Mkhitar Sebastatsi Educomplex
High School
Student: Arshaluys Ekmekji, Grade 10
Supervisor: Nune Aydinyan
Reviewer: Samvel Tamazyan
Corrupt leaders and double standards
Yerevan 2024
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Chapter one: corrupt leaders
Chapter two: Laundromats
Chapter three: double standards
Conclusion
Why we chose this topic
We chose this topic, because we’ve noticed that middle eastern people are more aware of the corruption and double standards happening in different part of the world, and their impact. We also chose this topic, because I wasn’t very familiar with the idea of corruption and double standards before working on this research paper, so I thought it’s a nice way to get out of my comfort zone.
Introduction
Throughout history, humanity has witnessed the rise and fall of countless leaders. Among them, a select few have been corrupt. But who’s a corrupt leader, and what does corruption mean?
Transparency International(the global coalition against corruption) defines corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.
Corruption erodes trust, weakens democracy, hampers economic development and further worsens inequality, poverty, social division and the environmental crisis.
This means that a corrupt leader is someone in a position of authority, like a politician, or public official, who is abusing their power to benefit themselves or someone they are close to, instead of fulfilling their legitimate responsibilities.Corrupt leaders are dishonest and untrustworthy individuals who present false documentation, cheat without any efforts or abuse by stealing to a degree that is out of the norms.
Corruption can take place anywhere. It can happen in business, in courts, in the media, and of course, in government.
Corruption can also involve anyone: politicians, government officials, public servants, business people or members of the public.
Corruption adapts to different contexts and changing circumstances. It can evolve in response to changes in rules, legislation and even technology.
It can take many forms, such as bribery, fraud, and nepotism.
It can include behaviours like public servants demanding or taking money or favours in exchange for services, politicians misusing public money or granting public jobs or contracts to their sponsors, friends and families, or corporations bribing officials to get lucrative deals.
An example of corruption is the Azerbaijani Laundromat, where the Aliyev regime allegedly laundered $2.9 billion through four accounts at Danske Bank in Estonia between 2011 and 2014. The funds, linked to embezzled oil revenue and potential borrowings abroad, aimed to conceal their origin and destination.
TI defines bribery as: the offering, promising, giving or accepting of an advantage as an inducement for an action which is illegal, unethical or a breach of trust. Inducements can take the form of money, gifts, loans, fees, rewards or other advantages (taxes, services, donations, favours etc.).
According to the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, fraud is an economic crime involving deceit, trickery or false pretences by which someone gains unlawfully. Fraud often accompanies corrupt acts, in particular embezzlement, where it is typically used to falsify records to hide stolen resources.
According to Oxford Languages, Nepotism is the practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives, friends, or associates, especially by giving them jobs.
Now that we’ve talked about corruption, corrupt leaders, and their definitions, we can talk about how corruption and double standards are interlinked. But before we continue, we have to establish the definition of a double standard.
According to Oxford Languages, Double standard is a rule of principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
A double standard is where different sets of rules apply to different groups of people; what’s okay for a certain group isn’t okay for another group.
Double standards are prevalent in many aspects of our society. There’s common areas where most people might encounter them, like when it comes to career, race, ethnicity, gender, criminal justice, education, employment, age, socioeconomic status, etc.
It’s important to remember that these are just a few examples, and double standards can exist in all areas of life, but the area of double standards in politics and leadership is going to be the primary focus of this presentation.
Selective justice often involves applying legal actions or consequences unevenly, favoring certain individuals or groups over others. This can be linked to double standards, as it reflects a lack of consistent principles or rules. Corrupt leaders may manipulate the justice system to protect themselves or target rivals, further highlighting the connection between selective justice, double standards, and corruption in a society.
The relationship between corruption and double standards is pretty clear. Inconsistent application of rules and lack of attention lets some corrupt leaders off the hook, damaging trust and worsening the overall impact of corruption in society. They reinforce eachother in a vicious cycle in different ways.
Sources
What is corruption?Transparency.orghttps://www.transparency.org › what-is-corruption
SearchU4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centrehttps://www.u4.no › search › search=fraud
Chapter 1: Corrupt leaders
Has Europe really succeeded replacing Russian gas? Azerbaijan’s promise to provide alternative gas supplies chimes well with the European Union’s long-held goal to break its reliance on Russian gas. In return, the EU market of 450 million consumers has promised bumper opportunities for the oil and gas-rich country.
