird reason they get called "elites" if they're American, but oligarchs if only if they're Russian, even though they're the same class of wildly disproportionately powerful people.
the richest people in america got that way by creating enormous amounts of value and then capturing lots of it for themselves.
the richest people in russia got that way by plundering the country of its natural resources and the remnants of the soviet-era industry.
those are not the same.
the richest people in russia got that way by plundering the country of its natural resources and the remnants of the soviet-era industry.
those are not the same.
> the richest people in america got that way by creating enormous amounts of ? value and then capturing lots of it for themselves.
> the richest people in russia got that way by plundering the country of its natural resources and the remnants of the soviet-era industry. > those are not the same.
Importantly, the wealth of the richest in the oligarchy is maintained (or destroyed like in the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky) by the use of force by the authoritarian. The power of the authoritarian is in turn backstopped financially by the oligarchs.
The wealth of the richest in the US is maintained by the economic system and its associated laws (however flawed). There is a conceivable path to make the system fairer in the US via elections, but not in Russia.
> the richest people in russia got that way by plundering the country of its natural resources and the remnants of the soviet-era industry. > those are not the same.
Importantly, the wealth of the richest in the oligarchy is maintained (or destroyed like in the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky) by the use of force by the authoritarian. The power of the authoritarian is in turn backstopped financially by the oligarchs.
The wealth of the richest in the US is maintained by the economic system and its associated laws (however flawed). There is a conceivable path to make the system fairer in the US via elections, but not in Russia.
> creating enormous amounts of value
To be honest, the poster child for American businesses are Intuit, Equifax, that company that manufactures EpiPens, or the company that manufactures insulin etc. They all essentially exist by rent-seeking without creating value, enforced through lobbying or regulatory capture.
Painting American companies and Russian companies in such stark contrast is overly simplistic. And pretending American elites are any more altruistic than Russian elites would be insanity.
To be honest, the poster child for American businesses are Intuit, Equifax, that company that manufactures EpiPens, or the company that manufactures insulin etc. They all essentially exist by rent-seeking without creating value, enforced through lobbying or regulatory capture.
Painting American companies and Russian companies in such stark contrast is overly simplistic. And pretending American elites are any more altruistic than Russian elites would be insanity.
Why are those the poster children for American businesses?
Wouldn't it be some combination of JPMorgan, Google, Boeing, Berkshire Hathaway, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, and Cardinal Health or something (you can mix in whatever Fortune 500 companies you want)?
The rent-seeking companies appear to me to be a far smaller portion of the economy than others that inarguably produce economic value.
Wouldn't it be some combination of JPMorgan, Google, Boeing, Berkshire Hathaway, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, and Cardinal Health or something (you can mix in whatever Fortune 500 companies you want)?
The rent-seeking companies appear to me to be a far smaller portion of the economy than others that inarguably produce economic value.
Most people don't know who founded Equifax, how it makes money, who it's CEO is or how much the business is worth. Did Equifax even mint any billionaires?
Random exceptions don't invalidate the point of the parent comment.
Random exceptions don't invalidate the point of the parent comment.
> the richest people in america got that way by creating enormous amounts of value and then capturing lots of it for themselves.
This may have been the case through the 1960s but post 1970s American is very much back on the crypto-aristocrat track with people inheriting vast wealth or being given jobs as money managers or financiers due to family influence and then rent-seeking the hell out of anything that smells like money.
This may have been the case through the 1960s but post 1970s American is very much back on the crypto-aristocrat track with people inheriting vast wealth or being given jobs as money managers or financiers due to family influence and then rent-seeking the hell out of anything that smells like money.
Most of the richest people in the US got their wealth through inheritance.
Most? 80% of US millionaires are first generation according to NYT and almost all billionaires in the US are first generation.
A 1 millionaire isn't exceptionally rich. They still have to work to get by unless they decamp for a cheaper country.
People think of the people at the very top of the list, who are mostly late-20th-century entrepreneurs, but you're right: the bulk of the American rich are people like the Waltons, Mars's, and other heirs.
