UNIVERSAL TRADING & INVESTMENT CO vs CREDIT SUISSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT L2 CIV {}3.99FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNIVERSAL TRADING & INVESTMENTCO.,INC.;

FOUNDATION HONESTYINTERNATIONAL, INC.

Civil Action Docket No.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs

-vs-

CREDIT SUISSE (GUERNSEY) LTD.;CREDIT SUISSE AG;CREDIT SUISSE TRUST, LTD.;PHILIP JOHN GLANFIELD;PAMELA FREDA KAY LE CHEMINANT;ruLIA ROSALIND CHURCH

and DOES from 1 to 10,

Defendants

I. SUBJECT MATTER.

l. The present Complaint is for collection debt on the judgment entered by the U.S.

District Court for the District of Massachusetts on J:u/ry 7,2005, registered in this U.S. District

Court under 28 U.S.C. $1963 on July 1g,2011, Docket #11-mc-00249-Pl. This Complaint is

also for damages caused by a gamishee's withholding the judgment debtor's corporate assets

from collection, and for other causes.

fi-' 'r rae

@nr

Case 1:12-cv-00198-UA Document 1 Filed 01/11/12 of 25

2

II. PARTIES.

2. Plaintiff, Universal Trading & Investment Co., Inc. ("UTICo"), is a corporation

organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts in 1993 and in good standing ever since.

UTICo has been active in international business and consulting. UTICo is the judgment creditor

for the judgment debt in the amount of $18,344,480 against United Energy Systems of Ukraine,

PFG (“UESU”), a Ukrainian corporation, whose assets have been controlled by Defendants

hereinafter, through UESU’s parent Bassington, Ltd., incorporated in the British Virgin Islands

(BVI) and through BL Trust that Defendants have maintained and serviced. The judgment debt

includes interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1961.

3. Plaintiff, Foundation Honesty International, Inc. (the “Foundation”), is a nonprofit

corporation founded by UTICo in 1997, initially in the State of New York. In 2002 the

Foundation was given its present name. In 2010, its corporate registration was transferred to the

State of Massachusetts. UTICo made commitments to allocate a portion of the judgment

recovery described herein to the Foundation’s charitable work, including funding of orphanages.

The Foundation has an interest in the outcome of this action.

4. Defendant, Credit Suisse (Guernsey) Ltd. (“CS-G”) is a company No. 15197,

incorporated in Guernsey in 1986, at the address: Helvetia Court Les Echelons South Esplanade,

St. Peter Port Guernsey GY1 3YJ. CS-G is a fully owned subsidiary of Credit Suisse AG, as

described below. This Court has jurisdiction over CS-G, because it has been doing business in

New York and it has maintained a bank account in New York, as follows: Credit Suisse, Tower

49, 12 East 49th

Street, New York, NY, 10017, account No. 192260-01. As relevant for this

action, CS-G obtained $460,000 for Bassington, Ltd., UESU’s nominal corporate parent, for BL

Trust, as evidence shows, beneficially owned by UESU’s former president Yulia Tymoshenko.


3

5. Defendant, Credit Suisse AG (“CS AG”), aka Credit Suisse First Boston, Inc.

(one of its prior corporate names used in the USA) is an international bank that has maintained a

branch and office in New York, whose present address is: 11 Madison Avenue, New York, NY,

10010. Its prior address in this jurisdiction was, as mentioned above, Tower 49, 12 East 49th

Street, New York, NY, 10017. CS AG, having obtained license in the USA by the U.S. Federal

Reserve, does business and maintains registration in many other States. CS AG’s main

headquarters are at: Uetlibergstrasse 231, CH 8070, Zurich, Switzerland. CS AG has been doing

business and has maintained incorporation in Guernsey, company No. 463, at the same address

as above: Helvetia Court South Esplanade, St Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 3ZQ. It is noteworthy

that in 2009, CS AG was prosecuted in the U.S. (for money laundering concerning Iran),

entering into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the District Attorney for County of New

York and the U.S. Department of Justice, and paying the fine of $536 million.

6. Defendant, Credit Suisse Trust, Ltd., aka Credit Suisse Fides Trust, Ltd. (“CS

Trust”) is incorporated in Guernsey since 1974 as company No. 3790, with the same address as

CS-G: Helvetia Court, South Esplanade, P.O. Box 122, St. Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 4EE. CS

Trust, under Docket 1075 of the Guernsey Financial Services Commission, is a joint licensee for

trust services set up by CS AG. CS Trust has done business in New York, in conjunction with

CS-G. As relevant for this action, it was credited funds through CS New York, Tower 49, 12

East 49th

Street, New York, NY, 10017, account No. 192260-01. Namely, CS-G and CS Trust

received $460,000 for UESU’s corporate parent Bassington, Ltd., for the benefit of BL Trust, as

evidence shows, beneficially owned by Tymoshenko.

