Kazakh mining giant’s libel claim over journalist’s book dismissed at High Court
Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation sued Financial Times journalist Tom Burgis over his book Kleptopia: How Dirty Money is Conquering the World
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
A libel claim brought by a Kazakh mining giant over passages in a journalist’s book about “dirty money” concerning the deaths of three men has been dismissed by a High Court judge.
Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC) sued Financial Times journalist Tom Burgis over his book Kleptopia: How Dirty Money is Conquering the World, first published by HarperCollins in September 2020.
ENRC’s lawyers had argued that parts of two chapters of the book would be understood as claiming that the corporation had three men murdered to protect its business interests, or there was a reasonable ground for suspicion, as well as a further suspected poisoning.
However, on Wednesday Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that those parts of the book did not refer to the corporation, and dismissed the claim.
He said: “Only individuals can carry out acts of murder or poisoning, only individuals can be motivated to do so to protect their business interests.”
The judge also added that the book does not allege the three men were murdered, but says their deaths were suspicious.
The High Court in London was told that the bodies of former ENRC employees James Bethel and Gerrit Strydom were found in separate motel rooms during a joint motorbike trip in Missouri in May 2015, with their causes of death later recorded as malaria.
Andre Bekker’s body was found inside his burned-out Audi in Johannesburg, South Africa, the following year.
Murder is, if I may say so, not a way of generally doing business
Adrienne Page QC, for ENRC, said that “the many very serious allegations contained in the book which refer to the claimant or its owners, shareholders or officers are highly disputed”.
The barrister had argued the book would be understood to mean that ENRC had the three men murdered to protect the corporation’s business interests or secrets.
She told the court: “The deaths and the suspected poisoning are located in that part of the narrative where the secrets of the corporation are spilling, mouths are opening.”
“Protecting the secrets of the corporation was the raison d’etre for the murders.”
Ms Page disputed that the book did not refer to the company itself, telling the court: “It is always the corporation that is in the firing line. “
The barrister continued in her written arguments: “It may be accepted that killing a person, like every other action, cannot physically be carried out by a corporation; it must be carried out by individuals.
“The reader would understand that the murders were carried out at the behest of the claimant in order to protect its dirty secrets.”
“The claimant was intimately bound up in the murders,” she added.
However, lawyers for Mr Burgis and HarperCollins had argued that the parts of the book in the claim did not refer to ENRC.
Their barrister Andrew Caldecott QC told the High Court: “The question is whether the suspicious nature of the deaths would be linked by the ordinary reader to individuals, rather than a company.
“If it is only individuals, then the claim fails.”
Mr Caldecott said the focus of the book was not on the company or its board but on suspect individuals.
“Murder is, if I may say so, not a way of generally doing business,” he added.
The barrister later added: “We say that, in fact, in relation to the three murders, a person would come away thinking they need investigation.
“We say it would be wrong in fact to point a finger of reasonable suspicion at any one individual.”
Giving his ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin found the allegations were not directed at any ENRC corporations.
The judge said the book repeatedly refers to a “trio” of businessmen from the former Soviet Union who founded ENRC, who Mr Caldecott said had links to Russian criminal organisations.
Giving his ruling, a copy of Mr Burgis’ book could be seen on Mr Justice Nicklin’s desk with several paper tabs sticking out of pages.
Mr Justice Nicklin said: “The book presents the claimants as little more than a front for the operations of the trio.
“If a reader pauses to consider the role played ENRC in these events, it was being used as a vehicle for those criminal acts… or was sometimes the target. It was not the organiser of it.
“Only individuals can carry out acts of murder or poisoning, only individuals can be motivated to do so to protect their business interests.”
As the claim was brought by ENRC the company, this ruling meant the case could not continue.
He continued: “It would appear to me that the consequence of this ruling is that this claim must be dismissed and judgment must be entered for the defendant.”
ENRC was ordered to pay £50,000 in legal costs to Mr Burgis and HarperCollins.
Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Mr Burgis said: “I’m very pleased that this attempt to censor this book has failed.”
Asked if he had any second thoughts over writing any further books, he added: “I’m just a reporter, I’m going to keep on trying to report the stories.”
After the hearing, a spokesperson for ENRC said the allegations were “completely false”, adding the company was “considering its options” following the judgment.