A number of the most wealthiest (Top 15?) people in America inherited their wealth. The rest, well they seem to have exploited various aspects of the country and people.
Can you list those top 15 that inherit their wealth?
What are you willing to pay me for the service?
the US’ top billionaires have often profited a lot from government funding, whether it’s subsidies, tax breaks, regulatory capture, etc… the “rich because they created equivalent value” is old school American Dream flavor propaganda
I'm not sure if I would equivolate Elon Musk taking advantage of the literal purpose that EV tax credits were designed to a Russian grifter with the right connections being gifted the state oil company in 1992 for no reason other than he was buddies with someone in the old Soviet politburo.
You can try to make an argument that EV tax credits are bad and should be abolished, but the two situations just aren't even in the same universe.
You can try to make an argument that EV tax credits are bad and should be abolished, but the two situations just aren't even in the same universe.
they’re not in the same universe, but i’m not about to let someone perpetuate the myth that american billionaires are some kind of pure self-made businessmen - they’re system exploiters
The richest people in America got that way by exploiting labor.
How do we know who the richest people in the US are? Forbes' list is based largely on first-order research of federal filings, like stock ownership, compensation, and extrapolation from data that is made public. But with so many ways of channeling wealth, it seems likely the very wealthiest could easily remain anonymous. I don't recall who said this, but the president of a hedge fund was being interviewed by Forbes and told them, paraphrased, "You have no idea how much money I have, and you never will." I could be wrong about how the Forbes list is computed, but it seems to be more guesswork than rooted in reality, since the Paradise and Pandora papers uncovered more wealth than has been reported. (Again, I'm not 100% certain I'm mixing up internet disinfo.)
Because in Russia the
KGB associated people took political and economic power. Hence ruled by few as is the definition. I'm assuming you believe Mark Zuckerberg has a iron grip on your country and will have you killed if you cross him?
In Russia, KGB spooks became oligarchs. In the US (~50 years earlier), oligarchs created the CIA to do their dirty tricks for them. It's a distinction without a difference.
How many people will the metaverse be ruled by?
Perhaps only one. So? Killing people in the physical universe is the problem.
it's a distinct system in which they have to give a substantial share of their take to the supreme leader, and that leader sort of dictates the lines of their territory and doesn't allow them to engage in politics, and all of this exists completely outside the legal system
nothing like lobbyists donating large sums of money to political candidates on behalf of the elite, hey! it's legal!.
Err, donating large sums of money to politicians, government officers are prevalent in Russia. Where do you think Putin’s wealth come from? You can track lobby money in the US. Can you do that in Russia?
what difference does it make being able to track lobby money in the US?
I think the term started life in Russian (just before my time) before being translated directly into English. It's got little to do with Oligarchy in Plato's sense, but it originated as a reference to it. Incidentally, the term Aristocracy is also used in a corrupted sense, but not in the context of Russia.
I don't think anyone disputes the power of American billionaires - especially with their incessant meddling in politics and their proximity to regulators - but the Russians earned their scorn by looting the state to earn their billions. Sweetheart deals to "privatize" public assets with no accountability - random people like Putin's chef/cater being given billion-dollar companies and multi-billion dollar state contracts. Their spouses and children amassing huge net worths with multiple houses, yachts, and airplanes while their official public salaries are a few hundred thousand per year.
It really is a wide difference in degree.
It really is a wide difference in degree.
Try 'The Quiet Coup', Simon Johnson [0].
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-qui...
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-qui...
[deleted]
our oligarchs are more subtle in how they deal with things. the last time citizens tried to call out our oligarchs in a significant, grassroots way, they invented & deployed modern identity politics so we'd stop #occupying and start in-fighting—we still have yet to recover.
[deleted]
Sure, you can see a lot of shallow similarities between these two groups but it would miss a pretty important structural difference.
Oligarchs don't have power outside the authoritarian apparatus of the state. Oligarchs exist entirely at the pleasure of the leader and have no true autonomy. If an Oligarch tries to 'branch out', they end up in jail or dead.