7. Defendant, Philip John Glanfield (“Glanfield”), has been a trust officer of CS-G at

all relevant times, with the same address: Helvetia Court South Esplanade, St. Peter Port,


4

Guernsey, GY1 4EE. On information and belief, Glanfield’s residential address is: Maple

House, La Grande Rue, SSV, Guernsey, GY7 9PW. As evidence shows, Glanfield undertook

functions as an officer of UESU’s parent Bassington Ltd. and/or trustee of BL Trust, beneficially

owned by Tymoshenko, and he was involved in receiving $460,000 through New York.

8. Defendant, Pamela Freda Kay Le Cheminant (“Le Cheminant”), has been a trust

officer of CS-G at all relevant times, with the same address: Helvetia Court South Esplanade, St.

Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 4EE. Le Cheminant undertook functions of an officer of Courtadmin,

the corporate secretary of UESU’s parent Bassington Ltd., and/or has acted as trustee of BL

Trust, on information and belief beneficially owned by Tymoshenko. Le Cheminant also served

as the initial officer of Bassington Ltd., acting first directly, including receipt of $460,000

through New York, and then through corporate director Primary Management, Ltd. (see below).

On information and belief, Le Cheminant may have left her position at CS-G by this time.

9. Defendant, Julia Rosalind Church (“Church”) has been a trust officer of CS-G at

all relevant times, with the same address: Helvetia Court South Esplanade, St. Peter Port,

Guernsey, GY1 4EE. Church was the officer of Courtadmin, the corporate secretary of UESU’s

parent Bassington, Ltd., and/or acted as trustee of BL Trust, on information and belief,

beneficially owned by Tymoshenko. Church served as the initial officer of Bassington, Ltd., first

directly, receiving $460,000 in New York, then through corporate director Primary Management,

Ltd. On information and belief, Church may have left her position at CS-G by this time.

10. Judgment debtor UESU is subject to notification of this Complaint, though UESU

has not responded to notices. The designation of Defendants in the present Complaint is without

prejudice to joining additional parties, Does 1 to 10. Apart from Defendants, four relevant

parties that have not been made Defendants in this action, should be identified, as follows.


5

11. Former president of UESU, Tymoshenko is a Ukrainian national, as evidence

shows, illegally being the beneficiary of secretive BL Trust, held by Defendants. Tymoshenko

has been effectively the owner of UESU. Tymoshenko caused the wire transfers through CS AG

and CS-G, associated with UESU’s dealings and kickbacks. Tymoshenko was UESU’s founder

in 1995 and has become, through Defendants’ services, the beneficiary of UESU’s assets.

12. Apart from her business activities, Tymoshenko also engaged in a political career

in Ukraine, twice rising to the position of a Prime Minister, but using government positions to

advance the interests of UESU. Tymoshenko has faced numerous criminal charges alleging

bribery, conversion and fraud. In October of 2011 Tymoshenko was convicted in Ukraine,

serving a 7-year sentence. Tymoshenko has been sued on a similar claim in this Court, Docket

11cv7877, however, despite the obligations under the 1965 Hague Convention for Service

Abroad of Judicial and Nonjudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Ukraine’s

Ministry of Justice has been protracting service of the summonses on Tymoshenko in the prison.

13. Bassington Ltd. (“Bassington”) is an offshore company under the laws of the

British Virgin Islands (“BVI”), incorporated on October 23, 1996, as company No. 203394 and

No. 1067809. Its registered address is: Mossack & Fonseca & Co., at Akara Bldg., 24 De Castro

Street, Wickhams Cay 1, P.O. Box 3136, Road Town, Tortola, BVI. As mentioned above,

Bassington is the corporate parent of UESU. Bassington’s assets have been held, inter alia, on

the account at Credit Suisse, Tower 49, 12 East 49th

Street, New York, 10017, CS-G’s account

192260-01, account of Bassington #41427. As mentioned above, the banking records show the

transfers to that account in New York for at least $460,000. Bassington has been sued by

UTICo, in the District of Massachusetts, Docket 11cv12212, but with a similar issue-- obtaining

a certificate of service-- in the BVI, under the 1965 Convention.


6

14. Primary Management, Ltd. (“Primary”) is a fiduciary Guernsey company, No.

420, used by CS-G for servicing trusts. Its address is, as above: Helvetia Court, South

Esplanade, PO Box 122, St. Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 4EE. It is also incorporated in the

Bahamas at the address: Charlotte House, Charlotte Street, P.O. Box 3023, Nassau, the Bahamas.

Primary (Docket 1010129 of the Guernsey Financial Services Commission) is a joint licensee for

providing trust services, along with CS Trust. On May 7, 1998, Primary was appointed as the

director of UESU’s parent Bassington Ltd., used as a corporate nominee for cover-up of BL

Trust, as evidence shows, beneficially owned by Tymoshenko.

