Thread by @ClimateAudit

George Kent, the supposed anti-corruption specialist, repeatedly blamed corrupt Ukrainian prosecutors for "shutting criminal case" under which Zlochevsky assets were frozen in UK. Neither Kent (nor Republican lawyer) seems to have read actual UK judgment antac.org.ua/wp-content/upl…

2/ in fact, the UK case was lost because of poor performance (verging on misconduct) by failure of UK prosecutors to present exculpatory information in the ex parte hearing at which Zlo assets were frozen - issues that also arise in FISA and Flynn controversies.

3/ the UK decision, like many British legal decisions, is luminously written, so lucid and well written that I urge interested readers to consult it directly antac.org.ua/wp-content/upl… rather than settle for my precis of highlights below.

4/ the bottom line, though, is not the rights or wrongs of the UK decision, but Kent's apparent and incompetnt ignorance of the decision and how this ignorance impacted US policy on the Ukrainian prosecutor office.

5/ as a caveat, I don't doubt that there is an incomprehensible amount of corruption in Ukraine. Only that the UK decision wasn't "lost" because of Ukrainian corruption.

6/ Zlochevsky assets were frozen on April 14 through an ex parte application. The judge noted that such applications require a "duty of candour that goes beyond an obligation not to misrepresent". The legal reasoning is common law relevant to FISA and Flynn.

7/ The defense repeatedly asked for full disclosure of exculpatory information. The prosecution, on each occasion and up to the second day of hearings (Dec 4), denied that any such information existed - refusals all too familiar to SidneyPowell.

8/ However, on Dec 5, prosecutor Kinnear reported there were “a small number of documents that should have been disclosed” and which were then disclosed. The prosecution chose “not to oppose” application to set aside the ex parte order, but instead demanded fresh freezing order

9/ the withheld exculpatory documents were primarily documents obtained by prosecutors from bank (BNP) which undercut their allegation that the funds arose from money laundering.

10/ in the original ex parte hearing, the prosecutor also relied heavily on an alleged failure of Zlo to disclose a $4 million dividend in his taxes, which they submitted as evidence of dishonesty and need for ex parte disposition

11/ Zlo lawyers pointed out that prosecutor failed to distinguish between date of resolution awarding the dividend and date on which it was received; and tht dividend payment had been properly reported in year in which it was received and included in taxable income, thus refuting

12/ there are many other details lucidly reported in decision.

12/ the judge concluded that there had been "significant failure of disclosure of relevant documents" and that a "serious error of judgement" had been made by prosecution

13/ the judge also concluded that the prosecutors had provided "inaccurate information" about the dividend (without imputing bad faith) which went directly to deprecate the "credibility and honesty" of defendant

13/ the judge also found that the prosecutors had failed to show that Zlo "assets were unlawfully acquired as a result of misconduct in public office", noting that he was already wealthy prior to entering public office, citing a report by reputable independent business consultant

13/ the judge concluded that there had been "significant failure of disclosure of relevant documents" and that a "serious error of judgement" had been made by prosecution

14/ the judge also found that the prosecutors had failed to show that Zlo "assets were unlawfully acquired as a result of misconduct in public office", noting that he was already wealthy prior to entering public office, citing a report by reputable independent business consultant

14/ due to the withholding of exculpatory information and false information on dividend, the judge set aside original order, but also found that these actions, while unfair, were not so malign as to prevent reconsideration, which he then carried out.

15/ Zlo provided explanation of how money had arisen (through sale of property). While the judge viewed the complex web of foreign companies as suspicious, he found that prosecutors had failed to show that the transactions were not legitimate and thus refused to grant new freeze

16/ in late Dec 2014, Shokin, then Deputy Prosector General, was asked to get involved. Rather than shutting case, he sent notice to Zlo of suspicion under case 805 and obtained ex parte decision in Ukraine to seize funds

17/ judge pointed out that Ukrainian charges under 805 assumed that UK investigation established money laundering and bribe by Zlo and illegal mineral permits, when actual UK evidence "established nothing of the sort". Judge concluded that Ukraine "misunderstood" ex parte order

18/ earlier in his reasoning (and I should have discussed this upthread), the UK judge considered a Dec 2 letter from Ukr Prosecutor General on which the US embassy and others blamed the failure of their case and which Kent believed to be product of bribe

19/ according to Dec 2 letter, as of that date, Ukr prosecutor's office had not sent notice to Zlo that he was a suspect - a stage required under Ukr law - in any of five listed cases. Letter is online blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/lesche…
blog.img.pravda.com/images/doc/5/2…
Rough translation below.

20/ this appears to be letter which Kent (falsely) testified had been signed on Dec 25 and provided to UK judge "before FBI and Serious Crimes Office could react". To contrary, letter provided by Dec 2, prior to three days of hearing.

21/ over and over, Kent said that he called for an investigation into which prosecutor had signed the letter which had supposedly "shut" the case. It's not hard to find out - the letter has been on the internet for years
blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/lesche… - how could Kent not know?

22/ bottom line: there's lots of evidence of corruption in Ukraine. However, Kent appears to be an incompetent buffoon who is astoundingly uninformed on details of the cases on which he is pontificating.

23/ other important aspect of Zlochevsky case comes in 2016 and I'll discuss on another occasion: Shokin obtained seizure Zlochevsky's assets on Feb 2, 2016, two weeks before Shokin required to resign. Claims in US media that investigation was dead are bogus

24/ after Shokin's forced resignation, Democrat fixers (Karen Tramontano, former Bill Clinton deputy chief of staff, and Sally Painter of Blue Star Strategies) and former Obama DOJ official John Buretta, using Hunter's name, settled Zlo investigations in final days of Obama admin

25/ it was malpractice for Republican lawyers and congressmen to neglect this line of questioning. If Kent thought that settlement of UK case re Zlo was criminal, then why didn't he urge investigation of Dem fixers?