Oligarchs don't have power outside the authoritarian apparatus of the state. Oligarchs exist entirely at the pleasure of the leader and have no true autonomy. If an Oligarch tries to 'branch out', they end up in jail or dead.
The older I get, the more jaded I become at the illusion of democracy in society. Lobbies don't even need to bribe politicians to change their minds. They simply donate money to candidates whose thinking already aligns with their interests. As long as a politician's success is correlated to their ability to raise money, this will continue to happen for good and for ill.
[deleted]
now newyorker.com should cover how the kleptocrats bought NYC too, but that'd make a lot of powerful people in NYC uncomfortable.
The media did a wonderful job burying the story about how Hudson Yards was set up to sell visas to foreign "investors" building luxury apartments for themselves in a southwest extension of Harlem to promote "economic development".
[deleted]
These links only make sense if the submission has had some discussion
[deleted]
U.S. investigation of Zelensky's Oligarch, Sept 2020, https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/with-deutsc...
> Kolomoisky siphoned billions of dollars from PrivatBank, Ukraine’s largest financial institution, which he co-owned, in an audacious laundering scheme, cleaning the money through a web of companies around the world, U.S. federal prosecutors allege ... transferring more than $750 million to Kolomoisky’s business interests in the United States ... secretly amassed a real estate empire, buying at least 22 properties, including a skyscraper in Cleveland with vaulted ceilings that featured one of the largest bank lobbies in the world, a shuttered Motorola facility rising from the farm fields of northern Illinois and the former headquarters of Mary Kay Cosmetics in Dallas
... The flow of Kolomoisky dollars into the U.S. finally ended in December 2016 when Ukraine regulators nationalized PrivatBank on suspicions of widespread fraud. The losses to the institution prompted criminal investigations by the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. Last February, agents from the U.S. Justice Department jetted to Kyiv to talk with law enforcement agents about the ongoing case in the U.S.
... Though the federal government has set up targeting orders in places like Miami and and New York to screen property purchases for laundering, the orders do not extend all over the country and do not apply to commercial transactions ... The Justice Department finally pushed to seize some of the real estate in August, but much of the damage was done, with buildings devalued, factories shuttered, and steel workers without jobs.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mikesallah/ukraine-bill...
> At one time, Kolomoisky and his associates were the largest commercial landlords in Cleveland, owning 2.8 million square feet. One of the properties that has drawn the FBI's attention is the Warren Steel plant in Ohio ... Valeria Gontareva, former chair of the National Bank of Ukraine, the nation's chief regulator, said the level of fraud on the institution was larger than any crime ever perpetrated on a Ukrainian bank.
U.S. DoJ filings, Aug 2020, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-seeks-forf...
https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/10/06/what-the-pandora-pape...
> Kvartal 95 was bought by 1+1 TV channel owned by Ihor Kolomoiskyi which gave the company good terms of cooperation and higher prices. Kolomoiskyi started to support Zelenskyy and Kvartal as comedians and now keeps backing them as politicians ... The Pandora Papers disclosed that since 2012, an offshore company affiliated to Kolomoiskyi’s 1+1 group at least once paid more than $1 billion to Zelenskyy’s offshore firm SVT from the British Virgin Islands, for the popular TV show “Make a Comedian Laugh” created by Kvartal 95. And Maltext owns half of SVT ... Zelenskyy’s and Kolomoiskyi’s companies made a transaction worth $40 million in 2012. Under the documents, this was “contribution to capital,” or investment, paid by the oligarch to the now-president.
