OAO “Arna” and the Kazakhstan Prosecutor’s Office on July 25 filed appeals against the acquittal of Mark Seidenfeld on all charges. A hearing on the appeals is expected to occur between August 15 and 20. The appeals request a new trial in the same Almalinsky court, but before a different judge.
Archive for the ‘Articles in English’ Category
Appeals Filed Against Acquittal of Mark Seidenfeld
July 31, 2007Detailed Verdict of Almalinsky Regional Court Acquits US Businessman Mark Seidenfeld of All Charges
July 20, 2007
By: Derek Bloom
Judge Keikibasova of the Almalinsky Regional Court of the City of Almaty has issued a thorough decision refuting all the false accusations made against Mark Seidenfeld by OAO “Arna”.
The decision accuses Kazakh law enforcement authorities of numerous violations of law and international treaties in their pursuit of the false accusations brought against Mark Seidenfeld by OAO “Arna”.
The decision summarizes the testimony of all key witnesses at the trial and notes the internal inconsistencies and falsity of much of the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
The role of Murat Zhunussov in organizing false accusations against Mark Seidenfeld is discussed, including the hiring back of employees who had been fired by Mark Seidenfeld after they made false accusations against Mark Seidenfeld.
The bad relations between Murat Zhunussov and Mark Seidenfeld are discussed and partly explained and attributed to a time when Mark Seidenfeld terminated a consulting agreement between Murat Zhunussov and OAO “Arna” [on orders from the then Board of Directors of OAO "Arna"] and discontinued payments of significant fees to Murat Zhunussov for purported consulting services to OAO “Arna” at a time when he had no role in company management.
The decision makes clear that the central accusations against Mark Seidenfeld, that he kept money that was intended for the acquisition of equipment, are all false. All money is accounted for. All equipment was received and placed into service.
It is discussed that Kazakh law enforcement agencies violated Kazakh law by accusing Mark Seidenfeld of crimes that were not alleged in the request for his extradition from Russia to Kazakhstan. Kazakh law enforcement agencies earlier dropped their original accusations against Mark Seidenfeld when it became clear they were false and could be disproven in court. Months of delay then followed while new accusations were drawn up. The new accusations have now been disproven in the Almalinsky Regional Court.
The decision of the Almalinsky Regional Court of the City of Almaty ends with the following findings, translated here to English:
“Mark Seidenfeld is found not guilty and is acquitted of the accusation of having committed a crime within the meaning of Paragraph “b” of Part Three of Article 176 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan because of the absence in his actions of the elements of a crime.
Mark Seidenfeld is ruled to have a right to compensation for damages caused to him by the illegal actions of law enforcement agencies which led the criminal law enforcement procedures against him, pursuant to Article 42 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
He is to be immediately freed from arrest in the court room.
The civil suit of OAO “Arna” to receive damages from Mark Seidenfeld in the amount of 5,457,500 Tenge is not to be considered.
All evidence in the case is to be returned to OAO “Arna”.
OAO “Arna” is to pay court costs in the amount of 179,200 Tenge to the State.
This decision may be appealed and protested within 15 days from the date of its announcement to the Collegium on Criminal Affairs on the Almaty City Court by means of the filing of an appeal and the delivery of a protest via the Almalinsky Regional Court in the City of Almaty”
The family and friends of Mark Seidenfeld express their gratitude and satisfaction that a just decision has been reached by the Almalinsky Regional Court of the City of Almaty.
A complete history of the false accusations against Mark Seidenfeld is available at: http://savemark.wordpress.com/ Please contact Derek Bloom at bloomda@gmail.com for additional information.
Mark Seidenfeld Acquitted
July 11, 2007
On July 11, 2007, Mark Seidenfeld was acquitted of the false charges brought against him by OAO “Arna” and has been released from jail in Almaty. The acquittal came in a verdict delivered by Judge Zaura Keikibasova in the Almalinsky Regional Court in Almaty. Details to follow.
Verdict Now Expected July 12 or 13
July 4, 2007
On July 3, Ludmila Suntsova, the OAO “Arna” Chief Accountant did appear and testify. Ms. Suntsova described, among other things, pressure she was under to testify against Mark Seidenfeld. On June 27, the OAO “Arna” Financial controller did testify and his testimony was, in the defense’s view, fully contradicted by earlier testimony. Murat Zhunussov has not appeared at trial, despite being summoned.
