Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 16, 2005
Khodorkhovski = Enron?

Khodorkovsky guilty of fraud and tax charges

A Moscow court on Monday found Mikhail Khodorkovsky, formerly Russia’s richest man and founder of the Yukos oil company, guilty of fraud and tax evasion. The judge has passed a guilty verdict in four out of a possible seven charges, the hearing was adjourned until Tuesday. The long-awaited judgment in the case of Mr Khodorkovsky, has been the most closely followed legal action in Russia since the trials of Soviet dissidents in the 1970s.
(…)
Chris Weafer, chief strategist at Alfa Bank, said the government and Mr Putin had recently been attempting to portray the case as "Russia’s Enron", thus shifting perceptions it was an attack on Russia’s oligarchs or big business.

Please, let’s not fall for the "the- Russians- put- their- fraudsters- into- jail- Bushco- doesn’t" line, it could not be further form the truth.

Putting Khodorkhovski in jail has little to do with fraud and everything to do with politics:

  • he was challenging the Kremlin’s foreign policy by trying to promote his own, private, export routes for oil, such as a pipeline to China (Angarsk-Daqing) or a new pipeline mooted for exports to the US (going to Murmansk);
  • he was actively financing the only opposition groups, such as Yabloko (the closest thing to social-democrats in the Russian context, and the only party with serious policy proposals) and the Communists (as the only real opposition force to the Kremlin);
  • by engineering the Yukos-Sibneft merger, he was creating a too-big-to-fail behemoth which could have allowed him to further increase his political power from an unassailable position (and virtually limitless funding).

While his politics were obviously self-interested (limiting taxation on his oil revenues), and his coming to fortune initially pretty murky (like all the Russian fortunes of the 90s, it was built on the appropriation on the cheap of State assets and constant piggybacking on State money or access), he was the only one of the so called "oligarchs" who was arguing for more democracy, respect of rights and the rule of law. Quite cynically, but not incorrectly in my view, he said that the rule of law, while granting him the full ownership of his own ill-acquired empire, would be beneficial to Russians as a whole, and was necessary to economic growth. The alternative would be to have another set of thieves or oligarchs replace the existing ones in an endless round of corruption to the detriment of the Russian population.

The fact that Bushco is now turning its back at Putin reflects their belated realization that Putin, contrary to what many (naively) thought, was not going to bring any democracy of market economics to Russia. His attack on oligarchs was not a "cleaning up" move to reestablish the authority of the State and the rule of law, but a simple way to transfer Khodorkhovski’s wealth to a new group of cronies.

They should be blamed for taking so long to note something that should have been expected, given Russia’s history in that respect (see that article I wrote in 2003 on that topic, initially published in the Wall Street Journal). They were blinded by Khodorkhovski’s skillful promotion of Russia as a reliable supplier in the oil& gas business, which was initially backed by Putin’s decision to cooperate with the US after 9/11 and to appear as a stable partner in general. When Putin’s policies started to deviate from full submission to the White House’s goals (viz. Iraq, Iran, in Georgia or elsewhere), the Yukos/Khodorkhovski affair was used as a pretext to bash Putin.

Which brings us back to Enron:

  • Enron was a case of a businessman who had effectively bought top politicians and expected that this allowed him to keep on going with ever crazier shenanigans and outright fraud without consequences. Enron’s bosses were subservient to the politicians, useful for their money, and given favorable laws in return, but they were expandable, and they were duly "expended" when they became liabilities. The Justice system did its work and fraud was uncovered and more or less punished.
  • Khodorkhovski is the case of a businessman who was a force of its own, fighting it out with the politicians for the resources of the country, taking a politically independent view and fighting for that view as much as for his company. He was not expandable to the politicians, he was the enemy. He was "expanded" but it took a lot of effort and pain to take him out of the game. "Fraud" was conveniently extracted from the recent past when not a single business transaction in the country was legal, and nobody in its right mind will say that the Justice system did nay thing but a politically motivated hunt.
  • Enron was a loss making company that used fraud to hide its losses, and destroyed value for everybody: shareholders, workers and costumers;
  • Khodorkovski used fraud and all the other ways then prevalent in Russia in the nineties to grab some assets, but he made them valuable. When people note that he owned a 50 billion dollar company (at its peak value) that he purchased for only 150 million dollars in rigged transactions in 1996, they forget to mention that the company was still worth only a few hundred million dollars in 1999, and that it was his decision to bring in Western financial and engineering know how, to open up the accounts of the company and to pay generous dividends that attracted investors and created value (higher oil prices also helped, obviously). He did have a real positive impact on his company, once it was his, and on the whole industry in Russia.

