22 October 2018
Moscow: 15:30
London: 13:30

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

 

PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS

11.04.2018

Embassy comment in relation to the inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichny

On 10 April 2018, the inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichny, the Russian businessman who died in 2012 near London, have resumed after a long break. It is not a coincidence that this event is synchronized with a large-scale anti-Russian provocation by the British government, baselessly accusing Russia of the "attempt on lives" of two Russian nationals: Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

The methods of engagement of British authorities in the investigation of the inquest into the death of A.Perepilichny are based on the same blunt and bad-faith approach of the British government and secret services, as we have seen in the investigations of the deaths of A.Litvinenko, B.Berezovsky, N.Glushkov and the Skripals case.

As with the mentioned high-profile cases, in 2016 the British government officially closed access to special services’ documents associated with the case, as well as all materials related to their contacts with
A.Perepilichny, thus gaining control over the ongoing investigation. Such a withdrawal of important information related to the case from the legal domain, de facto hinders an impartial investigation. Instead, groundless versions and outright misinformation are being thrown-in. Witnesses and interested parties, who are, in one way or another, connected with the British secret services, are introduced into the inquest.

Interested persons is an issue worth further details. The representatives of W.Browder’s “Hermitage Capital Management” fund, included in the investigation as an interested person, have been challenging the results of the post-mortem examinations made by the Home Office, which did not find any involvement of a third party or a foul play in A.Perepilichny’s death. They tried to discredit Mr Perepilichny’s widow (by throwing in the theory of a poisoned sorrel soup) and even the police, who were all initially interested persons in the inquest.

Moreover, precisely the representatives of Mr Browder’s fund pressed the theory of A.Perepilichny having been poisoned by Gelsemium on the basis of a new test that was conducted upon their initiative by an expert of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which gave rise to new insinuations against Russia.

On 10 April 2018, that same expert testified in court saying that she could not confirm the presence of Gelsemium after the second test.

According to witness testimonies voiced in Court, there is documented confirmation of Mr Browder’s relation to the MI6 and the CIA. In addition, there is no doubt in his motive for misleading the investigation: William Felix Browder has been sentenced in absentia by a Russian Court for committing serious financial crimes, his culpability was fully proved. The merger of the interests of an international criminal with the interests of the British government for the sake of further escalating the anti-Russian rhetoric by means of provocations against Russian nationals who reside in the UK and are dependent on the British secret services, is nothing but deplorable.

All these circumstances around the inquest into the death of A.Perepilichny and the foot-dragging since 2012 clearly indicate that British authorities want to get the most out of this in order to promote the idea of another “Russian connection” in the case of yet another Russian citizen murdered on the British soil.

The classification (“public interest immunity”) by the British government of the materials directly related to such high-profile cases, along with flooding the courts, the public and foreign partners with false information presented as indisputable “facts”, creates legal nihilism, fake news mayhem, and compromises the work of the police and judicial authorities. It also impedes impartial investigations of deaths of our nationals (we cannot rule out a possibility of the British secret services’ hand). All this is being driven by political interests of London in an attempt to delegitimize Russia, as well as by interests of fugitive criminals living in the UK.

The British political motives are easy to predict, and the tools of the British government, which include the derailing of an impartial investigation and classification of documents, have been revealed a long time ago, and is no longer news. All this causes grave concern given yet another sequence of crimes against our fellow citizens in the UK. 




LATEST EVENTS

15.10.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the ties between “Bellingcat” and secret services

Question: Russian officials claim that “Bellingcat” is connected to intelligence agencies of the Western countries, but do not present any evidence of such ties. Doesn’t such approach contradict Russia’s position on the Salisbury incident, the MH-17 catastrophe and other notable cases, where the Russian government is continuously demanding to publish proofs of accusations? Answer: There is no contradiction. The fact that “Bellingcat” is affiliated to the intelligence services is obvious considering the whole range of relevant circumstances: date of its foundation (several days prior to the MH-17 catastrophe), nature of published information (which combines signs of intelligence data and highly professional fakes), its orientation (always anti-Russian), timeline of publications (each time at the best moment from the point of view of interests of NATO countries), biography of its leader (Elliot Higgins suddenly turned from a PC gamer into an “icon of independent journalism), non-transparency of its internal structure and financing. If “Bellingcat” can provide any other plausible explanation for such combination of facts, it should be presented to the public.