Documentary (enable subtitles): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp0WWZbNGq4
> Kolomoisky siphoned billions of dollars from PrivatBank, Ukraine’s largest financial institution, which he co-owned, in an audacious laundering scheme, cleaning the money through a web of companies around the world, U.S. federal prosecutors allege ... transferring more than $750 million to Kolomoisky’s business interests in the United States ... secretly amassed a real estate empire, buying at least 22 properties, including a skyscraper in Cleveland with vaulted ceilings that featured one of the largest bank lobbies in the world, a shuttered Motorola facility rising from the farm fields of northern Illinois and the former headquarters of Mary Kay Cosmetics in Dallas
... The flow of Kolomoisky dollars into the U.S. finally ended in December 2016 when Ukraine regulators nationalized PrivatBank on suspicions of widespread fraud. The losses to the institution prompted criminal investigations by the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. Last February, agents from the U.S. Justice Department jetted to Kyiv to talk with law enforcement agents about the ongoing case in the U.S.
... Though the federal government has set up targeting orders in places like Miami and and New York to screen property purchases for laundering, the orders do not extend all over the country and do not apply to commercial transactions ... The Justice Department finally pushed to seize some of the real estate in August, but much of the damage was done, with buildings devalued, factories shuttered, and steel workers without jobs.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mikesallah/ukraine-bill...
> At one time, Kolomoisky and his associates were the largest commercial landlords in Cleveland, owning 2.8 million square feet. One of the properties that has drawn the FBI's attention is the Warren Steel plant in Ohio ... Valeria Gontareva, former chair of the National Bank of Ukraine, the nation's chief regulator, said the level of fraud on the institution was larger than any crime ever perpetrated on a Ukrainian bank.
U.S. DoJ filings, Aug 2020, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-seeks-forf...
https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/10/06/what-the-pandora-pape...
> Kvartal 95 was bought by 1+1 TV channel owned by Ihor Kolomoiskyi which gave the company good terms of cooperation and higher prices. Kolomoiskyi started to support Zelenskyy and Kvartal as comedians and now keeps backing them as politicians ... The Pandora Papers disclosed that since 2012, an offshore company affiliated to Kolomoiskyi’s 1+1 group at least once paid more than $1 billion to Zelenskyy’s offshore firm SVT from the British Virgin Islands, for the popular TV show “Make a Comedian Laugh” created by Kvartal 95. And Maltext owns half of SVT ... Zelenskyy’s and Kolomoiskyi’s companies made a transaction worth $40 million in 2012. Under the documents, this was “contribution to capital,” or investment, paid by the oligarch to the now-president.
Documentary (enable subtitles): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp0WWZbNGq4
> U.S. investigation of Zelensky's Oligarch
I'm a little confused because neither what you quoted, nor the article you linked to mention Zelensky.
I'm a little confused because neither what you quoted, nor the article you linked to mention Zelensky.
Kolomoisky was a known financier and supporter of Zelensky, especially with the use of his media conglomerate 1+1 media, which was instrumental in Zelensky’s victory.
That being said, after winning the election, Zelensky supposedly successfully silenced Kolomoisky after Kolomoisky made attempts to speak out and started issuing recommendations on how the country should be run. This was something Zelensky did not like, as he saw it undermining his authority. Supposedly the two have maintained a relationship behind closed doors.
That being said, after winning the election, Zelensky supposedly successfully silenced Kolomoisky after Kolomoisky made attempts to speak out and started issuing recommendations on how the country should be run. This was something Zelensky did not like, as he saw it undermining his authority. Supposedly the two have maintained a relationship behind closed doors.
It might help to add Serhiy Shefir to the context too. You'll find plenty mention of Zelensky in the sources below.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-o...
https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-o...
https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...
If all this happened between ‘11 and ‘16, how can it possibly be Zelensky’s Oligarch? He was a comedian at the time I think?
via Pandora Papers:
> Zelenskyy’s and Kolomoiskyi’s companies made a transaction worth $40 million in 2012.
> Zelenskyy’s and Kolomoiskyi’s companies made a transaction worth $40 million in 2012.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Whataboutism?
U.S. regulators have been working for years to close real-estate loopholes used by oligarchs and money launderers. There are lessons here for multiple jurisdictions.
Didn’t Joe Biden pressure the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor who was looking into these corruption allegations?
He pressured them to fire a corrupt prosecutor, with the backing of basically the entire west.
He did the opposite.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fac...
