WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY SIR WILLIAM BROWDER

(TRUK0155)

Until 2005, I was the largest foreign portfolio investor in Russia, with my firm, Hermitage Capital Management. My firm’s strategy involved uncovering and exposing corruption within Russian companies to improve their corporate governance. Due to my work, the Kremlin retaliated by designating me as a threat to national security, expelled me from the country, and subsequently pursued legal action against me in absentia.
In 2007, Russian authorities, in collusion with organized criminals, perpetrated a massive tax fraud of $230 million against Hermitage Capital. When my lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, uncovered the fraud and testified against the officials responsible, he was arrested, tortured, and ultimately beaten to death in Russian custody in 2009.
Alongside my colleagues, we tried to get justice for Sergei. However, it quickly became clear that justice could never be achieved within Russia. As such, I began advocating for the passage of the Magnitsky Act – legislation named after Sergei, that imposes visa bans and asset freezes on individuals involved in human rights abuses and corruption. The Magnitsky Act has since been adopted in 35 countries, including the United Kingdom in 2017, the United States in 2012, Canada in 2017, Australia in 2021, and the European Union in 2020.
As a result of the work that I have engaged in since being expelled from Russia, standing up to the Putin regime, both my colleagues and I have been victims of transnational repression. This has primarily been directed by the Russian government, but also other authoritarian regimes, including the Chinese Communist Party.
This Transnational Repression has taken various forms, including the abuse of international organisations such as INTERPOL, death threats and kidnapping threats, coordinated disinformation campaigns through social media and traditional media, and the misuse of foreign courts through the abuse of libel laws in the United Kingdom.

Death Threats and Kidnapping Threats:

The threats against me have been relentless and have been delivered through a sinister mix of private intimidation and brazen public statements by Russian officials.
These threats have taken many forms. They range from covert warnings through intelligence channels to public declarations by Russian officials and their proxies, broadcast to the world. The Kremlin’s intent has always been clear: to make me feel hunted, to erode my resolve, and to send a message to others that defiance comes at a cost. Below are some of the most striking examples:

In 2013, the Russian Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos. When asked by a group of journalists about the death of Sergei Magnitsky, he replied “it’s too bad that Sergei Magnitsky is dead, and Bill Browder is still alive and free.”
In 2016, a pro-Kremlin Russian nationalist politician, Eduard Limonov, spoke to the pro-Putin news agency Novy Den stating that “the task of our special services is to catch Browder and bring him in a sack to Russia”.[1]
In 2018, following the Salisbury Novichok attack, I discovered that former British spies, working for a private firm, had been hired to track my movements. I feared a potential assassination attempt.[2]
In 2018, at a press conference, standing alongside President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin singled me out, requesting my extradition to Russia.[3]
In January 2020: Before attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, British security services warned me of an imminent threat relayed by Swiss intelligence.

Interpol Abuse:

Due to my efforts to expose Russian state corruption, I have been subjected to repeated retaliatory legal actions from the Russian government and individuals linked to it. The primary method this took form was repeated abuse of INTERPOL’s Red Notice system. On eight occasions, Russian authorities attempted to weaponize INTERPOL against me.
When Russia would issue these arrest warrants and diffusions for me, we would combat it legally. The first notice against me was rejected by INTERPOL, yet Russia was able to continue to send frivolous requests that were in violation of the INTERPOL constitution. By not acting against Russia for the abuse of this system, INTERPOL emboldened this type of behaviour by Russia.
The objectives of the Russian authorities in abusing INTERPOL were to locate my whereabouts, seek my arrest and extradition to Russia, and to impose restrictions on my international travel and basic freedoms.
In May 2013, the Russian government issued its first INTERPOL Red Notice against me, which was rejected by INTERPOL as politically motivated and contrary to its constitution. However, despite this rejection Russia persisted in exploiting INTERPOL’s systems:

July 2013: Russia issued a second Red Notice request, which INTERPOL formally rejected, stating that it could not be used to arrest me
August 2013: Russia submitted a third request, which was met with silence.
June 2014: A fourth Red Notice was issued. It took INTERPOL seven months to reject it.
April 2017: Russia made its fifth attempt, which INTERPOL processed for two months before eventually rejecting.
July 2017: Russian authorities made the sixth request to INTERPOL. It took a further month to dismiss it.
October 2017: A seventh request followed, which was eventually rejected.
April 2018: Russia applied for an eighth time, which was again denied.

