3 ms·

I didn't get the same generalised impression. His point was his company is governed by the laws of Great Britain not Russia. So if some sort of law was broken,

I didn't get the same generalised impression. His point was his company is governed by the laws of Great Britain not Russia. So if some sort of law was broken, he could be held accountable in Great Britain. The article implies his company can run amok under the guise of a russian corporation and be protected by the Kremlin. His rebuttal asserts this not to be true rather directly.

modfodder 14y ago
Except that we've seen Western companies act with nearly complete impunity in highly regulated industries (most recent and notably in the banking industry in both the U.S. and the U.K. as well as companies with close gov. ties like Blackwater). And although it's registered out of the U.K., it's operating mostly in Russia. It could run amok and the U.K. courts would have a difficult time even investigating any possible transgressions, especially if the company is as close to the Kremlin as the article implies. Instinctually I trust a company run by a former Soviet intelligence officer just as much as I trust a company run by a former CIA or MI-6 officer, which is to say very little and I would assume said companies would cooperate fully with most government requests or initiatives with little resistance. That's not to say the Wired article isn't bunk, it may very well be nationalist fud.