Russia funnelled money to Kremlin supporter in Ukraine via Ireland to bypass sanctions, records show
A former senior official in Ukraine's ousted pro-Russian government sought to use Ireland to funnel
Kremlin
money into Kyiv and bypass international sanctions, an investigation by The Irish Times has found.
Under the plan, the money would be sent from Moscow to the United States and then to a woman in Ireland who would forward it to a prominent pro-Russian activist imprisoned by
Ukrainian
authorities.
[
How the Kremlin's 'soft power' agency supporting expats overseas skirts sanctions
]
Documents detailing the scheme are contained in a collection of more than 70,000 emails and records concerning the activities of a Kremlin-backed legal fund, which
EU
security agencies say is an extension of Russian intelligence in some countries.
The Fund for the Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad, known by its Russian acronym Pravfond, was founded by the Russian government in 2012 and has close links to Russian intelligence officers.
READ MORE
Details of
Pravfond's operations in Ireland
, dating to 2013, were revealed by The Irish Times on Wednesday.
The documents also show Ireland played a role as a waypoint for the transfer of Pravfond funds to other countries.
In April 2023 Sergey Zavorotny, a one-time adviser to Ukraine's former pro-Russia prime minister Nikolay Azarov,
requested funds from Pravfond to pay for medical bills for Elena Berezhnaya, a well-known pro-Russian activist in Ukraine.
Mr Zavorotny had previously acted as press secretary to Mr Azarov, who stood down as prime minister in 2014.
Ms Berezhnaya (72) started receiving at least $3,000 (€2,644) a year from Pravfond via Mr Zavorotny in 2022, after she was arrested by the Ukrainian security services and accused of 'high treason'.
In 2023 Mr Zavorotny told Pravfond it was impossible to get funds to Ms Berezhnaya due to international sanctions.
As a workaround, he proposed that money from Pravfond be transferred to Russian parents whose children were living in the United States.
These funds would then be transferred via money transfer company Western Union, or another payments system, to Dublin where they would be received by a close associate of Ms Berezhnaya living in the northwest whose current whereabouts could not be traced.
This woman would then get the money to Ms Berezhnaya's legal team in Kyiv.
In response to queries, the Russian embassy in Dublin said it 'firmly rejects preposterous allegations made against Pravfond' and accused The Irish Times of 'libel and open Russophobia'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
At least two killed in intense Russian drone attack on Kharkiv
A nine-minute-long Russian drone attack on Ukraine 's second largest city of Kharkiv in the middle of the night killed at least two people and injured 54, including five children, regional officials said on Wednesday. The intense strikes with 17 drones sparked fires in 15 units of a five-storey apartment building and caused other damage in the city close to the Russian border, Kharkiv mayor Ihor Terekhov said. 'There are direct hits on multi-storey buildings, private homes, playgrounds, enterprises and public transport,' Terekhov said on the Telegram messaging app. 'Apartments are burning, roofs are destroyed, cars are burnt, windows are broken.' A Reuters witness saw emergency rescuers helping to carry people out of damaged buildings, administering care and firefighters battling blazes in the dark. READ MORE Nine of the injured, including a two-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy, have been hospitalised, Oleh Sinehubov, the governor of the broader Kharkiv region, said on Telegram. He added that the strikes hit also a city trolley bus depot and several residential buildings. There was no immediate comment from Russia. Kharkiv, in Ukraine's northeast, withstood Russian full-scale advance in the early days of the war and has since been a frequent target of drone, missile and guided aerial bomb assaults. The attack followed Russia's two biggest assaults of the war on Ukraine this week, a part of intensified bombardments that Moscow said were retaliatory measures for Kyiv's recent attacks in Russia. Both sides deny targeting civilians in the war that Russia launched on its smaller neighbour in February 2022. But thousands of civilians have died in the conflict, the vast majority of them Ukrainian. 'We are holding on. We are helping each other. And we will definitely survive,' Terekhov said. 'Kharkiv is Ukraine. And it cannot be broken.' Russia's air defence systems destroyed 32 Ukrainian drones overnight, the Russian defence ministry said on Wednesday. Half of the drones were downed over the southern Voronezh region, while the rest were intercepted over the Kursk, Tambov, Rostov region and the Crimean Peninsula, the ministry said on the Telegram messaging app. - Reuters
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Government had to choose tenants over investors