The issuance of these Red Notices had a significant impact upon my personal freedoms, forcing me to take precautionary measures when traveling and causing delays, questioning, and temporary detainments at international borders.
An example of this took place on May 30th, 2018, in Spain where police arrested me on a Russian request circulated via INTERPOL channels. I used my Twitter account to post [4] about my ordeal as it was happening, which galvanised action. I was subsequently released after INTERPOL instructed the Spanish authorities that the Russian notice was abusive and contrary to their constitution.
As a result of this abuse of the INTERPOL system, I have to restrict my travel and avoid going to countries that have warm political relations with Russia because if I was arrested and sent to Russia, I would almost certainly be killed.

Disinformation Campaigns:

Throughout my campaign for justice, I have been the target of coordinated Russian disinformation efforts, aimed at discrediting my work and distorting the facts of Sergei Magnitsky’s case. This disinformation takes many forms and include but is not limited to; online smear campaigns (including bot-driven attacks on social media, likely originating in Russia), media reports that utilise fabricated and false information, and propaganda films designed to rewrite history. In this evidence submission, I will address the latter.
Andrei Nekrasov Film:

Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a well-known film producer, produced a pseudo-documentary titled ‘The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes’,[5] to serve the interests of the Russian state and those implicated in the murder of Sergei.
In this film, Nekrasov repeats the lies from the Russian authorities including:

Sergei Magnitsky was not beaten in custody – disproven by Russia’s own Presidential Human Rights Council,[6] forensic evidence,[7] The Council of Europe,[8] and forensic evidence confirmed that he was indeed beaten before his death.
Sergei Magnitsky was not a lawyer - this is a false claim as he represented clients in tax cases, including Hermitage Capital Management in court.
Sergei Magnitsky did not testify against police officers Kuznetsov and Karpov - this is a false claim as Sergei named both officers 30 times in sworn testimony.[9]
There were no independent investigations – this is a false claim. Multiple parliamentary, legal, and international bodies have confirmed the fraud and subsequent cover-up.[10]

This film was utilised by Putin’s associates in the West, in attempts to discredit me across the world. Natalia Veselnitskaya – a Kremlin-linked lawyer who represented Denis Katsyv (whose company paid $6 million to settle a money laundering lawsuit in relation to the stolen $230 million fraud exposed by Sergei Magnitsky), spearheaded lobbying efforts to dismantle the Magnitsky Act and amplify the film’s false narratives. She was later indicted for obstruction of justice in 2019 by the US Department of Justice.[11]
The film was due to be screened in the European Parliament on the 26th April 2016, but was ultimately blocked following complaints by the Magnitsky family. Sadly, the film was shown in the US at a private screening at the Newseum on the 13th June 2016. This private screening was a direct attempt to discredit my campaign and Sergei’s legacy, to lawmakers and their aides and was organised and paid for by Veselnitskaya.
While this film was not shown in the UK, it is available online and is used as a constant source of disinformation against me and my campaign.

Disinformation presents a very real threat to the safety and wellbeing of critics of authoritarian regimes, whistleblowers, and more. Tackling disinformation must be a priority for the Government.

Politically Motivated Criminal Cases:

In December 2023 I was falsely named as a "co-conspirator" in the politically motivated trial of Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong. Alongside me, others were similarly accused, including Benedict Rogers (Founder of Hong Kong Watch), James Cunningham (former U.S. Consul General in Hong Kong), and Luke de Pulford (Executive Director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, IPAC). The Chinese authorities alleged that we were part of a so-called global conspiracy to advocate for sanctions against China—an accusation wholly without merit.[12]
These claims are not only false but also absurd. I have never spoken with nor met Jimmy Lai. This blatant attempt by the CCP to criminalize legitimate human rights advocacy is part of a wider strategy to silence dissent, intimidate activists, and deter international engagement on Hong Kong’s worsening human rights situation.
In the weeks following these accusations, unidentified individuals were observed surveying my offices. They took photographs of my staff and the premises, raising serious security concerns. When confronted by building security, these individuals claimed to be "fans" of mine, before making a swift exit.
This incident was not random—it was a clear act of intimidation, designed to send a message not just to me, but to my colleagues and to others engaged in human rights advocacy. This kind of harassment is part of a growing pattern of foreign authoritarian powers exporting their repression to democratic countries, including the UK.

SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation):

I have been faced with SLAPP lawsuits on numerous occasions. SLAPPs (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) are lawsuits focused on libelous action, that prevents whistleblowers and journalists from reporting on crimes being committed by kleptocrats and oligarchs in the UK. They are utilised as a method of silencing and intimidating individuals who threaten the interests of corrupt and malign actors.
A particularly egregious case was filed against me by Pavel Karpov, a Russian ex-police officer sanctioned under the UK Magnitsky Act for his role in Sergei Magnitsky’s case. This case was brought against me as a way of countering my actions, exposing the role of Mr. Karpov and others in Sergei’s case.[13]
Karpov filed his lawsuit in July 2011 and was struck out by the British court as an abuse in 2013.[14]
This case illustrates several key aspects of Transnational Repression including:

Legal Harassment: This case exemplifies the use of lawfare (abuse of legal systems) to target human rights defenders and those exposing corruption. Karpov’s defamation claim was designed to silence criticism and undermine the Magnitsky justice campaign.
Extra-territorial Reach: While the court dismissed the case, the fact that a Russian official sought to use the UK legal system to silence criticism highlights the extra-territorial reach of repressive regimes.
Impact on Freedom of Expression: SLAPPs, even if unsuccessful, can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and discourage individuals from speaking out against corruption and human rights abuses.
Abuse of Legal System: This case highlights how individuals complicit in human rights abuses and corruption in a different country, can attempt to manipulate legal systems in other countries to silence their critics.

From the outset, this case was riddled with red flags. The most glaring was the complete lack of transparency regarding its financial backers. Despite Karpov having an annual salary of approximately $15,000, he was able to hire Geraldine Proudler of the law firm Olswang, who charged approximately $900 per hour for her time. Karpov also hired Andrew Caldecott KC, considered to be one of the top libel barristers in the UK, who charged approximately $1300 per hour.[15]
After the case was dismissed, Karpov was ordered to pay my legal fees, totalling £660,000. However, he failed to do so, leading to an arrest warrant being issued against him. To this day, the fees remain unpaid, and Karpov has never been arrested.

Recommendations:

To address the growing threats of transnational repression to individuals in the UK, I recommend the following policies and measures.
I recommend that the Government introduce a new position of ‘Special Envoy for Transnational Threats and Protection’. This individual would act as a point of contact for individuals facing threats from foreign regimes in the UK. This position would be mandated to coordinate outreach to various government agencies and offer support to those individuals at risk of transnational repression.
To combat INTERPOL abuse and help victims, I recommend the following measures:

Currently there is no requirement for INTERPOL to alert people at risk of politically motivated reprisals by foreign governments of a notice being issued against them. The Government should make it a policy, where the NCA (who operate the UK INTERPOL system) alert individuals who have been targeted with politically motivated Red Notices and diffusions. Such a policy would enable victims of political repression to take precautionary measures and seek the necessary support. In the absence of a policy such as this, these notices keep victims vulnerable to ongoing threats of arbitrary arrest and detention during their international travel and effectively serve the desired intent of repressive regimes of intimidating their critics.
Once the UK authorities, including the NCA, become aware of the intended or actual politically motivated notice or diffusion targeting a British citizen, they should be mandated to advocate on behalf of the citizen, to the INTERPOL General Secretary and communicate bilaterally with national bureaus of INTERPOL member states, to alert them of the political nature of such notices, requesting that they are pre-emptively blocked or deleted from their databases.

To combat the use of SLAPPs, I believe that heavy financial penalties for the lawyers and law firms who knowingly bring SLAPP cases are necessary as a form of compensation and deterrent.[16]

(Feb 2025)