NewsOrganised Crime

EUAC Response to the Open Dialogue Foundation

European Union Anti-Corruption (EUAC) is an independent news and blogging organization set up by a group of concerned European citizens who are worried about the rising levels of corruption throughout the EU and Europe in general. Our aim is to highlight this corruption and criminality and limit the proceeds of crime from being spent freely. A particular and timely concern is dirty money flowing into Europe from the former Soviet Union.

We take great care to ensure all our articles and stories are both factual and written without prejudice. If we are presented with facts to the contrary, we will immediately issue a correction and/or apology. We are focused and committed to getting to the truth of every story we investigate, but we are cautious that this isn’t always possible, and therefore welcome any suggestions, feedback and corrections.

We find the specific threats from the Open Dialogue Foundation, dated 23 October 2018, which demands our most recent article about them be removed from our website and Facebook Page, or risk the forced removal of our social media accounts accompanied with legal challenges, to be both provocative and damaging to the NGO’s political ambitions. Given the stated aim of the organisation is to encourage an ‘Open Dialogue’ we find the threats of censorship to be ironic and absurd. To the contrary, we would expect an open, free and positive organisation to welcome engagements with their activities. Given that both our organisations’ stated aims are the same – to expose criminality and corruption from within Europe – the threats seem to have a darker, more sinister objective.

We are highly concerned that these threats are instead an initial attempt to silence our journalists and silence the voices of the European people. These are not the usual actions of a human rights organization and are more akin with Mafioso or organised criminal activity. They could even be compared to the crackdown on the free press and freedom of expression in a number of countries in the former Soviet Union.

Given this hostile response to information that is widely available throughout the internet, hosted on numerous news outlets across the world, we have to assume that this is an attempt by the Open Dialogue Foundation to intimidate and frighten journalists from looking further into their organization.

EUAC will not be cowed by threats. We will leave no stone unturned in our fight to uncover the truth about the causes we write about.

At an editorial meeting this afternoon, we collectively decided to launch a formal investigation into the Open Dialogue Foundation and allegations surrounding their organization. This is not a witch-hunt, we do not have anything against the Open Dialogue Foundation. If we discover that the allegations are in fact not true, we will publish these in their entirety. We look forward to working with the Open Dialogue Foundation in this pursuit of the truth and to this end would like to ask them the following questions:

1. Why do ODF appear so unwilling to engage with those who have doubts about their organization?

2. What is their response to the statement that their activities in the European Parliament make them appear to be lobbyists or PR professionals rather than a human rights NGO?

3. Poland officially entered Lyudmyla Kozlovska into the SIS because of doubts around ODF’s funding. Our own research has found that ODF appears to fund itself with payments from Kozlovska, her husband Bartosz Kramek, and from their own company Silk Road Biuro Analiz i Informacji. How is it possible for an NGO to self-fund in this way?

4. Do ODF have any comment on Silk Road Biuro Analiz i Informacji being transferred money from the Scottish company Stoppard Consulting LLP, whose shareholders were all incorporated in tax havens and are linked to serious fraud in Moldova and their subject Veaceslav Platon?

5. Are the ODF aware of the criminal conviction of Veaceslav Platon in Moldova, and the criminal conviction against their subject Mukhtar Ablyazov in the UK?

6. Mukhtar Ablyazov illegally fled the UK and is now a wanted fugitive. Given the UK’s trusted rule of law, has the ODF recommended to Mr Ablyazov that he return to the UK to face justice and complete his sentence?

7. Given the ODF’s respect for the rule of law, do they agree that Mr Ablyazov is in fact guilty of perjury and the theft and concealment of £5,000,000,000 (including £1,300,000,000 from the UK tax payer via The Royal Bank of Scotland scandal) from the BTA Bank?

8. Would ODF not agree that those they represent who have been found guilty of crimes, in particular those within the European Union, should in fact serve the sentences for those crimes, so long as there is no chance of their human rights being violated? Should the ODF not publicity call for the support of the rule of law, even if it means that some of their subjects finally face justice?

Comment here