The New False Charges Against Mark Seidenfeld

formal-indictment-as-of-march-30-2007-english.doc           

             The Kazakhstan Financial Police are now requesting that Mark Seidenfeld be tried on two new false charges that are substantially different from the original false charge for which Mark Seidenfeld was arrested in Russia in December 2005 and deported to Kazakhstan in November 2006.

 

            The two new false charges are set forth in the attached formal accusation of Mark Seidenfeld which was signed and dated by Senior Detective M. Ilyakov of the Financial Police as of March 30, 2007 and by the First Deputy Prosecutor of the City of Almaty, N.M. Abdirov.

 

            The first new false accusation against Mark Seidenfeld depends on an expert opinion obtained by the Financial Police, dated March 25, 2007. The expert opinion indicates that Mark Seidenfeld entered into two contracts with a company called TOO “Firma Tyan-Shan” dated November 15, 2002 and December 3, 2002 for OAO “Arna” to acquire certain pieces of equipment for the prices of 3,132,000 Tenge and 2,958,000 Tenge, respectively.  The value of the equipment was allegedly 3,132,923.8 Tenge and 2,287,488 Tenge, respectively. The accusation is that, accordingly, Mark Seidenfeld must have retained the difference, 669,580 Tenge, for himself.

 

            There are a number of glaring holes in this accusation. First, the difference cited by the alleged expert is apparently attributable in fact to the application of VAT (value added tax) to the purchase of the equipment, and the VAT was also paid in cash. Second, there was no market in Kazakhstan in November 2002 for the equipment in question about which any expert found by the Financial Police in March 2007 could have any expert knowledge. The equipment in question was a highly specialized computer card for a calling card system that Mark Seidenfeld was creating for OAO “Arna”. There was no analogous calling card service being offered by any telecommunications company in Almaty comparable to the service for which Mark Seidenfeld acquired the piece of equipment. Third, the expert report on this purchase appears to be based on a list price for such equipment for delivery of specialized equipment inside the USA, and excludes acquisition and shipping costs to bring the equipment to Kazakhstan where the piece of equipment was purchased from TOO “Firma Tyan-Shan” by Mark Seidenfeld for OAO “Arna”. Fourth, the accusation also disregards the profit that from TOO “Firma Tyan-Shan” would have earned on the transaction.

 

            The second new false accusation against Mark Seidenfeld has to do with a purchase of a different piece of equipment on January 23, 2003. In this instance, it is alleged that Mark Seidenfeld requisitioned 2,691,200 Tenge on January 23, 2003 and bought a piece of equipment again from TOO “Firma Tyan-Shan”. He returned to the accounting department of OAO “Arna” a receipt signed by the Director of TOO “Firma Tyan-Shan”, Mr. B. Seidaliev, and an act of transfer and receipt for the purchase of a piece of equipment.

 

            In this instance, the Financial Police cite an second expert opinion dated March 16, 2007 to the effect that the signature of Mr. B. Seidaliev must have been forged by Mark Seidenfeld. It is alleged that Mark Seidenfeld must have retained the 2,691,200 Tenge in question. There is no evidence cited to support the bald accusation that the transaction must not have occurred and the cash must have been stolen. The fixed assets records of OAO “Arna” and its official inventory show that OAO “Arna” does possess this equipment. Further, the expert opinion about the alleged forgery of Mr. B. Seidaliev’s signature also suggests that Mark Seidenfeld’s signature was forged.

 

            Each of these cash transactions had to do with the acquisition of cards and a chassis for the OAO “Arna” calling card system and the system would not function without all three cards. The third card required for the system to be operational was paid for with the 2,691,200 Tenge, and the cash receipt for this expenditure shows that the cash was delivered directly to TOO “Firma Tyan-Shan” and the cash to pay for the third card was never in Mark Seidenfeld’s hands. This is opposed to the cash receipts for the purchase of the first two cards and the chassis where the records show Mark Seidenfeld did receive the cash and pay it to TOO “Firma Tyan-Shan” himself.

 

            According to what is set out in the formal accusation, today neither Mr. B. Seidaliev or Mark Seidenfeld have any specific memory of signing the paperwork dated January 23, 2003. Mr. B. Seidaliev does not have any first hand recollection because the main salesman for TOO “Firma Tyan-Shan” who handled its numerous sales to OAO “Arna” in 2002 and 2003 was Daniyar Tashmenbetov. Mr. Tashmenbetov has since died in a tragic automobile accident. (This is the individual who the Kazakh court ordered to be deposed in April 2007.)

 

            On page 4 of the formal accusation dated March 30, 2007, Mark Seidenfeld is quoted as telling the investigators that he does not recall whether he handled the cash in question on January 23, 2003. (Dear Reader, Where were you, and what did you sign on January 23, 2003?) Mark Seidenfeld is quoted in the formal accusation as saying that, during that period including January 2003, he often gave requests for cash at the start of a day and signed the necessary documents (cash orders, contracts) in advance. If, in the course of a day, he saw that the cash was not needed, he cancelled the requests for the cash via instructions given to the Financial Director, David Wolfe. During this period, as discussed elsewhere on this website, OAO “Arna” was expending approximately $50,000 a day on the acquisition of equipment. It is very unlikely that members of management would remember signing each piece of paper involved.

 

            These are the two accusations now pending against Mark Seidenfeld, totaling 3,360,780, or $27,980 at today’s exchange rate. While the foregoing accusations may be addressed in a Kazakh courtroom, it has been discussed elsewhere on this website that it is a patent violation of the Minsk Convention which governs the extradition of persons from Russia to Kazakhstan for a person to be tried in Kazakhstan on accusations which were not specifically identified in the request for his extradition. The attached formal accusations against Mark Seidenfeld show that the original charges against Mark Seidenfeld for which he has been in incarceration for a year and a half have been dropped. What stands in their place today are two completely false new accusations. 

 

            This ongoing abuse of legal process for the purpose of keeping Mark Seidenfeld in a jail in Kazakhstan in furtherance of OAO “Arna’s” purpose of requiring a cash ransom of between $2.5 million and $5.0 million to be paid by Mark Seidenfeld, or by persons who care about Mark Seidenfeld, before OAO “Arna” will drop its false accusations against Mark Seidenfeld brings Kazakhstan’s legal system into disrepute.

 

            The request for this ransom was originally communicated in February 2006 in Blagoveshchensk, Russia by Nyrlan Bekov, a Kazakh lawyer representing OAO “Arna”, to a Russian criminal defense attorney hired by Golden Telecom to defend Mark Seidenfeld. 

           

            Mark Seidenfeld ought to be released immediately and this ongoing debacle brought to an end.