>>4663797
Veselnitskaya’s Secret Cooperation with the Russian Prosecutor
As alleged, however, VESELNITSKAYA had secretly worked with a senior Russian prosecutor to help draft the Russian MLAT Response. Emails from an account used by VESELNITSKAYA reveal that she sent multiple drafts of the document to the personal email account of a Russian prosecutor in the Prosecutor General’s Office, which drafts made numerous edits and insertions to the Russian MLAT Response.
A number of the insertions VESELNITSKAYA sent the Russian prosecutor were incorporated – either in rephrased form or at times essentially verbatim – into the final Russian MLAT Response sent by the Russian Government to the U.S. Government. Among the insertions that VESELNITSKAYA sent to the Russian prosecutor – and that appeared in some form in the final Russian MLAT Response – were some claims that were featured in the Prevezon defendants’ opposition to the Government’s summary judgment motion. These claims were supposed evidence that persons associated with Investment Company-1, not corrupt Russian Government officials, committed the Russian Treasury Fraud.
In addition to working with VESELNITSKAYA to draft the Russian MLAT Response, the Russian prosecutor also sent VESELNITSKAYA a draft of a formal complaint against the Prosecutor General’s Office (i.e., against the office where the Russian prosecutor worked) seeking a copy of the Russian MLAT Response for VESELNITSKAYA. Such a formal complaint would falsely make it appear – consistent with the Veselnitskaya Declaration – that VESELNITSKAYA was only able to obtain the Russian MLAT Response through formal legal means and was not a party to its very drafting.
VESELNITSKAYA’s declaration did not disclose any of these facts to the Court. When VESELNITSKAYA characterized the Russian MLAT Response as exculpatory, she did not disclose that she had helped to write it. When she claimed that she had been refused a copy of the Russian MLAT Response by the Prosecutor General’s Office and resorted to a Russian court to obtain a copy of it, she did not disclose that she had helped to write it, or that a member of that office had helped her file a complaint against his own office to get a copy.
The Court denied the Government’s motion for partial summary judgment – the outcome VESELNITSKAYA had sought in submitting her declaration. The Prevezon Action continued and the case settled before trial.
NATALYA VLADIMIROVNA VESELNITSKAYA, 43, a citizen and resident of Russia, is charged with one count of obstruction of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the assigned judge.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the Special Agents from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and HSI.
The case is being handled by the Office’s Money Laundering and Transnational Criminal Enterprises Unit and its Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Paul M. Monteleoni and Benet J. Kearney are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Attachment(s):
Download Natalya Veselnitskaya indictment 18-cr.-904
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/russian-attorney-natalya-veselnitskaya-charged-obstruction-justice-connection-civil