Russian Broadcasters Face Defamation Suit Over Murder Claims in Dissident's Death
Alexander Litvinenko died from poisoning in 2006, claiming on his deathbed that Russian President Vladmir Putin ordered him killed. Recent broadcasts featuring Litvinenko's father point the finger away from Putin, to a close friend of the dead Russian dissident.
September 07, 2018 at 05:39 PM
5 minute read
An associate of Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian dissident poisoned to death in London in 2006, has filed a defamation suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against two Russian government-aligned media broadcasters over broadcasts that claimed the plaintiff murdered Litvinenko—not Russian agents, on the orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The suit, filed by Dr. Alex Goldfarb, points to programming that aired March and April on both Channel One Russia and RT America that he claims falsely accuses him of not only murdering Litvinenko by poisoning him with a rare radioactive metal, but also Goldfarb's own wife.
The claims run counter to the findings found by a British High Court judge in 2016, after a yearlong investigation into the murder. Sir Robert Owen's report found beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was executed by Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun, probably on personal instructions of Putin.
“Dr. Goldfarb brings this action to hold Channel One Russia and RT America accountable for the substantial damages he has suffered, and will continue to suffer, as a result of defendants' malicious and reckless conduct, and to deter the dissemination of false narratives fabricated by master propagandists deceitfully posing as journalists,” the complaint states.
Goldfarb, a New Jersey resident and U.S. citizen, said he befriended Litvinenko in the 1990s, after Litvinenko went public with allegations of corruption inside Russia's primary security service, the FSB, in which Litvinenko was an officer. He fled to London in 2000, where he sought asylum. There he became a well-known Russian dissident, receiving funding from a Goldfarb nonprofit to write books critical of Putin, as well as a consultant to MI6, Britain's secret service.
In 2006, Litvinenko was hospitalized after falling ill. After he died in November, London police announced he had been poisoned with Polonium-200. Two days before he passed, Litvinenko signed a written statement accusing Putin of ordering his poisoning. Goldfarb and Litvinenko's father, Walter, read the statement publicly on the morning of his death.
Two critical events occurred that set the stage for Goldfarb's complaint. The first was the change of Litvinenko's father's tune years after his death. Despite maintaining Putin's role as “executioner” of his son in the years immediately after his death, Litvinenko's father changed his story in 2012, telling both Channel One and RT that his son was, in fact, a “traitor” and that it was in fact Goldfarb and another friend who killed him, according to the complaint. Goldfarb claims the flip was a result of a deal to allow the father, then destitute and living in Italy, to return to Moscow.
The second was the investigation done by the British government into the death of Litvinenko. In 2012, during the probe's initial stage, Owen announced evidence that the Russian dissident was murdered on behalf of the Russian state. The investigation moved from a public inquiry to an inquest, which allowed the findings to potentially be used in future criminal or civil proceedings.
The investigation ultimately found Walter Litvinenko's statements about Goldfarb's involvement in the murder of both his son and, additionally, of Goldfarb's wife, who died in 2010 of cancer, not to be credible. The investigation did, on the other hand, find a large body of evidence that pointed to Lugovoy and Kovtun as the killers.
The lawsuit comes just days after another pair of Russians have been identified by U.K. officials in connection with a separate poisoning in March of Sergei Skripal, a reported Russian double agent, and his daughter. British officials believe the pair are officers in Russia's military intelligence service, the GRU. Skripal was poisoned with the nerve agent Novichok.
When news of Skripal's poisoning became public earlier this year, it kicked off a new round of interest in Litvinenko's death, resulting in the broadcasts at the core of Goldfarb's suit.
Goldfarb claims both Channel One and RT continued to maintain a false narrative around Litvinenko's death after the final British report was released. Beginning in March, five separate programs on Channel One, which aired in the United States, contained segments in which Walter Litvinenko reiterated his claims that Goldfarb was a CIA agent who murdered his son, or where guests repeated these claims during segments, Goldfarb claims. In a separate contemporaneous broadcast, an RT reporter reiterated the claim that Goldfarb killed his wife to silence her, after she became aware he killed Litvinenko, according to the complaint.
RT Deputy Editor-in-Chief Anna Belkina, responding to a request for comment from the broadcaster, said they had not received any formal notice of “the alleged court filing or lawsuit” and were unable to comment until they had done so.
A request for comment from a spokesperson at Channel One went without a response.
Rottenberg Lipman Rich member Richard Rosberger represents Goldfarb in the suit. He called his client a distinguished person, a protege of another well-known Soviet-era activist Andrei Sakharov, who has worked on humanitarian projects funded by billionaire philanthropist George Soros over the years.
“We look forward to help him vindicate his rights, as an American citizen, to not be falsely accused of murder,” Rosberger said.
Read more:
U.K. Charges 2 Men in Novichok Poisoning, Saying They're Russian Agents
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
© 2025 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 AllJudge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
What Businesses Need to Know About Anticipated FTC Leadership Changes
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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