It’s a sad but necessary truth to state.
But those wishing to write new books on corrupt Russian officials should do so in America. That’s the lesson from the absurdity that Catherine Belton suffered on Wednesday.
A Reuters journalist formerly working at the Financial Times in Moscow, Belton is the author of the book Putin’s People. Hers is a defining account of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s brutal and corrupt rise to power. As such, it has attracted the fury of Putin’s inner circle. This includes the owner of Chelsea Football Club, London-based oligarch Roman Abramovich. As Luke Harding noted in 2006, the relationship between Putin and Abramovich isn’t simply close, it’s akin to that of a father and son.
On Wednesday, however, the English High Court found (point 96) that Putin’s People includes nine defamatory statements against Abramovich. These center on Belton’s reporting that Abramovich used his wealth to pay kickbacks to Russian government officials and made investments at Putin’s directive. Most notably, Belton suggests that Abramovich purchased Chelsea F.C. in order to consolidate pro-Putin influence in Britain. The High Court will now decide whether the statements can be justified by the public interest and other justifiable defenses.
Still, that the trial has even come to this point is absurd. Indeed, it is a stain on the character and credibility of British democracy and its ensuing interest in the rule of law.
Fortunately, there is a solution. Belton and other authors should write future books of this kind in the United States. That’s because the “actual malice” standards that apply within U.S. defamation law mean Abramovich’s case would be thrown out of court were it brought here. To prove defamation, Abramovich would have to prove that the author knew what they were writing was false or entertained “reckless disregard” to the accuracy of their statement.
Abramovich would not be able to do so.
Under U.S. law, for example, unlike the Independent (which had to apologize under threat of legal action for saying so), I can say that Abramovich is a willing Putin ally, that he is corrupt, and that he is indeed suspected by the U.S. intelligence community of being a “bag carrier” for Putin. I can also partly root these claims in the fact that in 2012, investigative journalist Alexei Navalny published documents showing that Abramovich had paid $50 million into the offshore account of a wife of then-government official Igor Shuvalov. Alisher Usmanov, another UK-based pro-Putin oligarch (who also likes to threaten defamation suits against American journalists), was also involved in the scheme.
Why does this matter?
Because the people have a right to know about the intersections of corruption, wealth, and power. Especially when they involve the governing structure of a determined U.S. adversary like Putin’s regime. We have a broader responsibility to care about democratic accountability. After all, look at what happens to truth-tellers in Russia.
As with Navalny, Ilya Sachkov, Anna Politkovskaya, Boris Nemtsov, and others, they end up poisoned, flying out of windows, or thrown into gulags.
America can, does, and always must do better.
