The truth about legal proceedings initiated by president Nazarbayev’s authorities against the Khrapunovs outside Switzerland

A variety of falsified lawsuits have been brought against the Khrapunov family – Victor, Leila, their son Iliyas and his wife, and their younger son Daniel, in several US cities: Los Angeles, California, San Francisco, California, and New York city, New York, by the city of Almaty and the Republic of Kazakhstan.

In a similar fashion, legal actions were initiated in the UK, Ukraine, Russia, and earlier in Kazakhstan.

The Khapunovs’ faced legal actions in the above countries despite the fact that they are permanent residents of Switzerland. Leila, Victor and their son Daniel have lived in Switzerland since 2007, their daughter Elvira – since 1994, their son Iliyas – since 1998.

Kazakhstan authorities intentionally created the situation with the legal actions against the Khrapunovs after they had failed to quickly achieve success as part of their request for mutual legal assistance which Kazakhstan lodged with the Swiss Justice Department on 20 February 2012.
Following this, Kazakhstan agents switched to bringing lawsuits in other countries, acting on behalf of two entities, the city of Almaty and the Republic of Kazakhstan, between which there is, effectively, no difference.
Because there is a rigid top-down command structure run by president Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan. This kind of actions gives an insight into how unscrupulous are Kazakhstan powers that be, pursuing the sole aim of damaging the Khrapunov family as much as possible.

The city of Almaty initiated its first legal proceedings in the USA, in the federal court of Los Angeles, California, against Victor Khraunov, myself, our son Iliyas and his wife, our daughter Elvira and her husband.
The civil lawsuit was brought by the city of Almaty, which is an absurdity, because the Almaty mayor is appointed by the president Nazarbayev’s decree, i.e., is 100%-controlled by the president.
All of the budget revenue raised by the city of Almaty goes first to the republican budget, and then, based on the decision of the Republic of Kazakhstan represented by the Kazakhstan Finance Ministry, a part of this revenue is transferred to the city of Almaty’s mayor’s office to be spent on purposes designated by the Republic of Kazakhstan President Office and the Kazakhstan Government.
One can therefore claim that there is, effectively, no difference between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the city of Almaty’s lawsuits, this is in fact one entity from the perspective of handling political and financial issues. As the city of Almaty mayor is president Nazarbayev’s political appointee rather than a manager elected by the city of Almaty people, legal actions brought in Los Angeles against Almaty’s ex-mayor and his family resident in the Swiss city of Geneva, are an absurdity obvious to any reasonable person. The right jurisdiction to hear Victor Khrapunov’s case is Switzerland, where he has lived since 2007, rather than California, which he has never been to.

Based on this, the Los Angeles court denied the matter, ruling that this jurisdiction was inappropriate. But the City of Almaty’s attorneys filed a new complaint on 31 July 2017, having succeeded in returning it to the same judge after an appeal.

The second legal proceedings were initiated by the Republic of Kazakhstan in San Fransisco against our son Iliyas Khrapunov and opposition politician Muratbek Ketebayev, Mukhtar Ablyazov’s close associate, on charges of hacking.
This was the second suit brought against Iliyas Khrapunov outside Switzerland, whereas Iliyas lives in Switzerland with his family.
Muratbek Ketebayev, according to media reports, has been granted political asylum in Poland, where he lives.
The defendants’ lawyers challenged the Republic of Kazakhstan’s lawsuit on the grounds that defendants are resident in other countries than the USA.

The third lawsuit, similar to the other two, was brought by the city of Almaty in New York City by the Republic of Kazakhstan’s BTA Bank and the city of Almaty.
The city of Almaty and BTA Bank came up with an idea that Victor Khrapunov and Mukhtar Ablyazov have joined forces, i.e., Ablyazov’s organized criminal group was merged with that of the Khrapunovs for managing their joint property, etc.
At this stage, the legitimacy of the jurisdiction is being considered in New York, as the defendants are resident in other countries than the USA – Switzerland and France.
To sum up, as of 2017, three different instances of the state of New York, i.e., three different courts of the state of New York, were in parallel hearing three different lawsuits against the Khrapunovs and Ablyazov.
All the lawsuits were at this stage focusing solely on the jurisdiction issue.
Up to now, there have been no hearings on the substance of the lawsuits, as the legitimacy of jurisdiction over the Khrapunovs and Ablyazov in the state of New York remained an open question.

In London, one principal legal action and several consequential hearings are currently taking place.
BTA Bank’s strategy at London courts is, in my view, to preclude a final judgement on the substance of the matter. BTA Bank’s attorneys have been initiating several parallel proceedings to have a lien put on the assets as a protective enforcement measure, seeking to deprive the defendant of financial ability to secure judicial protection.

For this purpose, the Kazakhstan party initiates lawsuits seeking to put a lien on the defendants’ assets so as to secure positions which would benefit the claimant in the course of the hearings.
As a result of Kazakhstan’s multiple lawsuits, foreign courts are flooded with a lot of parallel lawsuits against the Khrapunovs and Ablyazov, on which Kazakhstan’s government machinery managed by president Nazarbayev spends a huge quantity of Kazakhstan’s human and financial resources and Kazakhstan taxpayers’ money.

The paradox of the legal actions initiated by the city of Almaty, the Republic of Kazakhstan, and BTA Bank in the USA and UK, is that they require the Khrapunovs attend the hearings to give their testimony, while the Kazakhstan government had Interpol issue an international arrest warrant against Victor Khrapunov, Leila Khrapunov, and Iliyas Khrapunov.
This implies that the Khrapunovs, who live in Switzerland, cannot travel to other countries, of which the charging party, i.e., the city of Almaty, the Republic of Kazakhstan, and BTA Bank, are well aware.
One can very well see the idea behind this: to put them in a situation where they would be susceptible to a mistake and to take advantage of this mistake so as to deprive them of their right to judicial defense.

