English court bars jailed Russian tycoon from appealing in Transneft case
MOSCOW, June 5 (Reuters) - The English Court of Appeal has refused jailed Russian tycoon Ziyavudin Magomedov permission to appeal against a decision that threw out his $14 billion lawsuit against Russian oil pipeline monopoly Transneft and other firms, the company said.
Magomedov sued the company and several others at London's High Court, alleging his 2018 arrest on embezzlement charges prompted a Russian state-supported scheme to strip him of his holdings in valuable port operators.
In January, Transneft, as well as U.S. private equity firm TPG (TPG.O), opens new tab and other companies, won their bid to block Magomedov's London lawsuit.
Transneft said late on Wednesday that the English Court of Appeal denied Magomedov permission to appeal the ruling.
"It is clear from the English process that there are massive losses which Mr Magomedov has suffered as a result of wrongdoing against him. He will continue to seek justice and a fair outcome wherever he can," a spokesperson for Magomedov said.
Magomedov once controlled an empire ranging from port logistics to oil and gas through his Summa Group conglomerate, which he founded with his brother Magomed.
But the brothers were arrested on embezzlement and organised crime charges in one of the most high-profile prosecutions of its kind in years.
Magomedov was sentenced to 19 years in jail in 2022. He says the charges against him are unfounded and unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
A Russian media outlet is raided in Azerbaijan's capital as tensions rise between Moscow and Baku
Police in Azerbaijan's capital of Baku searched the offices of Russia's state-funded news outlet Sputnik on Monday, local media reported, as tensions rose between the two countries after the deaths of two ethnic Azerbaijanis during a police raid last week in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg. Azerbaijan's Ministry of Internal Affairs said it was investigating claims that Sputnik Azerbaijan was continuing its work despite having its license revoked in February 2025, media outlets said. Russian diplomatic representatives in Baku went to the Sputnik offices to investigate, said Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of broadcaster RT as well as editor of the state-funded media group Rossiya Segodnya, which operates Sputnik. 'We are unable to reach our Azerbaijan bureau staff by phone after local media announced a 'special security operation' against our staff, which includes Russian citizens,' Simonyan posted on X. 'Representatives from our embassy are attempting to gain access.' The search followed official protests from Baku after Russian police raided the homes of ethnic Azerbaijanis in the Ural Mountains city of Yekaterinburg on Friday. Two brothers, Ziyaddin and Huseyn Safarov, were killed, and several others were seriously injured during the raids, officials said, with nine people detained. Sayfaddin Huseynli, a brother of the two dead Azerbaijanis, told The Associated Press the raids were 'an inhumane, cruel act by Russia against migrants — an act of intimidation.' One of the dead was a Russian citizen and the other held both Russian and Azerbaijani citizenship, Huseynli said. Their bodies were being returned to Azerbaijan on Monday. He earlier told Azerbaijani public broadcaster ITV that the men were beaten and subjected to electric shocks 'without any trial or investigation.' 'The so-called Russian law enforcement agencies broke into houses in the middle of the night, beat and took people away like animals,' he told the broadcaster. Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry said it expected 'that the matter will be investigated and all perpetrators of violence brought to justice as soon as possible.' Russia's Investigative Committee said Monday that one of the deaths was from heart failure. It did not provide details on the second victim, but said a medical examination would be conducted to determine the exact cause of death for both men. It also said the raids were part of an investigation into several murders spanning more than two decades. Officials in Baku responded by canceling a scheduled trip to Moscow by Azerbaijani officials, citing the 'targeted extrajudicial killings and violence against Azerbaijanis on the basis of their nationality' by Russian law enforcement. It also canceled a planned visit to Baku by a Russian deputy prime minister, and the Culture Ministry called off concerts, exhibitions, festivals and performances by Russian state and private institutions. Moscow has maintained a muted response to Azerbaijan's actions. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday he 'sincerely regretted' Baku's decision to cancel the events. He also said Moscow would continue to 'explain the reason and nature' of the Yekaterinburg raids. 'Everything that took place is related to the work of law enforcement agencies, and that cannot and should not be a reason for such a reaction. We are interested in further developing our good relations with Azerbaijan,' he said. Ties between Moscow and Baku have been strained for months. On Dec. 25, 2024, an Azerbaijani passenger jet was hit by fire from the ground as it approached Grozny, the regional capital of the Russian republic of Chechnya, Azerbaijani officials said. It diverted to nearby Kazakhstan, where it crashed while attempting to land, killing 38 of 67 people aboard. Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev said it was shot down over Russia, albeit unintentionally, and rendered uncontrollable by electronic warfare measures amid allegations that Russian air defense systems were trying to fend off a Ukrainian drone strike near Grozny. Aliyev accused Russia of trying to 'hush up' what happened for several days. Russian President Vladimir Putin apologized to Aliyev for what he called a 'tragic incident' but stopped short of acknowledging responsibility. In May, Aliyev declined to attend Russia's Victory Day parade in Moscow. Later that month, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha visited Azerbaijan, signaling closer ties between Baku and Kyiv.
