Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[phinds]

That in a righteous world that's where their fortunes would go.

We don't live in a righteous world, we live in a world that is (sometimes) ruled by law. What he is suggesting would be illegal.

 

[PeroK]

We don't live in a righteous world, we live in a world that is (sometimes) ruled by law. What he is suggesting would be illegal.

I don't share your reverence for ill-gotten wealth.

 

[vela]

I don't share your reverence for ill-gotten wealth.

The issue is the governments needs to prove that it was ill-gotten wealth. You really don't want to go down the road of "I don't like these guys, so let's just take their money."

 

[artis]

but not private individuals, unless it can be determined that the private individuals acquired the funds by illicit means. Even so, even a legal procedure would be difficult.

Exactly, we do understand that the folks got their money in ill ways but how do you prove that in a court of law? Unless you can get into Russia and access every criminal paper trail there is I'd say close to zero chances to do it in a legal way.

The issue is the governments needs to prove that it was ill-gotten wealth. You really don't want to go down the road of "I don't like these guys, so let's just take their money."

Exactly, I for one share no illusion as to the source of most of that money, but I can't prove it legally.
Taking someone's money without a legal justification would be a bad precedent for the western system where justice in a court of law is considered among the foundations of a civil society.

I don't think that the only way to win over a corrupt government is to employ the very means which are used by the very government you are trying to win.

Seizing assets without a clear and transparent legal documentation is exactly what is done in Russia to those that have dared to oppose Kremlin.

 

[pinball1970]

The UK government has sanctioned 7 "oligarchs":

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...archs-targeted-in-estimated-15bn-sanction-hit

Yes fairly early doors too. Abramowitz has got involved in peace talks recently. Some say to protect this wealth some say because of his Ukraine links.
Probably a bit of both.

 

[Frabjous]

I was going to quote Balzac, but according to
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/09/09/fortune-crime/
I wasn’t, so I shall not.

 

[PeroK]

The issue is the governments needs to prove that it was ill-gotten wealth. You really don't want to go down the road of "I don't like these guys, so let's just take their money."

Far be it from me to try to shake your faith in the inalienable rights of the fabulously wealthy!

The people's flag is deepest red ...

 

[phinds]

I don't share your reverence for ill-gotten wealth.

I have ZERO reverence for ill-gotten wealth but I have great reverance for the rule of law. It has to be PROVEN that it was ill-gotten even though we are pretty damned sure it was. Are you indifferent to the rule of law?

 

[BWV]

I hope that Russia will go by German way.

seriously? Hitler deliberately took the whole country down with him, basically your stereotypical cult leader mass suicide - that is what you want for Russia? Personally I would vote for Putin to go the way of Mussolini or Quadafi

 

[PeroK]

I have ZERO reverence for ill-gotten wealth but I have great reverance for the rule of law.

In Russia it's against the law to contradict Putin. The laws are often made by those in power to oppress those with no power. Nelson Mandela was tried for treason. In the US it was the law to return escaped slaves to their rightful owners.

Whoever betrayed Anne Frank was acting as the law dictated. Those who hid her were breaking the law.

I could go on.

 

[hutchphd]

Taking someone's money without a legal justification would be a bad precedent for the western system where justice in a court of law is considered among the foundations of a civil society.

I have ZERO reverence for ill-gotten wealth but I have great reverance for the rule of law. It has to be PROVEN that it was ill-gotten even though we are pretty damned sure it was. Are you indifferent to the rule of law?

Somebody should tell local police in much of the US. Monies suspectedof being drug related are siezed until proven not ill-gotten. Works well for the department revenues

 

[wrobel]

STAGGERING optimism.

Oh, I feel I have failed down the exam. And what was the correct answer to your question?

The issue is the governments needs to prove that it was ill-gotten wealth.

If they had wanted they would have proven long ago. But who cares money does not stink.

 

[phinds]

Oh, I feel I have failed down the exam. And what was the correct answer to your question?

Something based in reality would have been good.

If they had wanted they would have proven already. But who cares money does not stink.

I agree, but since it hasn't happened it still has to be proven before the oligarch's money can be permanently confiscated.

 

[phinds]

In Russia it's against the law to contradict Putin. The laws are often made by those in power to oppress those with no power. Nelson Mandela was tried for treason. In the US it was the law to return escaped slaves to their rightful owners.

