Vladimir Antonov and Another v Prosecutor Generals Office Lithuania
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Aikens |
| Judgment Date | 06 March 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 1243 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: (1) CO/336/2014 & (2) CO/328/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 06 March 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 1243 (Admin)
Lord Justice Aikens
Mr Justice Simon
Case No: (1) CO/336/2014 & (2) CO/328/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Edward Fitzgerald QC and Ben Cooper (instructed by Kaim Todner Solicitors Ltd) for the 1 st Appellant
John Jones QC and Aaron Watkins (instructed by Dalton Holmes Gray Solicitors) for the 2 nd Appellant
John Hardy QC and Ben Watson (instructed by CPS) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 11 & 12/02/2015
This is the judgment of the court to which both of us have contributed. Both before the District Judge and before us, one of the issues involved sensitive material and evidence. Like the District Judge, we have therefore issued two judgments. This, the "open" judgment, is the principal one. The sensitive matters are dealt with in a "closed" judgment. The "closed" judgment will be available only to certain representatives of the parties, as agreed by the court.
Synopsis
There are two appeals before the court from the orders of District Judge Zani ("the DJ") made on 20 January 2014 whereby he ordered the extradition of Vladimir Antonov and Raimondas Baranauskas (respectively "VA" and "RB" and together "the appellants") to Lithuania to face criminal prosecutions in respect of four alleged offences as set out in two European Arrest Warrants ("EAWs") which were issued on 1 June 2012. Lithuania is designated as a territory to which Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 ("the EA") applies. The EAWs were issued by the respondent Lithuanian judicial authority ("the JA") and they were certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency ("SOCA") on 5 July 2012. Because the two EAWs seek the surrender of the appellants to face prosecutions in Lithuania, they are what is commonly called "accusation" EAWs. The two appellants were arrested in the UK on 6 July 2012. Both have been on conditional bail throughout the protracted extradition proceedings.
There were challenges to the EAWs on the grounds that that the Prosecutor General's Office was neither a "judicial authority" for the purposes of Part 1 of the EA nor a judicial authority with the function of issuing domestic warrants in Lithuania, so that SOCA had acted unlawfully or irrationally in certifying them under section 2 of the EA. Both challenges were subject to protracted court proceedings up to the Supreme Court and were rejected. These and other preliminary objections delayed the main extradition hearing.
The extradition hearing began before the DJ on 26 September 2013 and was held over 14 days. The DJ heard extensive factual and expert evidence from 19 witnesses (11 factual, 8 expert) on 13 of those days, although neither of the appellant's gave oral evidence. The DJ received evidence from a further 12 witnesses (6 factual, 6 expert) who were not required to be called by the respondents. The parties provided the DJ with copious written submissions and he handed down his reserved Ruling on 20 January 2014 in the form of "open" and "closed" judgments.
Each of the EAWs sought the surrender of each of the appellants for the following four alleged offences: (1) abuse of office, contrary to Article 228 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code, punishable with up to 6 years imprisonment; (2) theft, contrary to Article 183 of the Code, punishable with up to 10 years imprisonment; (3) forgery, contrary to Article 300, punishable with up to 6 years imprisonment; and (4) fraudulent management of accounts, contrary to Article 222, punishable with up to 4 years imprisonment.
The charges are based on allegations of wrong-doing by the two appellants in relation to Snoras Bank, ("Snoras") which was, until its nationalisation in November 2011, the fifth largest bank in Lithuania and the largest in private ownership in Lithuania. VA, who is a Russian national, owned Conversbank, a Russian commercial bank. In 2006, VA indirectly became a major shareholder of Snoras as a result of the purchase by Conversbank of 49.9% of Snoras's share capital. RB, who is a Lithuanian national, was Snoras's Chief Executive Officer and chairman of the Board of Management from 1994. At the time of the Conversbank purchase of Snoras shares, RB owned only 0.2% of the shares in Snoras. However, after a re-organisation of Snoras' share-structure in 2006 (authorised by the Lithuanian Central Bank), VA came indirectly to hold 68.1% of the Snoras shares (via Conversbank's shareholding in Snoras) and RB 25.31% of the Snoras shares, and VA became the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Snoras. Snoras had expanded during the 1990s and particularly after Lithuania acceded to the EU. By 2006/7 it had offices in countries both within and outside the EU, and had assets of 4.2 billion Lithuanian Litas (approximately €1.2 billion). The last audit before Snoras was nationalised in November 2011 indicated that, as at December 2010, Snoras had assets of 7.6 billion Litas. During the period 2007 to 2011, Snoras owned a minority stake (34%) of the shares of a company that published a Lithuanian daily newspaper, Lithuanian Morning or Lietuvos Rytas. It was said that this newspaper tended to be critical of the government of the day.