After months of deliberation the Government seems to have finally settled on a rent control strategy . It is something of a dog's dinner and can best be seen as an attempt to reconcile two things that are fundamentally irreconcilable. The first is the need to reassure the increasing number of people in rented accommodation that their already sky-high rents are not going to be driven even higher by avaricious landlords capitalising on a severe housing shortage . The second is creating the conditions that will entice international institutional investors into the property market, which requires convincing them that they will be able to set and keep rents at a level where they can earn the sort of market-beating returns that would make investing in Ireland an attractive option relative to the myriad of other global opportunities. READ MORE Much of the emphasis is understandably being put on the measures intended to protect existing tenants, which include the extension of rent controls across the State. Rent increases will be subject to a limit – inflation or 2 per cent – and landlords will be severely restricted in their ability to reset rents to market levels when a tenancy ends. [ Why is the housing crisis Ireland's most enduring failure? Opens in new window ] There will, however, be a distinction drawn between small and large landlords. Those with fewer than three properties will be able to evict tenants and presumably put up rents. There is less emphasis or detail on the measures intended to encourage institutional investment. New builds will not be subject to rental caps and landlords will be able to increase rent to match inflation. The industry is understood to be disappointed. The Government will argue with some justification that it has done its best to balance various competing interests and that a compromise was inevitable. Doing nothing was not an option. The Government is right about that. But how this fudge will work in practice is anyone's guess and the potential for unintended consequences is high. One thing is for sure. Rents will go up. A combination of upward pressure from small landlords at the bottom and a pull from large institutional investors at the top will ensure that rents in the middle also rise. The details of the plan have not been published but the apparent decision to focus more on protecting tenants than encouraging investors may prove the right one. The inherent contradictions in trying to coax private capital seeking high returns into investing in a sector in which policy is to keep rents down is probably insurmountable. The most likely outcome is that the new measures will prove sufficient to swing the investment case for some projects already in the pipeline and a few more top-end developments will be built for rent than might have been otherwise. Every little helps of course The Government would appear to have resisted the entreaties of property developers and their backers as represented by lobby group Irish Institutional Property, which holds that 60 per cent of the funding needed to address the housing shortage must come from international investors. The State and the domestic banks will make up the rest, they believe. The fundamental problem with this argument is that we are approaching the limit in terms of people who can pay the sort of rent that international investors will be seeking without enduring significant financial pain, which in turn will have a detrimental knock-on effect for the economy. Most people are already paying rents in excess of what economists deem sustainable, which is between 20 and 35 per cent of net income. The average Irish person earns about €44,000 a year and the average rent is €1,600 a month or about €20,000 a year. The political pressure that has led to implementation of nationwide rent controls and other pro-tenant measures confirms that we are at the limits of what can be tolerated by society in terms of housing costs. Any international investor looking at investing in housing in Ireland as a long-term bet that will return more than 10 per cent a year would really want to get their head around that before committing. The ones that get in early might do okay, but the risk premium they will want is only going to push up the rent they charge. The reality is that a property market as badly broken as our one does not represent an appetising low-risk investment opportunity. The system – based around widespread home ownership and the accumulation of private wealth – worked reasonably well for a long time but now it doesn't. The reasons are a combination of factors beyond the State's control and the ball being dropped in areas that are its responsibility, such as planning and infrastructure. Housing and rental accommodation in particular are increasingly taking on the characteristics of a public good along the lines of health and education in the minds of voters: something the State regulates, provides and supports on a not-for-profit basis. Nationwide rent controls are just further evidence of this. Health and education are not services that the State looks to fund via hedge funds. They are funded by the exchequer and ultimately in the sovereign debt markets. That is where the Government should be looking for investment. It may now have no choice.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Many Northern nationalists doubt Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael's commitment to Irish unity
Northern nationalists felt betrayed by Dublin 100 years ago, after the collapse of the Boundary Commission in December 1925. It left the border with Northern Ireland unchanged despite their hopes that it would make unification inevitable. Many of their descendants still feel that way. Most Irish nationalists believed the commission, set up as part of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, would see much of the territory of the six counties of the Northern Ireland state that was established in May 1921 being transferred to the fledging Irish Free State. The shifting of Tyrone, Fermanagh, south Armagh, south Down (including Newry) and Derry City with their Catholic majorities to the Free State, it was hoped, would leave the remainder of Northern Ireland an unviable rump. Irish unity would then be inevitable. Events, however, did not turn out as nationalists