What If Rakhat Testifies?
Nazarbayev; Dariga and Rakhat in more powerful daysThe word is that Rakhat Aliyev, Kazakh President Nazarbayev's former son-in-law, has met with U.S. Justice Department lawyers in Vienna. The subject: his possible testimony in the upcoming foreign bribery trial of James Giffen. While Aliyev was definitely in a position to know the degree to which Giffen did or did not serve as a cash conduit for Nazarbayev while he served as his main oil adviser, it is unclear he has the credibility to withstand cross examination.
It has been two months since Aliyev's fall from grace. In that time, he has seemingly lost everything -- his perch in Kazakhstan, his royal link, and even his retinue, most of whom have deserted since Nazarbayev ordered him charged with racketeering, and apparently led his daughter, Dariga, to divorce him.
What Aliyev does have left, however, is his tightly held knowledge of the inside workings of the Nazarbayev family. Some of the family finances was detailed in the Justice Department's indictment of Giffen, in which Nazarbayev is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator. But Aliyev could presumably say with some definitiveness just what role Giffen did or did not play with his former father-in-law. That is why U.S. prosecutors sought to see him in his exile in Vienna.
The question, if such testimony went forward, is whether Aliyev could overcome the natural presumption that he is settling scores.
As yet, no date is set for the trial to begin. Another pre-trial hearing is scheduled in New York this Friday.
Labels: bribery, Caspian, Giffen, Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev, oil, Rakhat
4 Comments:
The head of Radio Liberty's Kazakh service says the son-in-law had created his own clan. A clan not in the traditional sense of the word but meaning people who worked for him. Collectively, they may be in possession of a great deal of information damaging for the political and economic elite.
Link: http://www.svobodanews.ru/Article/2007/07/19/20070719193918940.html
Assuming he's right and those people have remained loyal, the son-in-law may indeed be able to tell a lot.
But what about the father-in-law? Being a shrewd politician, he must have accumulated similar info with regards to his son-in-law. In which case both sides will restrain from inflicting too much damage for fear of retaliation.
I agree, but only if Rakhat has something else to lose. What more could Nazarbayev take away?
Realistically, whatever Aliyev says about Nazarbayev is unlikely to have much impact, and the DoJ's interest is in Giffen. Inevitably, this will simply go into the files under "Post-Soviet Neo-Feudalism" along with the tales about the other Aliyevs (father and son in Azerbaijan), about Ukrainian Oil Minister Yuri Boiko and his links with RosUkrEnergo (and/or shareholders), about the oil trader Gunvor and its ties to Rosneft and the Kremlin, etc. etc. Until the local folks call their elites to account, all we can do is stop flattering the barons and pretending we can't see what they're up to. By the way, good piece on this today by The Economist's Edward Lucas: http://edwardlucas.blogspot.com/2007/07/make-benefit-glorious-osce-not.html.
Thanks Fred. I disagree on one tiny point: I do think that if Rakhat can credibly establish (or conversely knock down) the fact of a certain financial role for Giffen with Nazarbayev, that will be important for the prosecution or, respectively, the defense. Lucas is always a great read.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home