For instance, if some of them have failed to appear before the court, they could be held in contempt of it.
To provide an example, the attorneys of the Kazakhstan party required that Iliyas Khrapunov appear before the London court. BTA Bank’s attorneys sought to convince the court that this involves no risks for our son Iliyas, suggesting that London is as safe a European city as Geneva. As a result, the London court ruled that Iliyas Khrapunov must appear before the judges.
Iliyas’s attorneys challenged this ruling, providing information that the Kazakhstan government had Interpol issue an international arrest warrant against Iliyas Khrapunov, which BTA Bank withheld from the court. The Appeals Court of London reversed the previous ruling, after it had become known that BTA Bank had misled two judges.

In Ukraine, a criminal case of hacking initiated by Kazakhstan is being heard.

We have no information available about charges that could have been brought in Russia.

Summary

The Kazakhstan government refused to transfer to Swiss jurisdiction the hearings of proceedings initiated by Kazakhstan charging the Khrapunovs with establishing an organized one-family criminal group, because they feared a fair ruling by an impartial Swiss court.
The goal of president Nazarbayev’s law enforcement agencies is not a fair trial, they only seek to bring the largest possible number of lawsuits against the Khrapunovs all over the world, thereby exhausting them financially, stealing their time and robbing them of years of their lives.
My argument stems from profound inconsistencies of Kazakhstan’s actions and Kazakhstan investigating agencies’ loose interpretation of laws as part of legal proceedings which they initiated in various parts of the world against the Khrapunov family on behalf of Kazakhstan.

I will do my best to answer questions logically arising in this context.

1. Why did Kazakhstan need to initiate criminal and civil legal actions against the Khrapunovs in various countries? Why did they not initiate them in the Swiss Confederation which Victor and Leila Khrapunov have never left for the last 10 years?

    

2. If the government of president Nazarbayev, who has for 27 years ruled Kazakhstan single-handedly, has convincing proof for legal actions against the Khrapunovs, why did they not bring charges under criminal cases originally initiated in Kazakhstan in the Swiss jurisdiction? brought against them in Kazakhstan government There can only be one answer. These chaotic legal logistics, with civil lawsuits initiated on behalf of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the city of Almaty in various continents, very clearly show that there is no proof for Kazakhstan’s charges. Because, if Kazakhstan authorities had been sure that there is evidence for bringing these charges, they would have first obtained a Swiss court’s ruling, which they would then have presented anywhere in the world, for example in Los Angeles, San Fransisco, New York, and London, where, as president Nazarbayev’s government assumed, there could be assets in which they are interested and which they would require to be seized.

So, the only reason for all this, it has to be reiterated, is their desire to exhaust the Khrapunovs by involving them in as many court hearings as long as possible and taking as long as possible.

We hope that British and US courts deliver a fair judgement, acknowledging that Switzerland is the appropriate jurisdiction for the Khrapunovs and rejecting Kazakhstan and the city of Almaty’s claims.

It should also be explained why the claimant files different lawsuits, making believe it is either the city of Almaty or the Republic of Kazakhstan that brings them.
The claim that the city of Almaty (or the city of Almaty’s mayor’s office) is a municipal authority independent of the Republic of Kazakhstan government, enables the claimant to file a multitude of lawsuits, formally brought by a number of Kazakhstan authorities.
Hence the Kazakhstan party artificially vilifies the Khrapunovs in various judicial instances.
This also explains why Nazarbayev’s authorities, in trials which they initiate, present Iliyas Khrapunov and Mukhtar Ablyazov as hideous people, who are no better than murderers and are thus to be feared.

In December 2015, the city of Almaty and attorney МЕ Christophe Emonet, Pestalozzi Avocats, on behalf of his Kazakhstani client brought in Switzerland civil lawsuits against 11 members of the Khrapunov family civil lawsuits for an incredibly huge total.
This far-fetched claim is probably explained by the haste to suspend the running of the periods of limitation, which would have long expired had the Kazakhstan party not resorted to subterfuges intended to prolong these periods.

Our position is as follows: the Khrapunov family is prepared to take part in court hearings in Swiss territory.
Therefore, the propaganda launched in Kazakhstan’s Nazarbayev-controlled media reporting distorted news on court trials involving the Khrapunovs, should be called deliberately slanderous and regarded as a way of pressure on public opinion in various countries.
The Kazakhstan propaganda and deliberate distortion of information regarding the ongoing court trials and the Khrapunov’s role in them are meant to benefit the executors of the “sentence” passed by president Nazarbayev himself.
Those obeying dictator Nazarbayev’s will, primarily the Kazakhstan law enforcement agencies, running ahead of the reality, seek to proclaim in media their victories in court trials, which they initiated in foreign lands – the USA, UK, and Switzerland, for the rumors of these victories to reach Nursultan Nazarbayev’s ears.

The Kazakhstan public is thus being misled, with millions upon millions of dollars from Kazakhstan’s from Kazakhstan taxpayers’ pockets spent on these trials for the sake of trials.

It is important to note that US and London court trials have up to now considered only one issue, that of the right jurisdiction for the Khrapunovs. In other words, the above countries’ courts have been considering the issue of whether the city of Almaty and Republic of Kazakhstan’s lawsuits should be admitted to examination.