On June 27, John Ward, a former member of the Board of Directors of OAO “Arna”, and David Wolfe, the former Chief Financial Officer of OAO “Arna” testified in Mark Seidenfeld’s defense.
On July 9, it is expected the questioning of Mark Seidenfeld will conclude and there will be closing arguments. The verdict is expected at the earliest on July 11, but more likely the 12th or 13th.
Verdict in Trial of Mark Seidenfeld is Expected July 9
July 2, 2007The final day of trial on the false charges brought against Mark Seidenfeld is expected to occur Tuesday, July 3, and the verdict is expected Monday, July 9.
On July 3, it is expected there will be no more witnesses except Mark Seidenfeld himself and the OAO “Arna” Chief Accountant, if she appears. The prosecution and defense will make closing arguments.
Testimony given on June 27 and 28 addressed the cost of equipment acquired by OAO “Arna” while Mark Seidenfeld was its General Director. It was established that the contract to acquire the equipment in question included the cost of installation and support.
Trial of Mark Seidenfeld to Resume June 27
June 25, 2007The trial of Mark Seidenfeld is to resume on Wednesday, June 27. Reports are that the prosecution has presented all its witnesses. Three persons have made themselves unavailable for the duration of the trial of Mark Seidenfeld. These are Murat Zhunussov who is reportedly running marathon races in China for as long as the trial goes on, and the former Chief Accountant who has reportedly gone to Russia for the duration of the trial, and Vitaly Ermekov, the former Financial Controller who has disappeared to an unknown destination. These persons are each apparently avoiding questioning about their actions and prior testimony during the Financial Police’s investigation of the false accusations against Mark Seidenfeld. Their testimony was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions which would be exposed in court.
The trial is open to the public. Members of the public have been able to hear the following testimony. On the first day of trial, Oranbasar Dzhasibayeva, the former OAO “Arna” who was once fired by Mark Seidenfeld admitted under oath that Gulmira Rakhimzhanova put her up to writing the first ‘zayevlenie’ (denunciation) which started the whole case on December 10, 2003. Gulmira Rakhimzhanova is now occupying the position Mark Seidenfeld used to have as General Director of OAO “Arna”. Oranbasar Dzhasibayeva was rehired by Arna after writing her denunciation of Mark as “Chief of Treasury” for a salary three times higher then when Mark Seidenfeld had fired her. As discussed elsewhere on this site, an international accounting firm made a report to the Board of Directors of OAO “Arna” in February 2004 establishing that Oranbasar Dzhasibayeva’s accusations were false. Yet, following the EBRD’s sale of a controlling block of stock in OAO “Arna” to Murat Zhunussov, these same disproven accusations from the company cashier, Oranbasar Dzhasibayeva, served as the basis for the official request for Mark Seidenfeld’s extradition, dated December 3, 2005.
Also on the first day of the trial, Gulmira Rakhimzhanova admitted that all the actions against Mark Seidenfeld were not undertaken on her own personal initiative, but on instructions from Murat Zhunussov, the Chairman of the Board of Directors.
OAO “Arna’s” lawyer, Igor Dostavalov, on the first day of trial claimed that equipment required for a calling card system created by Mark Seidenfeld at OAO “Arna” costing 2.6 million Tenge did not exist at all, and no inventory reports included the equipment. Yet on the second day of trial, both Gulmira Rakhimzhanova and Alexander Shevtsov, the OAO “Arna” Technical Director admitted that the equipment existed and was working just fine. Evidence was pointed out in the original case file, including an annual inventory report which showed the equipment recorded at its proper price and in the proper location. OAO “Arna’s” lawyer, Igor Dostavalov, also testified that the equipment purchased was not the equipment listed on the relevant contracts. Testimony by experts who had performed an evaluation of the equipment, and further testimony on the second day of trial established that the equipment is in place and matched the contract details exactly. The equipment was shown in court, bearing the correct model numbers.