The two EAWs allege that VA and RB were responsible for the management of Snoras' assets together with Mr Naglis Stancikas (Deputy Chairman of the Board and First Vice-President of Snoras) and Mr Remigijus Bartaska (Deputy Director, then Director of Investment Business Services of Snoras). It is said that during the period 2008 to 2011 the four conspired to transfer substantial cash and assets, the property of Snoras, to accounts under the control of VA and RB in two Swiss banks, Banque SYZ and Co SA, and Bank Julius Baer & Co Ltd. The EAWs allege that VA and RB instructed Mr Stancikas and Mr Bartaska to transfer sums in 33 specific transfers, which are identified in the EAWs. It is alleged that the total sums transferred from Snoras in this way are: securities worth €237 million (or Lithuanian Litas – "LT" — 821 million); €241.6 million (or LT 834 million) and US$ 10.6 million (or LT 26 million). The total sum is approximately LT 1.7 billion. It is also alleged that VA and RB procured forged SWIFT messages to be sent by the two Swiss banks to Snoras, which falsely stated that very large sums were on deposit for the account of Snoras at their banks; and, further, that VA and RB arranged for this false information to be provided to the Credit Institutions Supervision Department of the Bank of Lithuania.
From 2009 there was concern about the solvency of Snoras by various UK and international agencies. By mid 2011 the Lithuanian Central Bank was anxious about the liquidity of Snoras and there were discussions about restructuring the bank. From 19 September 2011, inspections by the Lithuanian Central Bank uncovered evidence that suggested serious fraud and mismanagement at Snoras which threatened its solvency. The Central Bank reported what it regarded as grave irregularities to the Lithuanian Prosecutor General's Office on 9 November 2011, concluding that there was a "possibility" that serious offences had been committed at Snoras, which could possibly have serious consequences for the financial system of Lithuania. The Prosecutor General's Office launched a criminal investigation immediately.
On 15 November 2011, Lietuvos Rytas ran a story that searches were about to be performed on one of four independent Lithuanian banks, including Snoras, allegedly at the instigation of the office of the President of Lithuania. There was a run on Snoras whose reserves with the Central Bank were rapidly depleted. On 16 November 2011, the Central Bank decided to impose a moratorium on Snoras' operations and to "take over Bank Snoras for public needs", that is to nationalise the bank. On the same day, the Central Bank appointed Mr Simon Freakley as the Temporary Administrator of Snoras. He is a qualified accountant and a licensed Insolvency Practitioner in England and Wales. At the time he was the Chief Executive Officer of Zolfo Cooper LLP, and he had 29 years experience specialising in the development and implementation of business recovery strategies. On 7 December 2011 the Vilnius District Court made an order initiating bankruptcy proceedings in respect of Snoras and Mr Neil Cooper of Zolfo Cooper LLP was appointed bankruptcy administrator of the bank. Mr Freakley's position as Temporary Administrator thereby terminated.
Meanwile, domestic arrest warrants in respect of VA and RB were granted to the prosecutor on 22 November 2011. On 24 November 2011 two EAWs for the arrest and extradition of VA and RB from the UK were issued by the Central Prosecutor's Office. These were not processed. Following further investigations, a second set of two EAWs was issued in May 2012. However, following further investigations a further set of domestic arrest warrants was issued, following a challenge in court, on 9 July 2012. The third and current set of EAWs was issued on 5 July 2012.
The grounds of challenge to extradition.
Before the DJ, both VA and RB raised eight grounds of challenge to their extradition. The DJ rejected them all. Before this court the appellants appeal the DJ's rejection of the grounds of challenge based on sections 13 (a), 13(b) and section 211 of the EA. In addition, it is argued that the DJ erred in relation to a procedural matter during the course of the extradition hearing and also that he failed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicoletta Prusianu v Braila Court of Law
...2377 (Admin) (Burnett J 30 1.7.13); Turkey v Ozbek [2014] EWHC 3469 (Admin) (Laws LJ and Cranston J 10.10.14); Antonov v Lithuania 2015 EWHC 1243 (Admin) (Aikens LJ and Simon J 6.3.15) and Adamescu v Romania [2020] EWHC 2709 (Admin) (Holroyde LJ and Garnham J 22 The essence of the argume......
-
Guy Jane v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania
...provision of the Kaunas assurance was set out in paragraphs 51 to 54. Kaunas assurances continued to be accepted, see Antonov v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania [2015] EWHC 1243 (Admin). 25 The European Court of Human Rights considered the issue in Mironovas and others v Lithuania [20......
-
GS and Others v Central District of Pest Hungary and Others
...sufficient to dispel any doubts arising from the pilot judgment. In Aleksynas and others v Lithuania [2014] EWHC 437 (Admin) and in Antonov v Lithuania [2015] EWHC 1243 (Admin) assurances were given that various requested persons would be detained in a named prison which provided sufficient......
-
Nirav Deepak Modi v Government of India
...applies in the context of extradition appeals when the district judge's reasoning is unclear ( Antonov & Baranauskas v Lithunnia [2015] EWHC 1243 (Admin) at [12]) and should apply a fortiori to the Secretary of State's decision-making given the absence of any opportunity otherwise to test ......