England’s legal regulator decides basic due diligence is optional in Wagner founder case
The Solicitor Regulation Authority generously decided that the law firm representing Wagner owner Yevgeniy Prigozhin could not have known that Prigozhin was lying when he sued open-source investigator Eliot Higgins for linking him to Wagner.
In late 2021, Prigozhin hired Discreet Law, a London-based firm, to sue Eliot Higgins, an open-source investigator who founded Bellingcat, for linking him to the Wagner Group. Prigozhin claimed that this had caused him “great distress.” The High Court struck out the case in May 2022.
The case was seen as a particularly egregious example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation” (SLAPP) – basically, an abuse of England’s generous libel laws to silence lawful investigations and discussions of matters in the public interest. Not only was the case based on a fraudulent claim – Prigozhin subsequently admitted his links to the group – but it targeted an individual with limited resources, rather than one of the many mainstream media outlets to make similar assertions. It also pursued Higgins in the UK, rather than the Netherlands, where Bellingcat is based.
Higgin’s lawyers decided to refer Discreet Law to the SRA for filing the SLAPP. Higgins himself estimated that the case had left him with £70,000 in legal costs. It has now emerged that the SRA has decided that Discreet Law could not have known that Prigozhin was lying, and therefore its lawyers will face no further action.
There are a number of surprising (and, for other investigators and journalists, worrying) aspects to the decision. First, there is the decision itself: By the time that Discreet Law brought the case, Prigozhin’s links with Wagner were well documented. Not only had mainstream Western media outlets picked up on Russian investigative reporting by this point, but the UK had already sanctioned him in December 2020 – with the designation directly linking him to Wagner. In other words, Prigozhin’s links to Wagner were part of the public record by this point. Discreet Law's claims that it took “steps to verify the accuracy of the instructions received from Mr Prigozhin” and “undertook independent research and gathered material which supported Mr Prigozhin’s instructions” are questionable. Even in the most generous interpretation, Discreet Law should have hired better researchers to conduct its due diligence.
Second, the lack of transparency over the decision is alarming. The SRA made it in May 2024 — two years down the line from the referral — but it is only now that it has become known (the story was broken by the Substack newsletter Democracy for Saleand verified by the Financial Times). There are no details about the decision on the SRA’s website, and thus we don’t have a full explanation of its basis – only the details revealed in media reporting on a letter sent by the SRA. One suspects that Discreet Law’s application to the UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation for permission to receive funds from Prigozhin played a role (itself an absurd decision), but that is no more than a guess. The impression is that Discreet Law leveraged claims of client confidentiality to limit SRA’s own disclosures about the case – something that hardly inspires confidence in the regulator.
The fate of Discreet Law is, in itself, an interesting story. It ceased trading at the end of 2023. One suspects the reputational damage from the case played a role. Yet it was only ever a spin-off from a bigger organisation. It was led by Roger Gherson and Joe Levtov; Gherson founded Gherson Solicitors LLP, at which Levtov is listed as a senior solicitor. That company continues to operate, claiming to provide “legal representation to CEOs of international, private and public companies and individuals in their often complex and contentious immigration matters.” I’ll leave you to make your own guesses about its client roster.
Elsewhere in the world of Russian security
💣 Terrorism & insurgency 💣
Investigative Committee dusts off old Chechen terrorism case: The Yessentuki City Court in Stavropol Kray is to review an appeal by the Investigative Committee to reopen a case against an unnamed resident of Chechnya accused of attacking the security services. The case was closed in February 2010 on the grounds that the suspect did not participate in the crime. Defence lawyers claim the case is based on bias, flawed documents, and classified witnesses.
Azerbaijan reveals October 2024 counterterrorism operation: The Azerbaijani security services have revealed that they conducted a counterterrorism operation in October 2024 in the Gusar district (hat tip to Marta Ter for flagging a report on the incident). It was directed against a group accused of preparing attacks and ties to international terrorist organisations that had set up hideouts not far from the Russian border. Four group members were killed, six more arrested, and weapons seized. One of the members of the group, Gadir Gadzhiyev, was previously convicted for being part of the Forest Brothers, a group active in the late 2000s and early 2010s and linked to Dagestani insurgents. A few sloppy media outlets subsequently exaggerated the Forest Brothers' reference to imply that the Azerbaijani authorities were concerned about a resurgence of the group – something not contained in their statement. Azerbaijan has subsequently launched a large-scale security operation, called Border Shield, across several border districts, claiming it aims to tackle organised crime, terrorism, and arms and drug trafficking.
Krasnodar resident convicted of sabotage and plotting terrorist attack: The Southern District Military Court found Eduard Gladkikh guilty of an arson attack on rail infrastructure and preparing a terrorist attack on a gas station. Trying to illegally acquire components for an explosive device and drugs charges were thrown in for good measure. Gladkikh, who was reportedly acting for money from a source that was not established, received a 16-year sentence.
Crocus City Hall investigation concludes: Investigators have completed their investigation into the March 2024 Crocus City Hall attack, according to the lawyer of one of those accused of involvement. The lawyer said he did not expect detainees to face trial in the near future, given the size of the case: around 1,000 people are classified as victims and they need to be given time to familiarise themselves with the details.
Dagestani resident receives suspended sentence for USSR membership: A Makhachkala district court handed down a suspended sentence to local resident Vaysulla Badabiyev for belonging to the banned organisation Union of Slavic Forces of Rus (USSR), which rejects the legitimacy of the modern Russian Federation.
Crimean residents accused of Hizb ut-Tahrir membership: Five local residents were detained in Crimea on suspicion of belonging to Hizb ut-Tahrir — which is considered a terrorist organisation by Russia but not Ukraine. The arrests of Emir Kurtnezirov, Abibulla Smetlyayev, Rustem Mustafayev, Myrzaali Tazhibayev, and Bakhtiyar Ablayev were then approved by a court on 5 and 6 February.
🪖 Private military companies (PMCs) 🪖
Compensation claim by family of Wagner fighter rejected: The Southern District Military Court has confirmed a decision by the Rostov Garrison Court to deny compensation and benefits to the widow and mother of Wagner fighter Aleksey Serebryanskiy. Both courts decided that Serebryanskiy was not a member of the armed forces and had instead joined a civil society organisation, the League for the Protection of the Interests of the Veterans of Local Wars and Military Conflicts —cofounded by Wagner’s former executive director Andrey Troshev.
🚔 State-linked security services 🚔
Chechen security services carry out new kidnappings: Chechen opposition Telegram channel Niyso claims that Chechen law enforcement have abducted at least 15 people and killed one. Those who are kidnapped are allegedly forcefully enlisted in one of Chechnya’s security service units created to wage Russia’s war in Ukraine, with the police pocketing the bonus paid to ‘volunteers’ — unless they can pay a ransom first.
Think someone else would find this useful? Why not forward this to them?