In 2022, since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, EU officials have been touring the world’s fossil fuel producers in search of alternative suppliers, amid growing fears the Kremlin will completely shut down gas flows to Europe.
Standing alongside Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, Von der Leyen said the EU was diversifying away from Russia and turning “towards more reliable, trustworthy partners”, adding she was glad to count Azerbaijan among them. “You are indeed a crucial energy partner for us and you have always been reliable.”
The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, hailed Azerbaijan as a “crucial” and “reliable” energy supplier, as she announced an agreement with Baku to expand the southern gas corridor, the 3,500km pipeline bringing Caspian Sea gas to Europe. Under the agreement, gas supplies to the EU from Azerbaijan are forecast to reach 20bn(billion) cubic metres a year in 2027, up from 8bn(billion) currently. Supplies are set to increase to 12bn(billion) by 2023.
“Thank you very much Mr President for the warm welcome here in Baku. And thank you for stepping up and for supporting the European Union. Because already before Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, the Russian gas supplies to Europe were no more reliable. The European Union has therefore decided to diversify away from Russia and to turn towards more reliable, trustworthy partners. And I am glad to count Azerbaijan among them. You are indeed a crucial energy partner for us and you have always been reliable. You were a crucial partner not only for our security of supply, but also in our efforts to become climate neutral. The Memorandum of Understanding that we have just signed makes our energy partnership even stronger.
I want to emphasise three points from our Memorandum of Understanding. The first is that we will double the supply of gas from Azerbaijan to the European Union. Indeed, with this MoU, we commit to the expansion of the Southern Gas Corridor. This is already a very important supply route for the European Union, delivering currently more than 8 billion cubic metres of gas per year. And we will expand its capacity to 20 billion cubic metres in a few years. From next year on, we should already reach 12 billion cubic metres. This will help compensate for cuts in supplies of Russian gas and contribute significantly to Europe’s security of supply.
The second point that is very prominent in the MoU is the topic of the renewables. Azerbaijan has a tremendous potential in renewable energy – you just described it, Mr President –, and in particular in offshore wind and green hydrogen. We discussed it extensively in our bilateral meeting. Today, with our MoU, we are laying the ground for solid cooperation in that area. So gradually, Azerbaijan will evolve from being a fossil fuel supplier to becoming a very reliable and prominent renewable energy partner to the European Union.
Finally, our cooperation on gas has to be consistent with our responsibilities on climate. This includes, for example, the emissions of methane. Our MoU sets out commitments to reduce methane emissions throughout the entire gas supply chain. And, as we have discussed, Mr President, I strongly encourage Azerbaijan to join the Global Methane Pledge, which is now supported by 119 countries. Azerbaijan has made enormous progress and has a lot to deliver.
Beyond energy, President Aliyev and I discussed the full range of our relation and cooperation. The EU-Azerbaijan Cooperation Council will meet tomorrow in Brussels and discuss how to take forward our bilateral cooperation. We are working right now on a new bilateral agreement that we hope to conclude soon. The aim is to further expand the strong economic partnership we do have. Indeed, the European Union is: the first commercial partner of Azerbaijan; its first export destination; and one of its most important sources of investments. And we want to expand this. We are investing EUR 60 million of EU funds in Azerbaijan until 2024. And the Economic and Investment Plan has the potential to mobilise up to EUR 2 billion in additional investments. It is already at work, supporting round about 25,000 Azeri small and medium companies, and making the Port of Baku a sustainable transport hub.
This is for us very important, because this leads indeed to the topic of connectivity that you have mentioned. We also discussed that. In particular, how to deepen our ties to bring our people and societies closer together. This is the mission of our Global Gateway strategy. And this is also the essence of our Eastern Partnership. The European Union wants to work with Azerbaijan to build connections with Central Asia and beyond. So we follow with great interest the discussions and the ideas about trans-Caspian connections. We will deepen these discussions. Finally, we want to finalise the Common Aviation Area Agreement. Because this would greatly boost opportunities for business, trade and for tourism.