Whoever betrayed Anne Frank was acting as the law dictated. Those who hid her were breaking the law.

I could go on.

Yes, LOTS of things are against the law that shouldn't be, and yes there are repressive regimes that use "law" as a bludgeon against enemies perceived and real, and yes some US laws are terrible, BUT ... that does not change the fact that what was suggested is illegal in the US and you seem to be supporting it anyway. Would you prefer that we become like Russia and other totalitarian regimes?

 

[artis]

A pilot working for the Antonov company in Ukraine, recently went and filmed his former workplace and the large airfield - "Hostomel" airport in which many of the companies own built and flown planes were kept including the world's largest aircraft AN -225, The video has English translation available so you can follow most of what is said.
Some highlights, well not much , all is beaten and destroyed , most planes damaged beyond repair.
The latter part of video shows a lot of the AN225 wreckage.
This airport was a fierce battle ground at the start of the invasion as the original plan was to capture the airfield and airlift in supplies and troops to help encircle Kyiv, Ukrainians managed to eventually stop this plan and recapture the airfield.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antonov_Airport

 

[anorlunda]

Russian Tankers go dark. That is a headline, reported many places including this:
https://www.voanews.com/a/russian-cargo-ships-spotted-going-dark-to-evade-sanctions-/6505792.html

How do you sanction shipping? Most Russian ships are flagged in Liberia, or the Marshall Islands. Do you identify sanctioned ships by their flag? Ownership? Partial ownership? Nationality of the crew, or some of the crew? Enforcement would be very difficult.

How about sanctioning the cargo, not the ship. Identify tankers stopping at Russian oil export facilities, to fill up. That's where going dark comes into play. It makes it hard to track where ships go.

Even then its a mess. Even EU countries including Poland continue to import Russian crude oil. So do the sanctions say "We import it, but other countries can not?" It's a mess.

The only true way to enforce import/export sanctions is an old fashioned blockade; sinking ships attempting to enter/leave Russian ports. But that surely starts WW III.

Sigh. Reality is so much more difficult than rhetoric.

 

[PeroK]

Would you prefer that we become like Russia and other totalitarian regimes?

One could argue that it's people prepared to break unjust laws that prevent the ultimate rise of totalitarian regimes. Not those who blindly obey.

There would be no US in the first place if your forefathers hadn't initiated a violent rebellion against what they perceived to be unjust colonial rule.

 

[phinds]

Enforcement would be very difficult.

Indeed.

How about sanctioning the cargo, not the ship. Identify tankers stopping at Russian oil export facilities, to fill up. That's where going dark comes into play. It makes it hard to track where ships go.

Actually I think it is technologically feasible to track them using satellites but it would likely be expensive and require repurposing satellites that already are purposed.

Sigh. Reality is so much more difficult than rhetoric.

+1 on that

 

[artis]

One could argue that it's people prepared to break unjust laws that prevent the ultimate rise of totalitarian regimes.

This goes both ways, it's also the beginning of totalitarianism in many cases.
Bolsheviks broke a lot of laws that they thought were "unjust" back in 1917 and before.
Pretty much every fascist ever has claimed to "help" society by breaking "unjust" laws.
Every bloody revolution and coup whether for a better or worse future has at it's core been the breaking of unjust laws. The problem is who decides what is just and unjust?

I know your ignoring me @PeroK for a silly reason but I feel you are doing the same thing you accused @fresh_42 of doing - that is going in circles to support a personal opinion that doesn't necessarily represent true justice but rather your own version of it.

Since Greek times it has been said that "The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind small"

 

[anorlunda]

Somebody should tell local police in much of the US. Monies suspected of being drug related are siezed until proven not ill-gotten. Works well for the department revenues

You're talking about civil asset forfeiture. That is simply legally sanctioned highway robbery. Claims that the money might be drug related are an excuse, not a genuine belief. Under US law, government does not need to prove anything to seize the money. They don't even have to mention suspicions. The owner has to prove it is legitimate money to get it back. That's despicable, but, it is not political suppression or an apt analogy in the debate you're having.

 

[vela]

One could argue that it's people prepared to break unjust laws that prevent the ultimate rise of totalitarian regimes. Not those who blindly obey.

So you're arguing that limiting the power of the government so it can't just seize assets without first proving it's case is an unjust law?

There would be no US in the first place if your forefathers hadn't initiated a violent rebellion against what they perceived to be unjust colonial rule.