Arguments that Mark Seidenfeld had overpaid for the equipment were also disproven when the experts who had done an appraisal admitted that they could not definitely say if they had included VAT and customs duties in their analysis. Where the prosecution’s analysis was done by taking the average of estimates from two industry experts, and a price list supplied by OAO “Arna”, testimony by actual industry experts on the second day of trial revealed that the accusation that Mark Seidenfeld had overpaid was based on calculations without VAT and customs duties totaling 22 to 25% of the cost of such equipment. OAO “Arna” contracts showed that the company price list also did not include VAT or customs (though it did include shipping) for a total of a 21% difference. The OAO “Arna” technical director, Mr. Yemelanov, confirmed the equipment in question was not in a used condition when it was purchased, and all equipment referred to in all accusations is all present, even the last pieces of equipment which the Arna lawyer claimed on the first day of trial did not exist. All of the equipment is included in the company inventory list, and the technical director testified it is working and producing revenue. Nobody at the Financial Police ever asked for the equipment to be produced for examination. More contracts and evidence that Mark Seidenfeld did not overpay for any equipment is to be produced by the defense.
On the first day of trial, the defense made a motion for Murat Zhunussov to appear. This brought a heated protest from Gulmira Rakhimzhanova, the current General Director of Arna, and Igar Dostovalov, the Arna lawyer. They argued that Murat Zhunussov is not involved and has nothing relevant to say. The judge ruled promptly that Murat Zhunussov must appear and testify and issued a summons for him to appear since Gulmira Rakhimzhanova had testified that she had told Mark Seidenfeld that she was protecting the Kazakh minority shareholder (Murat Zhunussov) in her actions. At the start of the second day of trial Arna’s lawyer and General Director announced that Murat Zhunussov is China running a marathon and can’t come to the courtroom.
Murat Zhunussov – In China, Running Away from the Trial of Mark Seidenfeld
June 19, 2007On Friday, June 15, the Judge presiding over the trial of Mark Seidenfeld on false charges brought by OAO “Arna” at the direction of its Chairman of the Board of Directors, Murat Zhunussov, directed that Murat Zhunussov himself appear at the trial to explain his role in bringing the false charges and delaying legal proceedings.
On June 18, on the second day of trial, Arna’s lawyer and General Director have reported to the court that Murat Zhunussov is in China to run in a marathon race.
Two additional persons, the former Chief Accountant and the Financial Controller of OAO “Arna”, have also disappeared and are reportedly outside of Kazakhstan for the duration of the trial of Mark Seidenfeld, avoiding questioning about testimony they gave during the investigation of accusations against Mark Seidenfeld, testimony that was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.
Trial of Mark Seidenfeld Now Set for June 15, 2007
June 7, 2007A preliminary hearing was held in the Almalinsky District Court in Almaty on June 6 marking the commencement of the trial of Mark Seidenfeld on the false charges brought against him at the direction of OAO “Arna”. The preliminary hearing was closed to the public. It was determined that consideration of evidence shall commence on June 15, 2007 at 11:00 and the trial shall be open to the public. It is expected the trial may take two weeks or one month to complete.
Trial of Mark Seidenfeld on Fabricated Charges to Commence June 6
June 4, 2007It is expected that the trial of Mark Seidenfeld on false charge brought against him at the instigation of Murat Zhunussov and OAO “Arna” is to commence this Wednesday, June 6 in Almaty.
The June 6 court date was set after a successful appeal by Mark Seidenfeld’s Kazakh defense attorneys against a court ruling that would have referred the case against Mark Seidenfeld back to the Kazakh Financial Police for further investigation and delay.
On appeal, it was decided that the case against Mark Seidenfeld should be tried without further investigation and delay by the Financial Police. The trial court may itself conduct a further investigation of the charges during the trial.
The ruling against further investigation by the Financial Police, and the setting of a court date for this week, are regarded as positive developments.
The trial of Mark Seidenfeld was to have commenced during the first week of March 2007. That trial was cancelled at the last moment and the case was referred back to the Financial Police. The Financial Police subsequently dropped the charge on which Mark was to be tried in March. That false charge was that Mark Seidenfeld had stolen approximately $40,000 that was in fact applied to equipment in use at OAO “Arna”. This was the sole charge on which Mark Seidenfeld had been arrested in Russia in December 2005 and extradited to Kazakhstan in November 2006.
As of March 30, 2007, the Financial Police formally indicted Mark Seidenfeld on two new false accusations on which he is now to be tried. Details about the new false charges against Mark Seidenfeld and the original false charge are set forth elsewhere on this site: http://savemark.wordpress.com/
The New False Charges Against Mark Seidenfeld
May 22, 2007
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.