hoped, for a catalogue of reasons, including the ambiguous wording of Article 12 in the Treaty that set up the commission and allowed for multiple interpretations. READ MORE From the off, the newly-created, inexperienced Free State government was politically and diplomatically outmanoeuvring by both London and the new authorities in Stormont. And, throughout, Northern nationalists were naive. In the end, the commission ended in rancour when it proposed that only slight rectifications should be made to the original boundary lines drawn up in the Anglo-Irish Treaty, leaving the Border as it was then and remains today. Even the simple things were not handled properly by the Irish side. The commission was chaired by a British-appointed head, not by an independent chairperson, while there were lengthy delays in setting the body up. Following a largely accurate forecast of the expected final boundary recommendations published by the diehard unionist Morning Post newspaper on November 7th, 1925, WT Cosgrave 's Free State government insisted the report as a whole should be shelved. The newspaper's report had rightly claimed that the commission would propose only minimal transfers from Northern Ireland to the Free State. Crucially, the Free State would lose parts of east Donegal and north Monaghan. The furore led the commission's Free State representative Eoin MacNeill to resign from the role. Once it was revealed, however, that he had appeared to consent to the changes, or had not substantially objected, he was forced to resign as the Free State's minister for education. In a panic, Cosgrave rushed over to London to have the Boundary Commission report buried, and after a week of intense negotiations involving the Free State, British and Northern Irish governments, a tripartite agreement was signed on December 3rd, 1925. Under the agreement, Article 12 of the Treaty, which set up the commission, was revoked and Northern Ireland's boundary remained as it had been defined under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Meanwhile, Article 5, which had created a £150,000,000 bill that the fledgling State was to pay to London, was waived, with the Free State becoming liable for malicious damage incurred during the War of Independence. Under the treaty, 40 parliamentarians, 20 each from Stormont and Dublin, were to have looked after subjects of common concern, including railways, fisheries and contagious diseases of animals. Extra powers could have been added, as required. However, these were scrapped too. While the Council of Ireland was considered an 'irritant' to the Northern Ireland government, it was the Free State government that readily abandoned it. In lieu of it, the Northern Ireland prime minister James Craig 'suggested joint meetings of the two governments in Ireland 'at an early date' so that both governments could deal with charges brought by one against the other'. Cosgrave agreed but they never met again. In fact, the next meeting between the heads of both Irish governments was 40 years later, when Seán Lemass met Terence O'Neill in 1965. Instead of engaging with Ulster unionists with a view to ending or limiting partition, Irish governments of different hues preferred to preach about its evils without offering anything like practical or tangible policies that could deal with the issue. It was only from the 1960s that Irish governments promoted the merits of North-South bodies, such as the Council of Ireland, as well as bodies that exist today such as the Shared Island initiative. The fallout from the Boundary Commission has left a bitter taste in the mouths of Northern nationalists ever since 1925. Their trust in British governments (always threadbare) evaporated completely, but, perhaps more importantly, their trust in the South suffered an irrevocable blow, due to the Free State government's abandonment of the North for financial benefits. That mistrust still resonates today. Many Northern nationalists believe there is a partitionist mindset in the South and that the 'establishment' political parties of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are not interested in Irish unity, despite rhetoric to the contrary. There is contempt for the geo-blocking of programmes in the North by RTÉ (particularly sporting ones), the provision of weather information from Met Éireann for just the 26 counties, the naming of the 26 county state as Ireland under the Constitution, and the prohibition of citizens in the North from voting in Irish presidential elections. [ Geography and destiny – Ronan McGreevy on the Boundary Commission Opens in new window ] As prospects of a Border poll have entered public discourse since the acceptance of the Belfast Agreement of 1998, focus has shifted to an ambiguous clause in that agreement: Schedule 1 (2), which states that the British secretary of state for Northern Ireland 'shall exercise the power' to call a Border poll 'if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland'. As with the Boundary Commission, many Northern nationalists believe this clause leaves the power in the hands of the British government. Some fear that this could prevent a Border poll from occurring at all. While there appears to be a clear avenue to Irish unity now through the Belfast Agreement, people are still very wary that the way the commission imploded in 1925 could happen again through what they would see as underhand and devious methods over calling a Border poll. Cormac Moore is a historian, currently serving as historian-in-residence with Dublin City Council. His latest book, The Root of All Evil, about the Boundary Commission, is published by Irish Academic Press