"Despite a recently concluded investigation by Senate Republicans that found no wrongdoing by the Bidens, claims to the contrary have continued to circulate on social media."
He did the opposite.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fac...
"Despite a recently concluded investigation by Senate Republicans that found no wrongdoing by the Bidens, claims to the contrary have continued to circulate on social media."
No. Biden pressured the firing of a prosecutor that was NOT looking into corruption allegations, since terms of U.S. aid included reducing corruption.
You may remember this as a right-wing line about him corruptly helping his son. It was the opposite.
You may remember this as a right-wing line about him corruptly helping his son. It was the opposite.
Yes, but it was because the prosecutor wasn't looking into the corruption allegations:
> It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016. But it wasn't because Shokin was investigating Burisma. It was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians.
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fac...
> It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016. But it wasn't because Shokin was investigating Burisma. It was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians.
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fac...
> donated millions of pounds to the Conservative Party
And somehow none to the liberal party? This kind of bias throws the rest of the article into suspicion.
And somehow none to the liberal party? This kind of bias throws the rest of the article into suspicion.
The Conservative Party have been in power in the UK since 2010. It wouldn't be surprising if those aiming to buy influence focussed their donations on them.
In general it feels like you're trying to extrapolate American politics onto British politics. For example, "liberal" in the UK (and I think most of the world) doesn't mean what it has come to mean in the USA. And the Conservative party at the moment tends to raise more of its money from large donations from wealthy individuals than the main opposition party in the UK [0].
[0] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-w...
In general it feels like you're trying to extrapolate American politics onto British politics. For example, "liberal" in the UK (and I think most of the world) doesn't mean what it has come to mean in the USA. And the Conservative party at the moment tends to raise more of its money from large donations from wealthy individuals than the main opposition party in the UK [0].
[0] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-w...
If foreign billionaires are giving money to the Liberals, it's probably in an attempt to sabotage Labour, for the benefit of the Tories.
[deleted]
Unsurprisingly, they blame conservatives. But the city has been a stronghold of Labour for a very long time. BoJo’s tenure was after this happened.
Mind Gell-Mann Amnesia. Remember last time this outlet covered a subject you know about.
Mind Gell-Mann Amnesia. Remember last time this outlet covered a subject you know about.
The authority of English local government is highly constrained, and very little of what makes London attractive to kleptocrats was put in place by city hall (either under Johnson or his Labour predecessor or successor).
Most of the Russian money in politics is flowing through the Conservative party. They're currently in power, traditionally more wealth friendly, and rely on big-money individual and corporate donors to a greater degree than Labour (who have union funding and also many more members to pay subs). That said, the last Labour government (up to 2010) was also beguiled by rich people, and there are definitely a few Labour backbenchers who have been bought off.
Most of the Russian money in politics is flowing through the Conservative party. They're currently in power, traditionally more wealth friendly, and rely on big-money individual and corporate donors to a greater degree than Labour (who have union funding and also many more members to pay subs). That said, the last Labour government (up to 2010) was also beguiled by rich people, and there are definitely a few Labour backbenchers who have been bought off.
> Putin personally told me of his plan to acquire the Chelsea Football Club in order to increase his influence and raise Russia’s profile, not only with the elite but with ordinary British people.
This does not correlate at all with the polonium and Novichok cases.
This does not correlate at all with the polonium and Novichok cases.
Anyone arriving at an airport in the UK with a Russian accent will be asked the height of Salisbury cathedral. An answer correct to 0.5m will lead to instant arrest.
I live quite close to Salisbury and have no idea apart from "bloody tall", how high the spire thrusts skywards. Apart from anything else we'd generally measure it in feet.
I'd better spell it out: One of the gentlemen accused of poisoning a Russian ex-pat in Salisbury (Hants. UK) claimed that he was a tourist and came to see the cathedral in Salisbury. He quoted the height of it to quite a degree of accuracy as proof of his touristic intentions. He really did not smear novichok on Mr Skripal's door.
I live quite close to Salisbury and have no idea apart from "bloody tall", how high the spire thrusts skywards. Apart from anything else we'd generally measure it in feet.