Jefferson also wrote that rebellion is a last resort, not a step to be taken lightly. You seem to be arguing that we should abandon the rule of law and the principle of innocent until proven guilty simply because you don't like the oligarchs.

If the case against the oligarchs is so obvious, as @wrobel has suggested, then what's the problem with requiring the government prove its case before seizing their assets?

 

[vela]

I just want to point out that I doubt anyone here is arguing the oligarchs' assets are off-limits, but if we're going to seize them, do it legally, not illegally.

 

[artis]

So you're arguing that limiting the power of the government so it can't just seize assets without first proving it's case is an unjust law?

If anything I can say from my observations that it's typically the totalitarian governments like Russia where seizing private citizen's assets is easy and fast, it is usually in democracies with strong but just courts and laws where seizing assets is a long and complex process. This length and complexity is also the matter that reassures the quality of the process and that justice is done.

If the case against the oligarchs is so obvious, as @wrobel has suggested, then what's the problem with requiring the government prove its case before seizing their assets?

This is the problem, the proof that they are stolen is within Russia. In order to prove this legally one would need to make an investigation, some large part of which would need to be done within Russia with Russian documents. An impossible scenario.
This is to say there even is some trail left for indictment. Either way it would be a slow and painful process that would take years.

 

[pinball1970]

I just want to point out that I doubt anyone here is arguing the oligarchs' assets are off-limits, but if we're going to seize them, do it legally, not illegally.

One poster said we will need them when the time comes so it is best to keep them on side now. Taking their money may not be the best move, threatening to to take it and or freezing it gives us another bargaining chip. The fact Abramowitz is now at the negotiations could be signs of this.

 

[artis]

threatening to to take it and or freezing it gives us another bargaining chip.

It also gives time for them to write off their assets to the "ends of the world"
This in fact was common practice in the former "republics" of USSR in the 90's and early 2000's , whenever some oligarch was tipped off about an investigation into their funds, they just fell sick went to hospital , meanwhile all their property was signed off to countless other persons and mysterious affiliates, in the end they drove a 500k car but were officially dirt poor as a homeless person living under a bridge.

 

[PeroK]

So you're arguing that limiting the power of the government so it can't just seize assets without first proving it's case is an unjust law?

You're conflating two personal opinions of mine. One is about deference to the super-rich. If an ordinary Londoner has their house burgled they'll be lucky to get a phone call from the police. But, when protestors occupied the mansion of an absent (sanctioned) oligarch, suddenly it was the London Police's top priority and about five vans of riot police appeared in minutes.

https://www.reuters.com/world/squatters-occupy-russian-oligarchs-london-mansion-2022-03-14/

There were eight arrests. On the one hand that is the law being upheld. On the other hand, it's a tiny step to an authoritarian state where the police are there to protect and serve the super-rich.

Meanwhile, there was a woman raped and murdered by a serving police officer (who undertook a false arrest in order to abduct her). When a vigil was organised in her memory, the police were sent into aggresively break it up and arrest the organisers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60707646

The people who side with the police in such matters are the ones who would lead us to a totalitarian state. These are just baby steps towards dictatorship, but it's the people who fight this unjust and oppressive policing who ultimately prevent oppression. Not those who say such protests and vigils are unlawful.

 

[wrobel]

If the case against the oligarchs is so obvious, as @wrobel has suggested,

I did not say "obvious". I said that nobody wants it. Because it is more easy and comfortable and profitable to pretend that everything is ok. But if the Western governments had not behaved in such a way in the past we would not be today where we are. The fact that Russians have failed to stop their own criminals does not justify those Western leaders who made business with them.

 

[Bystander]

them, do it legally, not illegally.

"Give them a fair trial, then hang 'em?"

 

[vela]

You're conflating two personal opinions of mine. One is about deference to the super-rich. If an ordinary Londoner has their house burgled they'll be lucky to get a phone call from the police. But, when protestors occupied the mansion of an absent (sanctioned) oligarch, suddenly it was the London Police's top priority and about five vans of riot police appeared in minutes.

https://www.reuters.com/world/squatters-occupy-russian-oligarchs-london-mansion-2022-03-14/

There were eight arrests. On the one hand that is the law being upheld. On the other hand, it's a tiny step to an authoritarian state where the police are there to protect and serve the super-rich.