To reach Azerbaijan’s full potential, it is important to create the right conditions for investor confidence. This includes a greater involvement of civil society, and a free and independent media. The European Union is committed to a secure, stable and prosperous South Caucasus. We are the leading donor in demining in the country, for example. We have also discussed this very important topic. We have now just announced a new EUR-4.25-million package for this purpose. But we are also willing to offer machinery and skills in this very important field. All in all, the European Union is firmly attached to your region, Mr President. We value our partnership. And this partnership will consistently grow and deepen over time.
Thank you very much again for hosting us here. And thank you very much for the joint signing of the MoU.”
The Aliyev family, which has ruled Azerbaijan since the country’s independence from the Soviet Union, is infamous for its human rights infractions, effectively pioneering the repression of dissent through digital means. Even more concerning is Azerbaijan holding the dubious honor of being the first country to ever use spyware to wage war in Nagorno-Karabakh, where analysts have found Baku’s role to be analogous to that of Russia in Ukraine. With this in mind, it is ultimately worth asking whether Von der Leyen’s “crucial and reliable partner” for the sustained supply of oil to the EU is actually an improvement from Moscow.
But the EU’s hopes that its new supplier would play nice were always optimistic. Azerbaijan is dominated by President Ilham Aliyev, who has been in power for 20 years. The country is profoundly corrupt and authoritarian. The issue came home to roost in September, when Aliyev’s forces smashed the Armenian statelet in Nagorno-Karabakh in just over a day, and a population of more than 100,000 fled lands they had inhabited for two millennia.
The EU’s calls to halt military activities in the breakaway province were ignored. Stunned, many members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are now calling for sanctions, including sanctions on Azeri gas imports, but it remains to be seen whether European governments are willing to take such measures as winter approaches.
Martin Sonneborn (NI). – Madam President! Congratulations! The EU leadership has achieved something for a change. She assisted our partner in values, the madman from Baku, in completely wiping out the Democratic Republic of Artsakh. Council President Michel and Ms von der Leyen supported Azerbaijan’s dictator Əliyev until he was able to create a fait accompli: 120,000 people were bombed and displaced – that is probably more than still believe in the EU and its values.
With the approval of the Borrells and Baerbocks, international law was abused to force a small democracy under the rule of a primitive dictatorship, whose soldiers are now hunting Armenians with knives in their hands in front of the cameras. As for the cheap words and crocodile tears that they all shed at once, what they are worth will be seen when Aliyev annexes the rest of Armenia, as announced. Values, values, values, Poperte.
George Georgiou (The Left). –…Ms von der Leyen only recently exchanged handshakes with Mr Aliyev. Azeri natural gas, I wonder, comes above people’s lives and hypocritical declarations of democracy and human rights?
Amid intense geopolitical tussles over control of its energy sources and transportation, traditional friends—we know who they are—as well as late allies of Armenia—the United States, NATO, the European Union—have abandoned Armenians to Aliyev’s mercy. In this way, the hypocrisy of those who speak today about an international legal order is highlighted, and what remains in the end are the two standards and the tragedies of the peoples. These days are days of sorrow and pain
Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Despite the numerous steps taken by Armenia to move ever closer to Europe – not least today’s ratification of the Rome Statute -, the Union looked the other way while Baku criminally kept the Lachin corridor blocked. Not even the proclaimed and solid alliance between Aliyev and Putin was enough to open our eyes. A silent consent was simply adopted, sacrificing the Armenian population on the altar of Realpolitik.
And there must also be a total ban on arms exports to Baku. I clearly ask this of all governments, including the Meloni government, which, apparently, is negotiating, despite everything, with the Azerbaijani capital.
Too many times we have said “Never again”, only to then limit ourselves to observing, while the darkest pages of history were repeated before our eyes. We failed to prevent over 100 000 Armenians from being forced to leave their ancestral lands, while Baku is already planning the invasion of Zangezur.
Let us immediately suspend any agreement with Baku, because the smell of gas and oil must not cover the scent of freedom. Long live free, democratic and European Armenia!
Angel Djambazki (ECR). –…One hundred and ten years later, these events are being repeated, this time by their first cousins, the Azeris, in front of all of you. And this was known, and this was warned, and it was clear what the dictatorial regime of Aliyev would end up with.
…But here someone was making calculations that he could play geopolitical games, shop, trade, buy gas, buy oil, betting the lives of Armenians.
