Prosecutors Drop Mueller Charges Against Russian Firm Weeks Before Trial
"It is no longer in the best interests of justice or the country's national security to continue this prosecution," federal prosecutors in Washington told the trial judge presiding over the case against Concord Management and Consulting, accused of sowing discord in the 2016 presidential election.
March 16, 2020 at 07:55 PM
6 minute read
Updated at 9:54 p.m.
Federal prosecutors in Washington on Monday moved to dismiss charges against a Russian company charged by the special counsel's office with participating in an alleged scheme to sow discord in the 2016 presidential election.
The company, Concord Management and Consulting, indicted in 2018 with other Russian entities, had been scheduled to stand trial in April in Washington's federal trial court. Prosecutors on Monday said they decided continuation of the case "promotes neither the interests of justice nor the nation's security," acknowledging that the company has no presence in the United States nor "exposure to meaningful punishment in the event of a conviction."
"Throughout, the government's intent has been to prosecute this matter consistent with the interests of justice. As this case has proceeded, however, it has become increasingly apparent to the government that Concord seeks to selectively enjoy the benefits of the American criminal process without subjecting itself to the concomitant obligations," prosecutors said in a filing in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Prosecutors said Concord had "availed itself of the court's jurisdiction to obtain discovery from the United States regarding efforts to detect and deter foreign election interference," noting that some of the information had been leaked online, "apparently, to discredit the investigation." But, prosecutors said, when pressed to comply with its own obligations in the case, Concord "refused to do so."
"In short, Concord has demonstrated its intent to reap the benefits of the court's jurisdiction while positioning itself to evade any real obligations or responsibility," prosecutors added.
Of the Russian individuals and companies charged, Concord was the only one to answer to the allegations in Washington, where it hired an American defense team led by Reed Smith partner Eric Dubelier.
The Reed Smith team vigorously contested the charges, arguing prosecutors had overstepped in their case.
"The government had fundamental problems with the way this case was charged and prosecuted," Dubelier said Monday evening. "The purpose of this indictment was to make a political statement regarding the outcome of the 2016 election that was grossly overstated. In preparing for trial we had every intention to prevail given the problems with the government's allegations."
He continued: "The government's evidence was completely devoid of any information that could establish that the defendants knew what they were doing was in violation of highly complex U.S. laws a regulations. This was a make-believe crime to fit the facts."
The remarkable decision to dismiss the case came just weeks after prosecutors accused Concord of failing to comply with trial subpoenas seeking internet protocol addresses used by the company and financial records, among other documents. Prosecutors had asked for Concord to be held in contempt, but U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich of the District of Columbia declined to do so at a recent hearing.
Friedrich at the time noted a filing by Concord's owner, Yevgeny Prigozhin—a Russian oligarch commonly known as "Putin's chef"—who claimed that the company had fully complied with the trial subpoenas. Prigozhin, among the 13 Russian individuals charged with scheming to interfere in the 2016 election, said the company was unable to locate many of the requested records because it has a policy of keeping emails and other documents for no more than three months.
Prosecutors on Monday described that Prigozhin's filing as "a misleading (at best) declaration from an incredible declarant."
On Monday, the government simultaneously submitted a classified filing to Friedrich. That filing presented "other facts described in more detail" about the Justice Department's decision to drop the case against Concord.
"The government must also weigh the potential risks to the national security that are necessarily associated with a trial of this nature. A trial of this case risks publicizing sensitive law enforcement information regarding measures used to investigate and protect against foreign influence over the political system," prosecutors wrote in Monday's filing.
Prosecutors said Monday's filing:
There is a substantial federal interest in defending American democratic institutions, exposing those who endeavor to criminally interfere with them, and holding them accountable, which is why this prosecution was properly commenced in the first place. In light of the defendant's conduct, however, its ephemeral presence and immunity to just punishment, the risk of exposure of law enforcement's tools and techniques, and the post-indictment change in the proof available at trial, the balance of equities has shifted. It is no longer in the best interests of justice or the country's national security to continue this prosecution.
The United States, according to the government's filing "will continue its efforts to apprehend the individual defendants and bring them before this court to face the pending charges."
The April trial in the Concord case likely would have been postponed, as the court in Washington, like many others, has curtailed activity in the face of the coronavirus threat. At a recent hearing, prosecutor Adam Jed, who served on former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team, questioned whether Concord was meaningfully participating in the case and floated the idea of delaying the trial.
Chief Judge Beryl Howell on Monday, pointing to the coronavirus crisis, announced all federal civil and criminal trials in Washington would be postponed at least until May 11.
Reed Smith's Russia Work in Mueller Case Gets Closeup in Court
|This report was updated with comment from a lawyer for Concord.
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 AllCars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readDemocratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
7 minute readBig Law Communications, Media Attorneys Brace for Changes Under Trump
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
- 2Jury Awards $1.25M to Police Officer Who Claimed Sexual Harassment
- 3Lawyer as Whistleblower? Associate Sues Firm
- 4New Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
- 5Ex-Big Law Attorney Disbarred for Defrauding $1 Million of Client Money
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