15. Court Administration, Ltd. (“Courtadmin”) is a fiduciary Guernsey company No.

5628, incorporated since 1976, at the same address as above: Helvetia Court South Esplanade,

St. Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 4EE. Courtadmin (Docket 5778 of the Guernsey Financial

Services Commission) is a joint licensee for trust services with CS Trust (as Primary above).

Courtadmin was the corporate secretary of UESU’s parent Bassington, Ltd., a corporate nominee

of BL Trust, as evidence shows, beneficially owned by Tymoshenko.

III. JURISDICTION.

16. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1963. Under the laws of New

York, a judgment debt may be collected from garnishees, NY CPLR §5201, et seq., such as

Defendants herein.

17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the parties because of the diversity

of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332. The claim exceeds $75,000, the statutory minimum.

18. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants, because they have conducted

business in the United States, particularly in New York, proven by two documented transactions

for $460,000. At a very minimum, all of the Defendants were involved in receiving and holding


7

assets in New York in the name of Bassington, for the benefit of BL Trust and ultimately for

Tymoshenko’s benefit, to defraud UESU’s creditors. As mentioned above, the banking records

show that Defendants received those proceeds in the name of Bassington on its account as

follows: CS AG, Tower 49, 12 East 49th

Street, New York, 10017, account current of CS-G

192260-01, subaccount of Bassington, #41427 (the banking records being available).

19. The above transactions with $460,000 were, on information and belief, organized

by residents of Guernsey Glanfield, Le Cheminant and Church, the trust officers of CS-G and

officers of Bassington at the relevant times, fraudulently acting for the benefit of Tymoshenko.

For that reason this Court has jurisdiction over those Guernsey residents.

20. Furthermore, this Court has general jurisdiction over CS AG, because it applied

for, and obtained, the license of the U.S. Federal Reserve for doing business in the USA.

Furthermore, CS AG applied for, and obtained, a banking permit of the Department of Financial

Services of the State of New York (previously the New York State Banking Department), with

offices in the County of New York where it has done regular business. Furthermore, CS AG has

incorporated in the State of New York over 80 Credit Suisse corporations, providing various

financial services of the banking group, headed by CS AG.

21. The general jurisdiction over CS AG in the U.S. was confirmed, as mentioned

above, in 2009, when the U.S. Department of Justice and the District Attorney’s Office for New

York, settled the claims against CS AG with a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, in United States

v. Credit Suisse AG, Docket 09cr352, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in

connection with the money laundering to bypass the sanctions of the U.S. Government against

Iran. The general jurisdiction over CS AG was confirmed also in the action by the Board of


8

Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Docket 09-210-B-FD, In re Credit Suisse AG (resulting

in the Order to Cease and Desist Upon Consent).

22. The general jurisdiction over CS-G derives from the fact that it has maintained an

account current in New York, held at the CS-G, #192260-01, at CS AG branch in New York. As

such, it did regular business in New York.

23. The venue is proper in this District, because, inter alia, those Defendants that are

aliens within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1391(d), may be sued in any District. The courts have

held that this §1391(d) concerning aliens applies to foreign corporations.

IV. FACTS.

24. In April of 1994 Cube, Ltd. (“Cube”), a Ukrainian corporation, holding a $113

million government contract, signed a contract and Power of Attorney to UTICo, for services to

collect the alleged debt of the Indian and Chinese buyers of the ferrous metals from Ukraine.

The Power of Attorney and contracts were executed by Cube’s then president Tymoshenko.

25. In 1995-1996 UTICo was able to recover $660,000 paid by the Indian

intermediaries. Per instructions from Cube’s and later UESU’s principals, those recovery

proceeds were directed to Somolli Enterprises, Ltd. (“Somolli”), incorporated in Cyprus.

26. As discovered later, a Ukrainian business person and politician, Tymoshenko,

secretly controlled Somolli, owning 33.4% in her own name, 33.3% in the name of her husband

Olexandr Tymoshenko and the remaining 33.3% in the name of their nominee, Olexandr

Gravets, who was unaware of his name being used for holding Somolli.

27. In September of 1995 Tymoshenko’s privy Pavlo Lazarenko (“Lazarenko”) was

promoted from the Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Region to the First Deputy Premier of Ukraine.


9

Lazarenko’s responsibilities included energy commodities’ supplies, imported from Russia.

Tymoshenko and Lazarenko engineered the setup of UESU, to substitute Cube.

28. As evidence shows, Lazarenko directed a bribe of $7 million to the then

Ukrainian Prime Minister Yevghen Marchuk, to license UESU for the natural gas business and

distribution in Ukraine.