This Parliament and this Commission, which is listening to us right now and talking about their business, as usual, has chosen to be on the wrong side again and to play geopolitical games. They sacrificed the Armenians once again. No negotiations and talks will help…
…Such things can only be redeemed by sanctions. Sanctions against Aliyev and sanctions against this disgraceful dictatorial regime. Otherwise, the stories that the Armenians would return are humorous. Nonsense from people who don’t understand anything.
Jean-Lin Lacapelle (ID). –…Yes, the President of the European Commission must be held accountable. Through the gas contract signed with Azerbaijan, Ursula von der Leyen gave the autocrat Aliyev a license to kill and purge in Nagorno-Karabakh. She also pledged to pay the Baku regime 60 million euros in European funds and up to 2 billion euros in investment projects. This money, paid in spite of themselves by European taxpayers, is that of the blood of the Armenians, blood that the President of the European Commission now has indelibly on her hands.
Unfortunately, the dilemma created by the extinguishing of Nagorno-Karabakh may turn out to be merely the first problem in a series.
A growing alignment of interests with Russia and Turkey should trigger alarm in the EU.
The emergence of an Azerbaijan-Turkey-Russia coalition of self-interest has been notable; Azerbaijan’s recent offensive would not have succeeded without calculated Russian passivity, and Turkey’s open political and military support.
The three also share interests in gas supplies. Azerbaijan and Turkey could provide a convenient and covert backdoor for Russian gas, potentially bringing widespread corruption amid opaque dealings with Europe and denting the EU’s ability to confront authoritarian regimes.
Although Azerbaijan and Russia have been competitors in the European gas market, with Russia repeatedly being accused of trying to foil rival EU-backed projects involving Caspian gas, the energy crisis of 2022 has reset their relations.
When Russia cut its gas exports to Europe by 80% last year, effectively weaponizing the fuel in its hybrid war against the West, it lost its most important market, facing the prospect of billions of cubic meters of gas being stranded and profits reduced.
So it makes sense for Russia to flood Eastern Europe with gas whitewashed in Azerbaijan or Turkey, as has been happening in recent months.
Azerbaijan is struggling to serve internal and external demand but has recently signed supply or swap deals with Russia and Iran.
Like Azerbaijan, Turkey has been signing deals to supply EU countries, even though it relies almost entirely on imports for its own needs. It has signed deals with Hungary, Romania, and Moldova in recent weeks.
It’s very likely much of this gas is being piped to Turkey from Russia. The Kremlin understands that as long as it continues its war against Ukraine, without offering the firm promise of withdrawing its troops to pre-2014 borders and paying for the widespread destruction it had caused, European buyers will refrain from signing any deals with it directly.
There is only a short window of opportunity to recapture at least some of its lost market before 2026, when more US or Qatari liquefied natural gas production (LNG) reaches global markets. Azerbaijan and Turkey are proving more than willing to assist the Kremlin.
In exchange, Russia may have agreed to watch passively as Azerbaijan’s troops stormed Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey meanwhile seeks to expand its regional influence both in the Caspian region and in Eastern Europe through a putative gas hub, which Russia has enthusiastically supported.
While many people believe that Azerbaijan fulfills an important security role for Europe by providing an energy source that eliminates dependence on Russia or Iran, the reality is that because Azerbaijan ships more than it produces, much of the oil and gas Azerbaijan provides to Europe likely comes from Iran or Russia.
In November 2021, for example, Iran announced that it had finalized a gas swap scheme with Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. Iranian officials say 1.5 to two billion cubic meters of gas will be transported annually.
A year later, Russia’s state gas producer Gazprom announced that it would supply Azerbaijan’s state oil company SOCAR with one billion cubic meters of gas to help Azerbaijan fuel itself and meet its obligations. Azerbaijan also struck a deal with Russia’s Lukoil to bolster production.
This raises an uncomfortable question: Is the southern oil corridor through Azerbaijan and Turkey described as a means to wean Europe off Russian and Iranian gas more illusion rather than reality?
If 20 percent of Azerbaijani gas is actually Russian or Iranian in origin, that suggests that Europe is still providing tens of billions of dollars to these countries and funding their military aggression. More troubling is the fact that these swaps and possible gas laundering come against the backdrop of the State Department’s efforts to undermine the EastMed pipeline that carries Cypriot gas and perhaps hydrogen as well but bypasses all Russian, Iranian, and Turkish gas.