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Now even Labour seems to have understood our courts are out of control
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill has flown rather under the radar of all but a handful of open-borders organisations. But following as it does Shabana Mahmood 's previous showdown with the Sentencing Council over its proposals for two-tier justice, it casts an interesting light not only on the slowly emerging cross-party consensus on regaining political control over Britain's borders, but how to do it: responding to adverse court judgments with primary legislation. The Bill has been tabled because of a recent ruling by the Supreme Court. In February, in its judgment on N3 (ZA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, it ruled against the Government (which had prevailed in both the High Court and Court of Appeal) on the question of whether a child, born to a man who had his citizenship revoked and then restored, was a British national. As so often, the case itself dealt with unusual circumstances: the child ('ZA') was born during the gap in her father's British citizenship. But as also so often, it involved the Supreme Court setting a wider precedent. As the Government's explanatory fact-sheet explains: 'The Supreme Court held that if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful, the initial order will have had no effect and the person will be considered as having continued to be a British citizen.' The sheet adds: 'This means that people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before further avenues of appeal have been exhausted.' It isn't difficult to see the problems here. First, while undoubtedly a nice thing to do for a child, this precedent could be extremely problematic if exercised by an adult litigant deprived of their citizenship on national security grounds: like going to join Islamic State, as did Shamima Begum. Second, it is out of line with existing law and policy in similar areas. A successful asylum appeal, for example, does not automatically grant asylum status; all avenues of appeal by the Government must be exhausted first. But most seriously, the Supreme Court's version of the policy risks making it practically impossible to deprive anyone of their citizenship at all. Why? Because Britain remains committed to the international conventions which prohibit rendering someone 'stateless', i.e. without citizenship. This is why citizenship can only be revoked from dual nationals (indeed, that has been one of the criticisms levelled against it). Thus, the Supreme Court's ruling creates an obvious exploit. In a future case, the Government might lose an initial challenge to a deprivation of citizenship order (DCO), but go on to win on appeal. However, if the plaintiff's initial victory quashed the DCO, they could then renounce their dual nationality – making a new DCO unlawful, even if the Government eventually proved the original was lawful. It's an extremely silly precedent to set and ministers are right to take action. More than that, this is very much the right kind of action. A narrowly targeted Bill is much less liable to being undermined by judicial interpretation than a broader, more eye-catching law, both because it is less open to creative interpretation and because it makes the political will of Parliament extremely clear. For all the legitimate criticism levelled at the judiciary, it's important to keep in mind that under our constitution, they can only move into territory vacated by MPs. Even when they egregiously overstep the mark, as when they interpreted completely out of existence the attorney general's veto in the Freedom of Information Act in the Evans ruling, Parliament could have legislated to put that right – and didn't. Perhaps the single biggest reason to be sceptical that we'll see any sustained pushback against judicial overreach is simply that it would involve MPs doing a lot more work, and perhaps even having to reverse New Labour's comfy cuts to their sitting hours. Given that the new generation seem to think that Commons debates intrude on their diaries, that seems like a long shot.
Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Catastrophic failures led to the 'generational slaughter' of the elderly and vulnerable as Covid 'spread like wildfire' through care homes, inquiry hears
COVID-19 infiltrated care homes and 'spread like wildfire', as government failures led to a 'generational slaughter' of the elderly and vulnerable, an inquiry heard. Care home workers described having to carry out heartbreaking final 'visits' with residents and their loved ones over Zoom due to restrictions, while family members wept as they recalled their ordeals at not being able to say goodbye properly. Frontline workers lamented shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), hospital patients being discharged to them in the middle of the night, and residents feeling frightened and abandoned as the sixth module of the Covid-19 Inquiry opened today looking at challenges faced by the sector. And Alasdair Donaldson, a policy advisor at the British Council who was seconded into Matt Hancock 's Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) at the start of the pandemic, described 'complete chaos' on his arrival in the department in April 2020. In a statement referenced in the inquiry, Mr Donaldson described what went wrong as 'perhaps the greatest Government policy failure of modern times'. He said: 'The civil service I am proud to be part of catastrophically let down the people it was supposed to serve. 'This failure resulted in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of British citizens, including a generational slaughter within care homes, many of those victims dying horrible deaths, often without the solace of their loved ones.' Lady Heather Hallett, who is chairing the years-long probe, admitted the module was likely to be upsetting for many. A 20-minute impact film featuring people involved in adult social care explored how money was 'squandered on equipment and processes that failed', while residents were denied spending their final moments with loved ones due to lockdown rules. One woman, referred to only as Ann from north Wales, was in tears as she recalled what happened to her father, who had dementia. She said: 'We had a few window visits but didn't have the understanding of why we were outside the window. 'He couldn't hear us, he would break his heart. 'He would just cry and cry.' Jacqueline Carey KC, counsel to the inquiry, said there was great concern over the decision to discharge hospital patients to care settings without first testing them for Covid. It came after the Telegraph reported that the office of Professor Sir Chris Whitty, England's chief medical officer, signed off guidance for care homes in England, advising them that they could take patients from hospital who had not even been tested. Ms Carey said: 'It's obvious that there were no easy decisions here, but if you cannot test everyone at the outset, and you don't know for certain yet how the virus transmits … but you know that residents in care homes are much more likely to die if infected, then the importance of good infection control measures becomes all the more crucial.' And she referred to the evidence of an unnamed worker at a care home in Durham, who added: 'Once Covid 19 was in our care home, it spread like wildfire and we could not do anything about it.' Dr Jane Townson, chief executive of the Homecare Association which represents domiciliary providers, said 'before, during and after the pandemic, home-based care was often invisible in policy and debate'. She said guidance for home carers was 'chaotic' and 'changed frequently', and said thousands of people 'became isolated with deteriorating health and no access to essential care'. More than 43,000 people died with Covid in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022. The inquiry has previously focused on topics including Government decision-making, vaccines and procurement since evidential hearings began in 2023. There are at least four further modules to come before the inquiry makes its final conclusions in 2027, at an estimated cost of more than £220 million to the taxpayer. This would make it the most expensive inquiry in British history. Mr Hancock is due to give evidence on Wednesday.