Now, the irony is, of course, that Khodorkhovski will spend several years in jail – which is the best thing that can happen to his political career, as the image of his politically motivated jail time is the best way to tune out his previous (rightly deserved) image as robber baron and thief of the wealth of the Russian people. I expect that he took a conscious decision to go to jail (I know that he was offered a nice chunk of money and a golden exile to give up Yukos without fighting – and he refused) and that he will emerge as one of the most serious contenders for the Russian Presidency in 2012 or 2016. Of course, a lot can happen in the meantime.

Comments

Thank you for an instructive post, Jérôme.
If Putin is only half as clever and ruthless as he is taken to be, he must have set some brainies the task of damaging Khodorkhovski while the latter is in jail, to prevent exactly the political career you refer to. At the moment, Russia’s rulers seem to be far more efficient than their predecessors.

Posted by: teuton | May 16 2005 13:41 utc | 1

teuton – I would not be so sure.
It has appeared at times that the assault on Yukos was done at times without the prior approval or knowledge of Putin, and has been marred by violent in-fighting amongst his cronies for the pieces – infighting, I should add, which is still ongoing and has caused the Gazprom-Rosneft merger to collapse, thus threatening Putin’s grand plans to create a Russiabn super major.
I heard that the initial plan was to gently take the merged Yukos-Sibneft from Khodorkhovski (for a few billion dollars) and give a chunk of that to Putin and his close cronies for “retirement” – i.e. take ths supermajor and make it subversient. When Khodorkhovski refused, the Sibneft people (likely to be involved in that first plot) started to disengage from the merger, thus providing a first subplot. Putin’s cronies, having had the green light to go after Khodorkhovski in that smart way, then started going after him in much cruder ways, which Putin was albe to slow down but not prevent. Yukos was eventually grabbed, but the damage to the Western perception of Russia was not avoided, which was certainly one of Putin’s main goals.
And it’s not over yet.

Posted by: Jérôme | May 16 2005 13:48 utc | 2

He should have bought Chelsea FC; that might have given him more of an international profile.
Anyway, regardless of what he was trying to do on a political level; he is still soiled goods for participating in robbing Russian citizens blind.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | May 16 2005 14:36 utc | 3

Jerome, thanks for the post.
A question (though this may not be the correct thread):
Who are the world players out there?
I don’t think Bush is, by which I mean he gets about, but he doesn’t understand what’s going on.
Cheney / Rumsfeld etc… have a vision of the world, one which seems doomed to failure, but they don’t have a genuine world picture.
Greenpeace (for example) has a world view, but not the necessary clout.
Are there individuals out there playing The World game, rather than specific geo-political sectors of it?
Or am I being dumb?

Posted by: arg | May 16 2005 14:39 utc | 4

In 2001 Putin made a deal with the oil oligarchs. He would leave them alone if they did not meddle in politics.
I suppose what was meant by that was remain within limits set by Putin and be subservient to the Gvmt.
K. made that promise. He broke it.
(my reading of a newspaper article in 2001 – so ?)
Funny CP I was just thinking football myself.