As Russia prepares for a new offensive, Iran continues to ship drones to the Russian Army and use them to destabilize its own neighbors.
So what can we understand from this? This situation raises a few questions about energy deals and geopolitics. When the EU seeks for alternatives to Russian supplies by turning to Azerbaijan, it means they’re dealing with another country that’s facing its own problems, similar to Russia’s.
While the EU, specifically Ursula von der Leyen, praises Azerbaijan as a reliable and crucial energy supplier or partner, there’s concerns about Azerbaijan’s authoritarian leadership, particularly the military offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh. The EU is faced with criticism since it has a gas contract with Azerbaijan, while there are accusations that it indirectly supports human rights abuses. The EU also turns a blind eye at the fact that they’re allowing Russian gas to reach Europe through Azerbaijan and Turkey. So the EU’s efforts to diversify its energy sources aren’t very successful.
They’re ignoring the fact that they’re using Azerbaijan’s gas supply, which is most likely courted from Russia or Iran, so all they did was move on to a different supply from a different corrupt government. We can consider this an example of corruption.
The corrupt leaders involved in this situation are Ursula von der Leyen, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Ilham Aliyev.
On 16 October 2017, Daphne Caruana Galizia was killed by a powerful car bomb minutes after leaving her home, a day before her major corruption article was published. Caruana Galizia was Malta’s best-known and most widely read journalist – and also its most divisive. Her investigations routinely set the national agenda. Her most sensational case – alleging links between the prime minister’s wife, a Panama shell company and suspicious transactions from the Azerbaijani regime – forced a snap election four months before her assassination.
The brutal murder of a Maltese journalist on October 16, 2017 caused a stir not only among the journalistic community, but also among politicians.
The article was about the kitchen deals of the Maltese and Azerbaijani authorities. The murder of the journalist first of all shook the foundations of the Maltese government, leading to a series of resignations.
The point is that Daphne Galizia had discovered how the Azeri petrodollars end up in Malta and under other names reach the offshore zones of Panama and the Virgin Islands. The name of Ilham Aliyev was the most circulated in those revelations.
“Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, whose family and oligarchs had accounts at Malta’s Pilatus Bank, had close ties to Malta’s top government, including Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and his counterparts on the islands. This gave access to the “Electrogaz” project, part of the shares of which belong to the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan”, wrote Matthew Vella, a columnist for Malta Today.
Many individuals and organizations stood up after the murder of the Maltese journalist, demanding an objective investigation. As a result, businessman Yorgen Fenech was arrested, but the traces of the journalist’s murder were leading to another direction. In January 2020, the Prime Minister of Malta resigned, admitting that he was unable to fully open the case. It opened on August 31, when the leadership of the new government announced that the assassination of Daphne Galizia was carried out in order not to reveal the dark spots of the “Electrogaz” project.
“In 2017, Daphne Galizia has received 600,000 e-mails from the energy company, which were partly owned by Yorgen Fenech. He is the prime suspect in the murder and the head of “Electrogaz”. He had a soft income for Malta’s electricity supply. The witness said during the testimony that before the murder of the journalist he saw a representative of the Azerbaijani oil company Turab Musayev at the house of Yorgen Fenech,” the British”, “The Guardian” wrote.
Turab Musayev is a close associate of the President of Azerbaijan. It is through him that the Aliyev family carries out its dirty deeds, including delivering corrupt money to its addressees. The Maltese journalist killed for the “Azerbaijani laundromat” article series was to be followed in the fall of 2017 by Bulgarian investigative journalist Dilyana Gaitanjieva, but she managed to hide and save her life, continuing to uncover the chain of international crimes committed by the Azerbaijani authorities.
Melvin Theuma, the middleman, a taxi driver and figure in the illegal gambling world who was hospitalized in late July after he was found inside his home with stab wounds to his abdomen and neck, held secret recordings of conversations with Fenech after the murder. In these, Fenech claims that Schembri, a close personal friend, was regularly feeding him information on the ongoing investigations. Schembri is known to have been present for briefings between the prime minister, police and security services. He is alleged to have passed further messages to Fenech after the arrest, briefing him on what to tell investigators. Schembri has admitted to a phone call with Fenech the night before his arrest, which he says was on the prime minister’s instructions and intended to prevent Fenech from leaving the country.