Meanwhile, there was a woman raped and murdered by a serving police officer (who undertook a false arrest in order to abduct her). When a vigil was organised in her memory, the police were sent into aggresively break it up and arrest the organisers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60707646

The people who side with the police in such matters are the ones who would lead us to a totalitarian state. These are just baby steps towards dictatorship, but it's the people who fight this unjust and oppressive policing who ultimately prevent oppression. Not those who say such protests and vigils are unlawful.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with your claim we should just seize the oligarchs' assets without due process. No one asserted the oligarchs should be left alone because they're wealthy.

I'll note your position is more akin to Putin's and his cronies'. Just ignore the law because it's getting in the way.

 

[PeroK]

I have no idea what any of this has to do with your claim we should just seize the oligarchs' assets without due process.

I wasn't aware I made such a claim.

 

[vela]

I did not say "obvious". I said that nobody wants it. Because it is more easy and comfortable and profitable to pretend that everything is ok. But if the Western governments had not behaved in such a way in the past we would not be today where we are. The fact that Russians have failed to stop their own criminals does not justify those Western leaders who made business with them.

That's a failure of western leadership, but it doesn't justify illegal actions today. If the case could have been made earlier, as you said it could, it can be made now.

 

[vela]

I wasn't aware I made such a claim.

Really? Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but your posts strongly implied it.

Phinds: We don't live in a righteous world, we live in a world that is (sometimes) ruled by law. What he is suggesting would be illegal.

You: I don't share your reverence for ill-gotten wealth.

Me: The issue is the governments needs to prove that it was ill-gotten wealth. You really don't want to go down the road of "I don't like these guys, so let's just take their money."

You: Far be it from me to try to shake your faith in the inalienable rights of the fabulously wealthy!

 

[PeroK]

I wasn't aware I made such a claim.

My claim is this.

1) The law in the UK demands that legal firms check their clients credentials before they represent them. In particular that they check their clients are not engaged in criminal enterprises.

2) Several legal firms have not only failed to do this in respect of certain individuals, but actively had a policy of deliberately NOT investigating because they know they have earned their money illegally.

3) Those firms have then represented those individual and used their legal resources to protect them from investigation and to harrass those who have sought to investigate them.

4) As a result, seven individuals have been "sanctioned" by the UK government.

The assests held by those individuals I have described as ill-gotten gains. I do not respect those individuals just because they have enough money to buy mansion houses in exclusive London and pay for the most expensive legal representatives. The MPS (London Police Service) on the other hand treats those individuals preferentialy and deferentially on account of their wealth and social status.

 

[vela]

My claim is this.

1) The law in the UK demands that legal firms check their clients credentials before they represent them. In particular that they check their clients are not engaged in criminal enterprises.

2) Several legal firms have not only failed to do this in respect of certain individuals, but actively had a policy of deliberately NOT investigating because they know they have earned their money illegally.

3) Those firms have then represented those individual and used their legal resources to protect them from investigation and to harrass those who have sought to investigate them.

4) As a result, seven individuals have been "sanctioned" by the UK government.

The assests held by those individuals I have described as ill-gotten gains. I do not respect those individuals just because they have enough money to buy mansion houses in exclusive London and pay for the most expensive legal representatives. The MPS (London Police Service) on the other hand treats those individuals preferentialy and deferentially on account of their wealth and social status.

I believe this is a classic case of what's called "moving the goalposts."

 

[phinds]

My claim is this.

1) The law in the UK demands that legal firms check their clients credentials before they represent them. In particular that they check their clients are not engaged in criminal enterprises.

2) Several legal firms have not only failed to do this in respect of certain individuals, but actively had a policy of deliberately NOT investigating because they know they have earned their money illegally.

3) Those firms have then represented those individual and used their legal resources to protect them from investigation and to harrass those who have sought to investigate them.

4) As a result, seven individuals have been "sanctioned" by the UK government.

The assests held by those individuals I have described as ill-gotten gains. I do not respect those individuals just because they have enough money to buy mansion houses in exclusive London and pay for the most expensive legal representatives. The MPS (London Police Service) on the other hand treats those individuals preferentialy and deferentially on account of their wealth and social status.

I agree w/ all of that but the fact that there are some bad apples in the London legal community (and if I understand it correctly, very much in the financial and real estate communities as well) still does not warrent our becoming outlaws ourselves.