I'd better spell it out: One of the gentlemen accused of poisoning a Russian ex-pat in Salisbury (Hants. UK) claimed that he was a tourist and came to see the cathedral in Salisbury. He quoted the height of it to quite a degree of accuracy as proof of his touristic intentions. He really did not smear novichok on Mr Skripal's door.
While I agree that the "tourist" excuse was likely bullshit, I suspect someone that recently visited a tourist site would know more about it than someone who lived near it all their life. They just learned about it, how often do you think about it?
And if they had been visiting the spire, which they probably weren't, it's likely they would have gotten information about it in their native language which would use meters.
And if they had been visiting the spire, which they probably weren't, it's likely they would have gotten information about it in their native language which would use meters.
The question would have been asked in immigrations upon their arrival, so it would be before visiting the tourist site.
So any assassin targeting somebody in any other location would be fine, it has nothing to do with the famous case as those people were interviewed after the trip, and now I would be suspect because I read this thread and know it's 123 meters. As an American I'm sure I'd be fine, but it's just a silly entry question.
Lol this is typically something locals don't know yeah. I've also been reluctant to even visit tourist hotspots in the places I've lived. Never felt like waiting an hour in a queue with busloads of Chinese snapping photos and listening to a tour guide with a flag to make sure her herd doesn't lose their way :P Friends visiting me in Amsterdam would be appealed I never saw the Anne Frank House.
It's just not really a fun thing to do in your own town. And to be fair most tourist attractions are hugely overrated.
It's just not really a fun thing to do in your own town. And to be fair most tourist attractions are hugely overrated.
The touristy areas of the world are de facto international property now. Because of rising income across the globe anyone that wants to can “travel”; all that jump in traffic the touristy areas were just not designed to handle.
IMHO the decline started with the jetliner. Before then, who travelled by cruise ship and who by steerage was clearly delineated and a natural cap on overwhelming numbers of tourists.
Salisbury cathedral houses the Magna Carta, and that is why tourists go there. Literally nobody cares about the height of its spire.
The “tallest church” explanation is kind of like of someone saying they buy playboy magazine for the articles. It’s transparently false to the point of absurdity.
The “tallest church” explanation is kind of like of someone saying they buy playboy magazine for the articles. It’s transparently false to the point of absurdity.
> He quoted the height of it to quite a degree of accuracy as proof of his touristic intentions
Doesn't really prove anything. Could just be a really strange individual who memorises statistics. To 3 significant figures doe.
Doesn't really prove anything. Could just be a really strange individual who memorises statistics. To 3 significant figures doe.
Bellingcat identified their real names and the fact that they worked for the GRU... it's not remotely in question whether they were there assassinate Skripal. One of the benefits of a hopelessly corrupt Russian state is that just about every government database is available for sale.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/26/skr...
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/26/skr...
It's possible they were just chemistry hobbyists & afficionados of obscure nerve toxins, and the rest was just an unfortunate accident.
It's 123m and that's an easy number to remember. (404ft).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_church_buildin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_church_buildin...
There's a rounding error there. I recall the interview and I'm pretty sure the height was quoted to 1 decimal place which is pretty mad.
I doubt that very much, could you provide a reference? I also remembered the height of 123m from the original poisoning reports, because it is rather a memorable number.
They said 123m in the interview, at least in the translation. But the point of the released interview was not to refute that they worked for the GRU. It was obvious to everybody. The point of that interview was to spite the West, by making it even more obvious that they were not tourists. Russia does this a lot, they don't even pretend that the stuff they put out is true. It's basically adding insult to injury.
Woke up to my original comment ^ being in gray... what the heck.
It's just an observation of something that doesn't add up.
If one makes an explicit effort to get into Britons' good graces, why would then they do something as exceptionally damaging as those two assasinations? This makes no sense, and the article doesn't address it.
It's just an observation of something that doesn't add up.
If one makes an explicit effort to get into Britons' good graces, why would then they do something as exceptionally damaging as those two assasinations? This makes no sense, and the article doesn't address it.