The links between the two men and Caruana Galizia’s investigations became clearer when, in June, journalists revealed that Fenech had in 2015 made a profit of €4.6 million through 17 Black, off the purchase of a Montenegro wind farm by Malta’s state energy company Enemalta. The deal saw Enemalta pay a Seychelles-registered company, Cifidex, €10.3 million for shares in the Mozura wind farm project in December 2015. Cifidex had purchased the shares for €2.9 million from the original concessionaires just two weeks earlier, using €3 million borrowed from 17 Black. The original funds and the profit were then returned to 17 Black.
At the same time as the deal was taking place, financial advisors for Schembri and then-energy minister Mizzi, who fronted the project, were trying to open bank accounts for the pair’s companies in Panama. The advisors listed 17 Black as a target client that would pay up to €2 million into the companies. Schembri said in court that his connection with 17 Black was a ‘draft business plan’ intended to be implemented only after his departure from politics. Mizzi denies any association. He was expelled from the Labour Party in the wake of the revelations, but remains an MP.
Cifidex is reportedly owned by Turab Musayev, an executive of SOCAR Trading, a subsidiary of the Azerbaijan state oil company SOCAR. Musayev and Fenech were, until the end of 2019, both directors in Malta’s main power station, which was supplied with gas by SOCAR.
The case underscores the intertwining of political, business, and criminal interests, exposing a pervasive culture of corruption. The collusion between Maltese officials and Azerbaijani counterparts, driven by financial gain and shady deals, highlights the erosion of ethical boundaries. The murder of Daphne Galizia and subsequent revelations demonstrate the lengths to which those involved were willing to go to protect their interests, obstruct justice, and silence investigative journalism. The interconnected web of financial transactions, secret recordings, and political maneuvering reveals a disturbing pattern of corruption that reaches the highest levels of power in both Malta and Azerbaijan, compromising the principles of accountability and transparency. The need for a thorough investigation, accountability, and systemic reforms is evident to restore public trust and combat corruption.
Sources
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-9-2023-10-03_EL.html
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_22_4583
Chapter two: laundromats
A Laundromat is an all-purpose financial vehicle, typically set up by a bank or other financial services company, that is intended to help clients launder the proceeds of crime, pay bribes, hide ownership of assets, embezzle funds from companies, evade taxes or currency restrictions, move funds to Europe or other markets, and move money offshore. OCCRP coined the term with its 2014 investigation into the Russian Laundromat.
Money-laundering operations like the Laundromat are common in the former Soviet republics and are often deeply integrated into their economies. They may be used by government officials, organized crime groups, or even ordinary businesses.
RP has uncovered four major Laundromats: The Proxy Platform, the Russian Laundromat, the Troika Laundromat, and Azerbaijani Laundromat. These systems were set up by Latvian, Lithuanian, Moldovan, and Russian banks. Some are interconnected. None of them have been entirely explored.
The Azerbaijani Laundromat is the name given to a complex money-laundering operation that handled US$ 2.9 billion over a two-year period thanks to four shell companies registered in the United Kingdom.
Between 2012 and 2014, Azerbaijan’s kleptocratic ruling elites pumped the money through the companies’ Estonian bank accounts. The companies’ true owners were hidden behind unknown offshore shareholders. (See: Four Core Companies)
The core companies that power the Azerbaijani Laundromat are Polux Management LP, Hilux Services LP, Metastar Invest LLP, and LCM Alliance LLP.
Reporters for OCCRP, the Danish newspaper Berlingske, and their partners found two separate sets of documents for each of the four British companies that make up the core of the Azerbaijani Laundromat: Paperwork they filed with the Companies House, where British company registration records are kept; and the filings they made when they opened accounts at Danske Bank in Tallinn, Estonia.
The two sets tell different stories but have one main thing in common: The beneficial owners and directors listed in both cases are not real.
When registering with the United Kingdom’s Companies House, each of the four companies lists a British address. On the other hand, their records at Danske Bank list addresses in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan.
Hilux Services LP and Polux Management LP were both registered in Glasgow, Scotland on West George Street but in different apartments. Their Azerbaijan addresses are listed at 115 S. Vurgun St. in Baku.
Both companies show the same shareholders in the UK records, and their bank accounts were both opened by the same Azerbaijani man, Maharram Ahmadov.
