Racist Sweden’s Arrest and Imprisonment of Ms. Olga Ovchinnikova
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUBMIT A DISPUTE TO ARBITRATION BETWEEN:
Olga Ovchinnikova, Box 1707, 140 109 Ramenskoe, Russian Federation
“The Investor” or “Claimant”
Represented by:
William Kirtley
Olivier Marquais
Andrian Beregoi
Aceris Law SARL
Rue du Rhфne 14
1204 Genиve
Tel.: +41 22 819 1812
Fax: +41 22 819 1900
E-mail: wkirtley@acerislaw.com
omarquais@acerislaw.com
aberegoi@acerislaw.com
AND
Kingdom of Sweden, Represented by Margot Wallström, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Utrikesdepartementet, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, SE-103 39 Stockholm, Sweden
71. In addition to being deprived of her investments against her will and without prompt, adequate and effective relief, Claimant became the subject of harassment, attempted deportation and wrongful imprisonment given her vocal efforts to uphold her basic property rights.
72. At the showing of the Viken buildings in March 2005, the police first harassed Claimant and sought to discourage her from attempting to uphold her legal rights by threatening her that she should be “very careful [as she could] be suspected of many crimes.”
73. Claimant was then registered as having left the country permanently in December 2006 by the Tax Authority, which was untrue, and her residence permit was revoked in February 2007.50 Both decisions were eventually overturned on appeal, in December 2007 and April 2008, but required the expenditure of considerable time and cost by Claimant.
74. Far more damaging to Claimant’s remaining investments in Sweden and her reputation, however, Claimant was arrested and sentenced to prison.
75. Imprisonment was grossly disproportional to the offences charged, which arguably do not even constitute “crimes” under Swedish law, and it is clear that Claimant was being targeted by Swedish State organs for her vocal stance with respect to the violation of her own ownership rights, combined with Sweden’s anger that her ex-husband was outside of its jurisdiction and had not paid taxes that were demanded.
76. The most severe accusation against Claimant was that a company in which Claimant held a position had made an incorrect statement in a tax declaration four years earlier – a mistake which was however immediately noticed and corrected.
77. Claimant was, for the first time in her life, arrested while attending a court hearing in Gävle on 1 February 2007. Upon Claimant’s arrest, the District Court of Östersund immediately ruled that Claimant should be imprisoned while awaiting trial on wholly spurious grounds that she would flee, destroy evidence and would “continue her criminal activities”:
The District Court of Östersund claimed that there was a “risk for the suspect to abscond or otherwise evade prosecution or punishment” on the basis of the prosecution’s comment that Claimant “emigrated and is no longer on the population register in Sweden,”51 which is hardly surprising as it was Respondent’s Tax Authority which had conveniently decided to remove Claimant from the population register without verifying the veracity of the information provided by a Swedish national. In addition, Claimant had other investments in Sweden by this time and obviously would not abandon them.
The District Court of Östersund also ruled that there was a “risk for the suspect through destruction of evidence or otherwise to make the investigation of the matter more difficult” on the basis of the prosecutor’s comment that “during the hearing has surfaced information on where documents concerning the companies can be sought after.”52
It is difficult to understand how a court may reasonably fear destruction of evidence considering that the alleged offenses were only minor VAT and bookkeeping errors, that Claimant never objected to the prosecutor and the Tax Authority’s investigationand had even volunteered to meet with the police and prosecutor further to their letters of January and June 2006, and that Claimant had never been accused of attempting to dissimulate or destroy evidence or another crime before.
Third, the District Court of Östersund ruled that there was a “risk for the suspect tocontinue her criminal activities” on the basis of the prosecutor’s comment that “there is a risk for continued criminality since the criminality here at hand covers the period 2002– 2005.”53 The alleged offence ended at least two years before the arrest, however, and concerned Mr. Frändén’s bookkeeping, not Claimant’s. It is worth noting that the prosecutor did not find any evidence of further errors in Claimant’s accounting after having had the opportunity to investigate the conduct of her affairs in Sweden for two years.