Why not? Putin has a profile with ordinary Russian people, too -- and yet he has someone murdered, defenestrated, poisoned, discredited, ruined, or jailed without reason literally every single day.
Why would he think he should act differently abroad? Remember: he's a psychopath.
--
Edit: a flagged comment replying to this called this hysterical hyperbole because I used the words "literally" and "psychopath".
In the latter case I understand this to be the assessment of more or less every foreign intelligence service on earth. The flagged comment suggested "sociopath" is better; I do not see evidence of Putin's ability to feel remorse or of his conscience generally. Also, psychopaths are not unusual; up to 3% of the human population could be psychopaths, and the point was not to stress his personal violence, but his remorseless consistency.
In the former case: OK, let's go with "very nearly literally" -- there may be some days where Putin's regime, if not Putin quite directly, does not have someone at least jailed, threatened or ruined for opposing him, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are very few days like this. He runs a regime that threatens every single citizen who opposes him, and he could stop it if he chose. He chooses not to.
Why would he think he should act differently abroad? Remember: he's a psychopath.
--
Edit: a flagged comment replying to this called this hysterical hyperbole because I used the words "literally" and "psychopath".
In the latter case I understand this to be the assessment of more or less every foreign intelligence service on earth. The flagged comment suggested "sociopath" is better; I do not see evidence of Putin's ability to feel remorse or of his conscience generally. Also, psychopaths are not unusual; up to 3% of the human population could be psychopaths, and the point was not to stress his personal violence, but his remorseless consistency.
In the former case: OK, let's go with "very nearly literally" -- there may be some days where Putin's regime, if not Putin quite directly, does not have someone at least jailed, threatened or ruined for opposing him, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are very few days like this. He runs a regime that threatens every single citizen who opposes him, and he could stop it if he chose. He chooses not to.
Don't write replies to flagged or bad comments.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
[deleted]
[deleted]
TBH I don't really understand why it was/they were flagged. It's reasonable to infer I was engaging in hyperbole.
I could have clarified more to avoid provoking a flame war.
So I have clarified more.
I'm a bit surprised that what I have done here is frowned upon when it was an attempt to reach consensus.
I could have clarified more to avoid provoking a flame war.
So I have clarified more.
I'm a bit surprised that what I have done here is frowned upon when it was an attempt to reach consensus.
It's meta and straight up name-calling. Troll comments are not your fault but giving them life and exposure is something the site guidelines specifically ask you not to do.
> The flagged comment suggested "sociopath" is better...
FWIW, enter "sociopath" in Wikipedia and you are redirected to the "Psychopathy" page.
FWIW, enter "sociopath" in Wikipedia and you are redirected to the "Psychopathy" page.
Indeed: I think it is a too fine hair to split, generally.
The colloquial distinction is that sociopaths are still capable of a limited form of remorse.
The past view that Putin was not necessarily a psychopath hinged on the idea that his government was more than just him. For example that other people in his regime might have chosen to use a chemical weapon on British soil, but not necessarily Putin himself, directly.
The Ukraine war totally explodes the myth that Russia's foreign policy is under the control of anyone but Putin.
Either way, the point I was making is not that he is evil or violent, but that there's no reason to believe he would think he should act any differently when having people killed on foreign soil; he's unconstrained by any such deference or restraint.
The colloquial distinction is that sociopaths are still capable of a limited form of remorse.
The past view that Putin was not necessarily a psychopath hinged on the idea that his government was more than just him. For example that other people in his regime might have chosen to use a chemical weapon on British soil, but not necessarily Putin himself, directly.
The Ukraine war totally explodes the myth that Russia's foreign policy is under the control of anyone but Putin.
Either way, the point I was making is not that he is evil or violent, but that there's no reason to believe he would think he should act any differently when having people killed on foreign soil; he's unconstrained by any such deference or restraint.
The rest sounded plausible but this bit doesn't. I think it's just Abramovich's hobby. He's clearly really into it and I don't think Putin gives a damn.
[deleted]