15.10.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the British government calls to step up anti-Russian sanctions

Question: How would you comment on the news that the British government has been lobbying a new EU sanctions regime against Russian nationals allegedly involved in use of chemical weapons and cyber-attacks in Europe? Answer: We have taken note of the respective statement by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt of 14 October and the relevant media reports. These suggest that, faced with an imminent Brexit, the British government makes every effort to step up the sanctions pressure on Russia and to complicate as much as possible Russia-EU relations after Brexit.


13.10.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the investigation of the death of Nikolay Glushkov

Q.: 12 October marks seven months since the death of Nikolay Glushkov. Does the Embassy have any new information on this case? A.: Unfortunately, once again we have to state that the British side continues to evade any sort of cooperation with Russia with regard to the investigation of the death of former Deputy Director General of “Aeroflot” Mr Glushkov that occurred on British soil on 12 March. The British authorities continue to ignore numerous Russian requests, including the official request of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation for legal assistance in the criminal case opened in Russia into the Nikolay Glushkov’s death. There are no answers to the Embassy’s proposals to arrange a meeting or consultations between the Investigative Committee, Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation experts and the Metropolitan Police representatives.


12.10.2018 - Ambassador Yakovenko’s introductory remarks at the press-conference on 12 October 2018

Ladies and gentlemen, In recent weeks we have received a number of media requests concerning the current state of bilateral affairs between Russia and the United Kingdom. I am also often asked how numerous anti-Russian statements by the British officials influence our approach towards the UK. Considering this, I have decided to invite you today to make respective short comments on these issues and answer your additional questions. Currently the relations between Russia and the UK are at a very low level. The reason for that lies in an aggressive anti-Ru ssian campaign launched by the current Tory government and supported by the British media.


09.10.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the new Bellingcat’s investigation

Question: How would you comment on Bellingcat’s claims that it has “tracked down Alexander Petrov’s real identity”? Answer: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has recently advised us to consider such publications and statements as a display of freedom of public debate into which the UK Government does not interfere. There have already been reports that the Home Office and Metropolitan Police would not comment on these “speculations”. This is exactly the case when we should follow the example of our British colleagues.


08.10.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the UK authorities’ reaction to Russia’s official requests following recent flagrant media publications

Question: The Embassy declared its intent to request clarifications from the British side following the recent accusations of cyberattacks, and the media reports on preparations for retaliatory cyberstrikes against targets in Russia. Has there been any response? Answer: Today we have received a reply from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which implies that, as before, the British side is not going to provide us with any details that may serve as the basis of the accusations. In this case, we are not in a position to make comments on the essence of those accusations.


05.10.2018 - Embassy comment on another groundless British accusation against Russia

On 4 October, UK Permanent Representative to OPCW Peter Wilson speaking on behalf of Minister for Europe Sir Alan Duncan claimed that the “GRU” allegedly “attempted to compromise UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office computer systems via a spear phishing attack” and “targeted computers of the UK Defence and Science Technology Laboratory”. The same day the UK National Cyber Security Centre stated that “multiple email accounts belonging to a small UK-based TV station were accessed and content stolen” and “the GRU was almost certainly responsible”.Today, the Embassy has forwarded a Note Verbale to the FCO demanding that the UK Government produces and immediately shares with the Russian side hard evidence and proofs supporting those claims, and informs about sources used to draw such conclusions. We have reminded, in particular, that Russia had repeatedly proposed expert consultations on cybersecurity in order to address UK’s concerns, if any.


04.10.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the BBC journalist Mark Urban’s book on Sergei Skripal

Q.: How would you comment on the Mark Urban’s book on Sergei Skripal published on 4 October? A.: We intend yet to study this book. At the same time, it is a well known fact that Mark Urban has close links with British secret services. This gives us grounds for considering this book as an attempt to compensate for Sergei Skripal’s public non-appearance as the key witness to the Salisbury incident. Instead of facts, the public is again offered speculation and guesses.


04.10.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the recent anti-Russian statement by the Foreign Office

Question: How would you comment on today’s statement by the Foreign Office accusing Russia of worldwide cyber-attacks on massive scale? Answer: This statement is reckless. It has become a tradition for such claims to lack any evidence. It is yet another element of the anti-Russian campaign by the UK Government.


03.10.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question on INF Treaty

Question: How would you comment on the latest statements by US officials on Russia’s alleged non-compliance with INF Treaty? Answer: Russia has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty). The US allegations of Russian non-compliance relate to one particular missile type. While we have assured Washington on multiple occasions that the mentioned missile does not violate INF, the US has never explained the exact reasons of their preoccupation. These allegations divert attention from the American actions that are breaching a number of INF provisions.



all messages