Delyan Peevski is making serious efforts to disconnect from sanctions under the global Magnitsky Act. This is clear from the latest court documents on the case, filed by the State Enterprise, as Chief Prosecutor Ivan Geshev called it, in a U.S. federal court in Washington. BIRD got acquainted and analyzed the latest exchange of securities in the United States.
First of all, Peevski complains about how he was subjected to “draconian punishment”” since June 2, 2021 (for almost two years now). It is also clear that he has repeatedly He insisted on a meeting. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), but was denied each time. However, we express Serious doubtsthat the Corpulent would have mustered the courage to go to such a “meeting with the dragon” even if OFAC had agreed. Moreover, the Americans point out that they would agree to such a meeting only on one condition – Peevski to withdraw his claim. Of course, neither one happens, nor the other. American law actually lacks an obligation for OFAC to meet with sanctioned individuals, their lawyers, lobbyists, etc.
Peevski’s high-priced defense actually relies on several arguments:
- Peevski is not a representative of the executive power – neither current nor former
- If the US undoubtedly has the power to sanction such representatives, it does not have the right to broadly sanction “private individuals” (as Peevski supposedly was) – or “just one MP” (according to Borisov).
- The US government has provided evidence to Peevski why he was sanctioned, but the document is full of deletions and deletions. That is, Peevski is still unclear why he was sanctioned, which violated his right to protection.
We will dwell in more detail on the defensive Peevska tactics, starting backwards. In fact, it turns out that Full version of the unredacted evidence was made available only to the trial judge. Peevski complains about this, arguing that since he has not been provided, the judge has no right to rely on them when making judgments, orders, etc. in the case. This is a bit of a strange logic, but we have yet to see how it will be perceived by the court. As a fallback, the DP argues that the court can order declassification of the evidence so that he can also get acquainted with them and adapt his defense strategy accordingly. Go live, see it – as they say in Dubai.
Next, the DP claims that it is not and has not been part of the executive branch. Naturally he conveniently misses the fact that in 2013 he was head of DANS – albeit briefly. And SANS, obviously and undoubtedly, is part of the executive power. But let’s drive on the syllabus. The main claim of the DP is that the sanctions regime ofe can be interpreted broadly – that is, it can be applied only to representatives of the executive, but not of the legislature, whose representative he has been without interruption for 15 years. And on even less grounds, it could be applied to a private person (?!), as he supposedly was in 2021. What We do not understand, except in the sense of the largest “privateer” in our country – i.e. Owner of the largest part of the state. But, as they say, semantics. The central problem of the DP, however, is that there is no American case law to support its claims and its intentions. His American lawyers have attempted to deduce such a practice by analogy, including citing decisions in criminal cases. However, the present case is inherently administrative, so that — nerde Yambol, nerde Istanbul, nerde Dubai (so to speak).
Case law is not on DP’s side
On the other hand, however, there is case law to the detriment of DP – i.e. a case led by a sanctioned Latvian oligarch in the US, which, however, does not end in his favor. Who does not believe (for example, DP spokesman – DPS MP Yordan Tsonev, known by his nickname “Dancho Mintata”), let him see for himself – here he is Case. Latvian Aivars Lembergs loses the case. And that’s not all – his native Latvia quickly adopted legislation that de facto nationalizes his business empire, lest it (along with parts of the Latvian financial system) fall under the blows of Magnitsky. Moreover, he is also facing a corruption case in Latvia, which in 2021 ends with a conviction. sentence. Of course, in our country such things are unthinkable – a huge part of the Bulgarian MPs (and not only those in the MRF) are on the personal report of the Enterprise, on the one hand. While on the other hand, The Instrument-of-God Protects It from all judicial troubles — and will guard it until the second coming, no doubt. But that’s another (huge) topic. For dessert, we will only add that the sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska also
a similar case in 2022, including at the level of the Court of Appeal. Which means game over, as long as in the US (unlike Bulgaria), this category of cases does not go to the Supreme Court.
In general, two main directions are visible in the “defense” of DP in the US. On the one hand, Peevski is irritated and openly dissatisfiedthat OFAC has given publicity to the refusal (decreed at the end of 2022) to remove it from the sanctions list. This, you see, had to remain confidential. This irritability is in fact easily explained given the fact that this refusal (and the reasons for it) were irrigated in the Bulgarian media, for example
here and here
. On the other hand, however, Peevski’s push to get to the unedited version of the evidence can be seen, which is also easy to explain. As far as he firmly believes that he is “framed” by local “enemies-of-the-people” he is very keen to understand who they are in order to be able to to direct all the malice and power of his wards the prosecution (and not only) against these sources of the American state.
The gesheftoura as a “lawyer” and a lethal bat
And if anyone doubts this regard, it is enough to give just two examples. Recently, the prosecutor’s office conveniently “found” cocaine in the home of a man who helped give cocaine
abroad against Peevski, Geshev, the Euro and other characters (which we will not name for now). To date this man is in custody and will stay there as long as Peevski says. As for the prosecutor’s practice
to initiate detention-sub-custody cases at midnight before (previously known) judges on duty in the SCC we will comment some other time… Suffice it to say that this was exactly the case in the already closed Special Prosecutor’s Office.
The second example is from the more distant past, when a lawyer in Sofia was accused
of testifying in the RICO case, led in the United States against Peevski, Tseko Minev, FIB and BNB. Although this was another PIK defamation, the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office kept the man in custody and ultimately physically killed him
. How, you ask? Well, here’s how – in custody the man developed cancer, then Special Prosecutor Natalia Stancheva banned him from traveling to France, where she could receive the only possible life-saving treatment. All this by corpulent order. Soon after, the prosecutor was promoted (also by corpulent order). Natalia Stancheva, however, cannot be sued for her actions, much less the ubiquitous State Enterprise. Someday the prosecution will pay the price for this blatant crime – only it will pay it from its budget, i.e. from our pockets. Let’s repeat – in order to silence people whom Peevski perceives as enemies, the prosecution is ready to do anything, including killing. And not figuratively. This can happen today, even though Spezza is already closed. Because the footage is still the same.
BIRD will continue to follow developments in the U.S. and inform its readers. One thing, however, is certain when one reads between the lines of the case — The American state begins to be tangibly irritated by the pork stubbornness and insolence of the State Enterprise, by which he attempts to impute judicial review where there is none by law and cannot be. And he’s trying to get away from Magnitsky. That is why we would not be surprised – and there are already certain indicia in this direction – if DP befalls him and others, how can we say, good things on the other side of the Ocean. Exactly what – will probably soon become clear.
Щом сте стигнали дотук, вероятно вече си задавате въпроса как се финансира този журналистически проект.
Отговорът е: Финансира се от журналистическо чекмедже, в което читателите оставят по нещо, ако им е харесало съдържанието.
Чекирайте се и Вие!
При възможност, станете наш редовен спомоществовател с опцията Чекирай Редовно. Това ни помага да предвиждаме бъдещи разходи и да планираме дейността си за месеци напред.
БРРД Ежемесечно / BIRD Monthly
БРРД Eднократно 2023 / BIRD One time 2023
Account owner: Assoc. DRJI
Owner address: 16 bvd. Saint Germain, 75005 Paris
IBAN: FR76 1820 6002 0665 0617 8570 619