Both transferred more than $1.7 billion from accounts allegedly handled by Ahmadov. But Ahmadov is unlikely to be the real person in charge – reporters found that he is a working class driver living in a modest home in the outskirts of Baku.
The Azerbaijani operation was likely designed primarily to obscure the origin and destination of dirty money. It was also used as a slush fund to pay off people (both inside and outside the country) who served the interests of the political elite in Baku; to buy luxury goods; or to move money abroad for various purposes.
Azerbaijan is run by the family of President Ilham Aliyev, which controls a huge portion of the country’s wealth. The Aliyevs have shamelessly plundered the state like it was their personal ATM machine. They control at least eight banks, numerous luxury hotels, construction companies, and other major assets. The true extent of their control of the oil-rich state’s economy is unknown.
As in other captured states, the family core is surrounded by a group of wealthy businessmen and political elites – often related by marriage or business ties – who control the next level of the economy and most ministries. Their fortunes rise and fall depending on the Aliyevs’ favor.
Many of these people appear in the Laundromat records.
Axel Fischer and Eduard Lintner, former Members of Parliament (MPs) of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and members of the German Bundestag until 2009 and 2021, respectively, are at the center of these allegations. The Munich prosecutor’s office filed the charges.
Another implicated politician, Karin Strenz, also faced suspicion but passed away in 2021. A meticulous investigation over four years culminated in these accusations of corruption and bribery.
The findings reveal that Lintner allegedly received funds from Azerbaijan’s authorities and redistributed them to fellow MPs, including Strenz. The purpose was to secure decisions in Azerbaijan’s favor, especially within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). Prosecutors believe Strenz had committed to acting “in accordance with Azerbaijan’s expectations.” Fischer is similarly accused of an agreement in 2011 with an Azerbaijani parliamentary representative, supporting Baku’s interests at PACE for future financial rewards. His reported actions included delivering “positive” speeches, leaking confidential information, and strategic voting.
Strenz reportedly received at least 22,000 euros ($24,270) through a lobbying company established by Lintner. Meanwhile, Lintner’s two companies received a total of 3.4 million euros ($3.7 million) between 2012 and 2014. The exact amount he personally gained remains unclear.
Reporters for OCCRP previously exposed the Russian Laundromat, a fraudulent scheme that moved more than $20 billion out of the Russian Federation, and other, smaller, laundromats operating in Ukraine. The two laundromats are connected. Some 33 companies in the Azerbaijani Laundromat also appear in the Russian version. All of these set-ups share the same formation agents – the people who draw up the paperwork and may appear to control a company, but actually are acting for a hidden owner.
They use the same type of British-based limited partnerships. In some cases, they share companies and bank accounts between them. Metastar, one of the companies at the core of the Azerbaijani Laundromat, was used in the Russian Laundromat as well.
Sources
https://www.occrp.org/en/azerbaijanilaundromat
https://www.occrp.org/en/azerbaijanilaundromat/what-is-a-laundromat
https://armenpress.am/eng/news/905515
Chapter three: double standards in politics
The war in Ukraine has prompted a swift international response, marked by condemnations from various countries and immediate sanctions, particularly by the West and the United States. The targeted sanctions include measures against Russian banks, oil refineries, and military exports, as mentioned in chapter one. Emergency talks have ensued at the UN Security Council, reflecting the gravity of the situation.
On social media, the speed of such an international response – which includes the exclusion of Russia from some cultural events and treatment of it as a pariah in sports – has raised eyebrows at the lack of such a reaction to other conflicts across the world.
Media journalists and political figures have been accused of double standards for using their outlets to not only praise Ukraine’s armed resistance to Russian troops, but also to underlying their horror at how such a conflict could happen to a “civilised” nation.
CBS News senior correspondent Charlie D’Agata faced backlash for characterizing Kyiv as a “relatively civilised” and “relatively European” city.
“This isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilised, relatively European – I have to choose those words carefully, too – city where you wouldn’t expect that, or hope that it’s going to happen.”
His comments were met with mockery and anger on social media, with many pointing out how his statements contributed to the further dehumanisation of non-white, non-European people suffering under a conflict within mainstream media. is He „carefully“ told us all are equal but some are more equal.
D’Agata later apologized for his choice of words, saying “I spoke in a way that I regret”.