Posted by: Blackie | May 16 2005 16:29 utc | 5

There is another element to this that seems important to me but is not mentioned: K’s planned sale of half of Yukos to Exxon/Mobil.
In the US, the oil industry is part of the MI complex since our military is toothless without oil. Further, CIA spooks wander freely wherever the US oil industry goes. (Valere Plame’s cover, for example, was as an oil consultant and, per Ray McGovern, the US embassy in Baghdad will have the largest contingent of CIA personnel outside of Washington.) Add to this the fact that the Neocons are surrounding Russia with military bases in the former Russian sphere of influence and the Yukos sale looks like part of a larger pattern aimed at weakening Russia. (Even putting “expert” Sovietoligist Rice at the head of State fits the pattern.) Putin, as a nationalist, had to block this sale regardless of what other motives he had.
I doubt any US administration would allow the Chinese to spend their excess dollars buying a controlling interest in Exxon, so I believe Putin has to see the Yukos sale as a national security issue regardless of the issues that actually make the headlines in the story.

Posted by: lonesomeG | May 16 2005 16:32 utc | 6

Was K. a crook or wasn’t he? Did he commit tax fraud or didn’t he? How did he come to own all those assets anyway? If he was framed, that’s really bad. But if he really did steal stuff, I’m not really going to cry for K.
Politically motivated prosecutions happen everywhere, particularly here in the U.S.
Back in the early ’80s I had a friend who was a vocal non-registrant for the draft (this was after Carter re-imposed the requirement that young men register for the draft). This friend refused to register and used his refusal publicly as a way to stir up opposition to draft registration.
He was prosecuted. The only people prosecuted were those who publicly protested draft registration. My friend raised selective prosecution as a defense and the trial judge gave him leave to call Ed Meese as a witness and tossed the case when the government refused to produce Meese.
The case went to the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, where Richard Posner wrote an opinion that said selective prosecution was no defense, that politically motivated prosecution was within the discretion of the U.S. Attorney.
Methinks that if George Soros was committing tax fraud today, IRS resources would be diverted from prosecuting waitresses who fail to report tips and Soros would in court in a heartbeat.
So seeing a billionare who stole his original stake selectively prosecuted in Russia, while sad, doesn’t bother me as much as seeing anti-Bush demonstrators interned at G’tmo on the Hudson.
There’s a lot of heartbreak in the world and I’m suffering compassion fatigue when it comes to billionaires.

Posted by: kaleidescope | May 16 2005 21:06 utc | 7

Does Putin mean to ever relinquish power, 2012 or otherwise? The man certainly knows how to consolidate government power, and I doubt has many qualms about democracy (he has certainly cut back the “free” press). It seems to me that most of his moves are toward an attempt to re-institute one party rule in the country.

Posted by: Valatan | May 16 2005 23:26 utc | 8

kaleidescope,
of course Khodorkhovski stole and broke whatever laws he had to to get his hands on the cash. Anyone who is rich or powerful in Russia today did that, including Putins cronies. And none of them paid taxes. Which means that no prosecution at this level will be anything but politically motivated. In the US I hope it is till possible the IRS will prosecute some rich guy even if he is a republican.
I think it is useful to think of them more as feudal lords then business magnates. What happened here is that a powerful and oppositional lord has been stripped of his lands by the crown and thrown in jail. This strenghtens the czar and centralizes power.
Guess it boils down to which bastard you would rather see on top. Always a poor choice.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | May 17 2005 0:11 utc | 9

Jerome, why such an attachment to Khodorkovsky? What makes you think he is “yours” SOB?
I don’t think that a corrupt thief and a felon has _any_ political future in Russia.
Besides, we already saw how good Khodorkovsky and politics mix: when Khodorkovsky supported Yeltsin in his presidential elections, 30B$ in state property were transfered to Khodorkovsky as a payback.

Posted by: borov | May 17 2005 2:06 utc | 10

its lovely to see the results of capitalism at work.

Posted by: lenin’s ghost | May 17 2005 2:24 utc | 11

As Rahul Mahajan once said about Yukos, Is stealing from a thief still theft?