78. Claimant was kept in prison on pre-trial detention until 2 April 2007.54 During her
imprisonment from February to April 2007, Claimant’s premises were ransacked in search of evidence to retroactively incriminate her and objects and numerous documents were seized. The raids on Claimant’s premises were conducted in an unnecessarily brutal manner, doors were broken, objects thrown around and stepped on and records of officially seized material made it impossible to know what was in fact taken (e.g., “a bunch of papers”). Claimant’s imprisonment also provided the prosecution with the opportunity to seize and go through Claimant’s personal belongings (e.g. mobile phone, calendar, camera, etc.) which evidently lacked relevance in relation to company accounts several years earlier.
79. Moreover, investigators illegally obtained Claimant’s mobile phone password and used it to unlock the mobile and to receive incoming calls, obtained Claimant’s business and bank contacts and intercepted certain email correspondence in direct violation of local laws (which was later criticized by the Parliamentary Ombudsmen (Riksdagens Ombudsmän) in case 2138-2007).
80. It is obvious that the prosecution was not investigating specific crimes but rather attempting to find evidence which could further incriminate or embarrass Claimant.
81. While Claimant was in prison, the Swedish Court of Appeals approved the “buyers” of the Estates being granted official recognition as owners and the trustee distributed the monies generated from the sale of the Estates to the State. The State-appointed Trustee also distributed the monies generated from the sale of Claimant’s Estates.
82. The original charges were either dropped before the trial or did not result in conviction. The charges that led to conviction in the District Court were devised after Claimant’s arrest. The alleged offences were in fact minor errors in VAT statements in 2002 – 2003 and minor
bookkeeping errors (e.g. annual reports not “issued timely in the manner described in the […] legal regulation” and “failure to keep book keeping material”), in relation to companies named Lupus, Tarhunah, Strömherren, Västanede and Tolftflon.55
83. Claimant had not handled bookkeeping or payments at these companies, her ex-husband had. Jon Frändén has two Masters degrees, one being master of science, within the field of economics, with specialisation in accountancy, and the other being master of laws. Claimant “handled and had all influence in what regarded contacts with sales people, to find appropriate goods, purchase and sale of goods and to procure funds for the transactions [while] Jon Frändén on the other hand took care of all book keeping and reporting in the
companies and […] handled payments through banks”.56 The auditor for the Lupus company, Sonny Jansson, stated that during their meetings “Jon Frändén was the principal [and that Claimant] did not say much” 57 and Håkan Uddström, who was also asked to audit Lupus, stated that although Claimant “was member of the board and also managing director [of
Lupus], his main contacts were with the member of the board Jon Frändén”.58 Further, Jan-Christer Persson, the auditor for Tarhunah stated that “he was only in touch with Jon Frändén”. 59
84. Although her ex-husband was responsible for bookkeeping and the irregularities were minor, on 5 April 2007 Claimant was sentenced to 3 months of imprisonment by the District Court of Östersund, and Claimant was convicted of tax fraud. 60
85. Claimant appealed the District Court of Östersund’s conviction but, rather than obtaining relief, a year later the Court of Appeal for Lower Norrland extended the prison term to which Claimant was sentenced to eight months. This was partly on the basis of the unfounded assumption that “it is obvious that [a woman] with her background and experience” (i.e., now
a “criminal”) could not have been unaware of the tasks conducted by her business partner. 61
86. Similarly, in relation to the “failure to keep book keeping material” and for “having provided incorrect statement in the tax declaration,” the Court of Appeal for Lower Norrland seems satisfied that it was enough for Claimant to be generally “well informed” and “well acquainted” with the activities of the Lupus, Tarhunah and Octerera companies62 to find her guilty and, in relation to her accountancy duty, that it was sufficient that Claimant was an
experienced business woman who is a “member of a board” of Västanede and Tolftflon to find her guilty.63
87. Shockingly, the Court of Appeal for Lower Norrland found Claimant criminally liable for an “incorrect claim being recorded” in relation to the Frändén Skog company but, as Claimant was neither on the board nor signs the annual reports for this company, the court had no choice but to rely solely on “her education and experience from the business world” 64 in order to convict her in the place of her ex-husband.
88. Claimant then sought to bring her case before the Swedish Supreme Court, but leave to appeal was rejected.
89. During this period, Claimant was also subjected to several tax reassessments in September 2007 which did not rely on bona fide assessments or interpretations of tax law but were rather...
