Russian Business Entity Rips Mueller's Charges as 'Make-Believe'
Reed Smith, representing the Russian entity Concord Management and Consulting, said in a new court filing: "A foreign corporation with no presence in the United States is indicted in an unprecedented case of a type never before brought by the DOJ for conspiring to defraud the United States purportedly by not complying with certain regulatory requirements that are unknown even to most Americans."
May 14, 2018 at 02:49 PM
4 minute read
U.S. Justice Department headquarters in Washington. Credit: Mike Scarcella / NLJ
Lawyers for a business entity charged in the special counsel's investigation of Russian interference in the presidential election on Monday derided the alleged crime as “make-believe” and said the prosecution has “absolutely nothing to do” with probing any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
The Russian business entity, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, represented by a Washington-area team from Reed Smith, suggested in a court filing that special counsel Robert Mueller III had overstepped his authority to investigate any conspiracy between Donald Trump's campaign and Russian actors who meddled in the presidential race.
Concord Management and other Russian entities and individuals were charged in February in Washington federal district court for alleged roles in “sowing discord” in the presidential campaign. Mueller's team alleged Concord Management funded the Internet Research Agency, a Russian outfit also charged in the indictment. Prosecutors in charging documents identified the Internet Research Agency as the “organization.”
The reason for bringing the case, Reed Smith partners Eric Dubelier and Katherine Seikaly said in a court filing Monday, “is obvious, and is political: to justify his own existence the special counsel has to indict a Russian—any Russian.” The two lawyers describe Mueller's case as based on allegations that Concord Management “engaged in the make-believe crime of conspiring to 'interfere' in a United States election.”
A spokesman for Mueller's office declined to comment.
Concord Management's attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich of the District of Columbia to review the legal instructions prosecutors provided to the grand jury that charged the Internet Research Agency, Concord Management and other Russian entities and individuals. “With that information, the court can determine whether those instructions could support a motion to dismiss the facially invalid count one of the indictment,” the defense lawyers said.
Concord Management's attorneys said in their new filing: “Count one of the indictment is devoid of any specificity about what any officer or employee of Concord actually did other than to generally allege that Concord funded an 'organization' that the special counsel imagined and created. It is not clear whether the indictment alleges that Concord was part of the 'organization.'”
The Reed Smith lawyers' court filing on Monday, mirroring others they've filed in recent weeks, said the charges against Concord “have a strong odor of hypocrisy” based on the contention the U.S. itself has interfered in foreign elections. In April, Dubelier and Seikaly asked the special counsel's office to produce an account of “each and every instance” since 1945 in which the U.S. government engaged in operations to interfere with another country's elections and political processes.
“The instant indictment fails to allege that the defendant knew it was acting unlawfully and that it intended to violate the underlying regulatory offenses,” Concord Management's lawyers wrote in the court filing (posted below). “The risk here is acute, that is, a foreign corporation with no presence in the United States is indicted in an unprecedented case of a type never before brought by the DOJ for conspiring to defraud the United States purportedly by not complying with certain regulatory requirements that are unknown even to most Americans.”
Dubelier and Seikaly are so far the only defense lawyers who have made appearances in the special counsel's case against the 16 Russian defendants. Since entering their appearances on April 11, the two have taken an aggressive approach, successfully resisting the special counsel's push to delay an arraignment hearing amid questions of whether Concord Management had been properly put on notice about the criminal case.
At a hearing last week, Dubelier entered a not guilty plea for Concord Management. A Mueller prosecutor, Jeannie Rhee, revealed that Reed Smith had filed papers at the U.S. Treasury Department suggesting the firm was representing not only Concord Management but another firm charged by the special counsel's office: Concord Catering. In court, Dubelier said he was appearing only on behalf of Concord Management. The firm has declined to comment about its relationship with the two entities.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Possible Harm'?: Winston & Strawn Will Appeal Unfavorable Ruling in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute read3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readWilmer, Miles & Stockbridge, and Polsinelli Hire Litigation, Government Contract Attorneys
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250