Posted by: Clueless Joe | May 17 2005 7:38 utc | 12

lonesomeG – Yukos-Sibneft was planning to sell itself to ChevronTexaco, not ExxonMobil. Khodorkhovski would have become the single largest shareholder of the merged company (with close to 20% of the company), and would in all likelihood have had a lot of clout in that company. It would have given Russia partial control of the N°2 US oil company, which I am sure was something that Putin would have appreciated…

Posted by: Jérôme | May 17 2005 8:09 utc | 13

kaleidoscope and askod
yes, Khodorkhovski got to where he was by shady means (although actually breaking the law is a lot harder to prove, as these guys were masters at inventive interpretation of law and the respect of forms while the intent was gutted – things like making “open” auctions where to join, you have to register in a Siberian town, the access to which being provided only by your company’s helicopters…).
My point is that he was offering a real political alternative. It was not just one group of thieves to replace another group of thieves, as the history of Russia has been for much too long, it was a real attempt to bring new rules to the game. Maybe he would have done it, or maybe it was just a trick to be just another nasty expoitative dictator, we don’t know yet, but we do know that (i) Putin is just a new version the good ol’ KGB/thieves system and (ii) Khodorkhovski chose to go to jail instead of movign confortably to London or Cannes with a few billions in his bank account.
Of course, Kh. would have benefitted from such a new political regime (legitimising his ill gotten assets), but then so would have the other Russians. The rule of law, or more precisely its absence, is the curse of Russia (along with too easy access to naturla resources which endure that the country, however corrupt and poorly run, never really goes bankrupt enough to improve its ways).
He is in jail, as I said, by choice, so we’ll see how that goes.

Posted by: Jérôme | May 17 2005 8:18 utc | 14

Yeah,
we can hope that the rich guy in jail is better then the rich guy on the throne. And we can hope Khodorkhovski would do what he says he would. But high hopes has been attached to other would be saviours only to be crushed.
The sad part of Khodorkhovski being arrested is that there still is no place for dissent with some power backing it in Russia. I generally think change comes more from changing power-patterns then changing rulers, and I do not see power-patterns changing here. But sure, I hope it will.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | May 17 2005 13:37 utc | 15

askod – that’s precisley my point. Khodorkhovski offered a small chance for changing power patterns, whereas Putin offered 100% chance of changing rulers and 0% of changing patterns. In that context, his earlier crimes are less important, in my opinion.

Posted by: Jérôme | May 17 2005 15:31 utc | 16

Then I will hope for the more hope-inspiring thief too 🙂

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | May 17 2005 22:24 utc | 17

Jerome, this article is the first I found tonight referring to Exxon/Mobil as the company Kh was dealing with, but I have read others in the past saying the same. Are they wrong?
My larger point is that the post seems to think the Kh affair is about free markets and deomocratic reforms with Putin as the ogre standing in the way. This is the way the western press has drawn the picture. Completely overlooked here is the Israeli connection with their links to the neocons in the US who are playing the Great Game. I’m not defending Putin, but he has a lot of support for this in Russia and there are reasons for that.
Many have written about this power struggle from a perspective different from yours, but I’ll refer to Alison Weir of If Americans Knew in Counterpunch article dated 2/17/05.

As is often the case with AP’s coverage of news having to do with Israel, there’s a serious omission in its reporting on the Russia-Israel connection even when it involves oil and the United States.

The fact is that Israel is an important factor in the ongoing, nation-shaking power struggle now going on in Russia.

In order to make sense of this Russian power struggle, and to understand its importance to the rest of us, it is necessary to understand the usually omitted Israeli subtext. When this is understood, the friendship of such pro-Israel Congressional leaders as Rep. Lantos to fugitive Russian oil tycoons begins to make sense.

Who are these fugitives from the law, wanted by Interpol, who are meeting at the highest levels of the US government? And why didn’t we learn of them?

Therein lies the story….

Those who are interested can read the article for her take on the real story of the power struggle in Russia. However, she did provide one Kh quote that is revealing:

In 1997 Yukos founder Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of the group and Russia’s sometimes richest man (several of the oligarchs trade the top spot back and forth) told an interviewer before he was arrested and imprisoned by Putin last year:
“If we rank all the fields of man’s activity by profitability, politics will be the most lucrative business.”

Does this remind you of any other administrations in the world today? The oligarchs methods, motivations and the consequences their actions have for average people don’t sound like a change in power patterns to me, just more of the same old, same old.

Posted by: lonesomeG | May 18 2005 0:57 utc | 18