The complexity of media portrayal became more evident when the BBC hosted Ukraine’s former deputy general prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze.
“It’s very emotional for me because I see European people with blonde hair and blue eyes being killed every day with Putin’s missiles and his helicopters and his rockets,” Sakvarelidze said.
The BBC presenter responded: “I understand and of course respect the emotion.”
His emotional statement about Europeans with “blonde hair and blue eyes” being killed was met with mixed reactions, with some drawing parallels to Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
„But people with ‘blue eyes and blonde hair’ dropping bombs over the Middle East and Africa is OK.
And ‘Blue eyes and blonde hair’ is Hitler’s words from the Mein Kampf about the superior Aryan race.“
Al Jazeera English presenter Peter Dobbie faced criticism for describing Ukrainian refugees as “prosperous, middle-class people,” leading to an apology from the media network. Similarly, Sky News drew attention for broadcasting a video of Ukrainians making Molotov cocktails, portraying it as resistance. A Molotov cocktail, a crude bomb, typically consisting of a bottle filled with a flammable liquid and a wick that is ignited before throwing.
However, If this was done by Palestinians, Afghanistan or other nations in the Middle East resisting occupation, it would be terrorism. Western duplicity knows no bounds.
The double standards here highlight the contrasting international reactions and media portrayals of conflicts. The swift condemnation and sanctions against Russia trigger criticism for their apparent inconsistency, with social media users pointing out how conflicts in other parts of the world haven’t received the same level of attention or condemnation. Additionally, instances of biased language and generalizations in media coverage contribute to perceptions of double standards, where certain conflicts are framed differently based on geographical and cultural factors.
This text shows the difference in media coverage by highlighting statements made by journalists and presenters that could be interpreted as perpetuating stereotypes or displaying biased perspectives. Examples include comments about the “civilized” nature of a conflict in Europe compared to conflicts in the Middle East or Africa, and descriptions of Ukrainian refugees as “prosperous, middle-class people.” These instances are good examples of double standards, as they imply a differential treatment in the portrayal of conflicts based on geographic and cultural factors, reinforcing the idea of Western media bias.
Sources
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/western-media-coverage-ukraine-russia-invasion-criticism
https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraines-refugee-crisis-exposes-western-medias-hypocrisy-457831
https://www.britannica.com/technology/Molotov-cocktail
Conclusion
In the introduction, we explored how selective justice manifests through the uneven application of legal consequences, favoring specific groups or people, and how this reflects double standards, exposing a lack of consistent principles and rules. The manipulation of justice by corrupt leaders to shield themselves or target rivals further underscores the intricate connection between selective justice, double standards, and corruption within a society.
In the initial chapter, the EU’s search for alternatives to Russian supplies led them to Azerbaijan, a nation grappling with its own challenges akin to Russia’s. Despite Ursula von der Leyen’s commendation of Azerbaijan as a reliable energy partner, concerns arise over its authoritarian leadership. The EU appears to overlook the transmission of Russian gas to Europe through Azerbaijan and Turkey, rendering their efforts to diversify energy sources fruitless. This scenario exemplifies a form of corruption, as the EU essentially transitions to a different gas supply from another potentially corrupt government.
In the second chapter, we delved into the concept of a Laundromat—a versatile financial vehicle designed to facilitate activities such as money laundering, bribery, asset concealment, embezzlement, tax evasion, and offshore fund movement. The term was coined by OCCRP in its 2014 investigation into the Russian Laundromat.
In the last chapter, we observed inequality in media coverage by highlighting instances where journalists sustained stereotypes or displayed biased perspectives. Notable examples include characterizations of conflicts in Europe as “civilized” compared to those in the Middle East or Africa, and depictions of Ukrainian refugees as “prosperous, middle-class people.” These instances underscore double standards, suggesting a differential treatment in conflict portrayal based on geographic and cultural factors, thus reinforcing the notion of Western media bias.
In conclusion, as we navigate issues like selective justice, corruption, double standards, geopolitical energy dynamics, laundromats and financial manipulations, and media biases, it stresses the crucial necessity for a fair and principled global environment, free from the influences of double standards and corruption.
Tackling corruption is critical because, if it’s left unchecked and not discussed, it doesn’t just harm nations – it affects all of us and impacts our shared well-being and future.
Արշալույս Էքմէքճի 
One Reply to “”