29. Lazarenko and Tymoshenko were the masterminds of the UESU scheme. On

November 8, 1995 Lazarenko wrote to Russian authorities proposing that UESU become an

intermediary for natural gas imports from Russia, through OAO Gazprom. That was before

UESU was actually incorporated in Ukraine, but the conspirators had already decided on the

corporate name. Lazarenko obtained the consent from the Russian authorities.

30. On November 20-24, 1995 Tymoshenko, with several other Ukrainian nationals,

arranged for the creation of UESU as a private company in Ukraine that she and her privies

controlled. Cube was converted into UESU.

31. The incorporation of UESU on November 20, 2005 involved fraud. The Minutes

No. 2-1/95 of the shareholders’ meeting said that it was attended by Andreas Petrou (“Petrou”), a

Cypriot citizen, who voted 85% for the purported Cypriot shareholders.

32. In fact, Petrou never attended that meeting in Ukraine and was unaware of his

‘presentation’. Tymoshenko used Petrou’s name to conceal her secret interest in UESU.

33. As Petrou testified, the only time he saw Tymoshenkos was in 1992, when they,

as tourists, walked into a travel office that Petrou’s wife maintained in Cyprus. Petrou, who was

an attorney, referred them to another attorney and never heard back from the Tymoshenkos.

34. At Petrou’s deposition in Cyprus by the U.S. law enforcement, various documents

concerning UESU were shown to him, and he testified to his signatures being forged.


10

35. In December of 1995 Lazarenko used his position as First Deputy Premier to have

UESU licensed in Ukraine as the distributor of natural gas in Ukraine.

36. Lazarenko and Tymoshenko negotiated the contract between the Russian gas

supplier, OAO Gazprom, and UESU for 1996, including talks with Gazprom’s chairman Rem

Viakhirev (“Viakhirev”), to whom Lazarenko directed bribes.

37. Thereby, UESU was made subsidiary of United Energy International, Ltd., in

London (“UEIL”). UEIL was set up, under the laws of England and Wales, in October of 1995,

as company #3075334, at the address: 41 Dover Street, London, W1X 3RB, the U.K.

38. As a plan of the scheme, UEIL was made the parent entity of UESU and put

under the control of Tymoshenko through Somolli in Cyprus. UEIL nominally held 85 percent

of UESU and employed a sole operator in London, a Turkish national Ekrument Aksoy

(“Aksoy”), to transfer UESU proceeds to Somolli or at its orders. UEIL was also included, as

UESU’s parent, into the delivery contracts between Gazprom and UESU.

39. By abusing his governmental powers, Lazarenko enabled Tymoshenko and UESU

to conclude with Gazprom Contracts No. 4GU and No. 70, both dated December 29, 1995.

40. The users of the natural gas in Ukraine, including large enterprises, were

obligated to pay for the distributed gas to UESU and/or UEIL accounts. UESU’s principals

arranged for those proceeds routed to the offshore accounts, including: (a) UEIL at National

Westminster Bank, 208 Picadilly, London, Nos. 140/0/04329791 and 06010644; (b) UESU at

Golden Union (offshore) Bank, P.K. 466-Lefcosa, Mersion 10, Turkey, No. 1073601 LSCB,

#59-13710 and (c) Somolli at First Trading Bank, Nauru, No. 5005702948, 173899.

41. Lazarenko, who became the Ukrainian Prime Minister in May of 1996, served as

UESU’s key promoter, using the governmental leverages. On information and belief, his


11

arrangement with Tymoshenko was that he would get 50% interest in the ultimate illegal profits

of UESU to be directed by Tymoshenko in kickbacks to his offshore accounts.

42. According to testimony of a witness, In June of 1996 Lazarenko directed, in the

interests of UESU, at least two bribes to Gazprom’s Viakhirev, using Lucky Star Enterprises,

Ltd. ($1.4 million) and Eagle Enterprises, Ltd. ($1,280,000), through the Cayman Islands.

43. UESU’s operators used fabricated invoices in the name of Somolli. They hired a

Macedonian national Donco Stojanovski (“Stojanovski”), who was housed for free in Ukraine, to

pose as Somolli’s director, for signing blank documents. As Stojanovski testified, he was

required, for a small salary and free housing, to sign blank pages on Somolli’s letterhead.

Stojanovski did not know what was then entered into those signed blank pages.

44. Aksoy, a nominal director of UEIL, stationed at the time in London, later testified

that he received the invoices and the orders on Somolli’s letterhead, signed by Stojanovski, by

express mail and by fax. Most of the orders were to transfer proceeds from UEIL’s account at

National Westminster bank in London to Somolli’s accounts at Bank of Cyprus, Ltd. in Cyprus.

45. Lazarenko’s and others’ conspiracy caused UESU to rapidly become an enormous

entity generating over $11 billion in turnover in 1996, its first year of operation. As banking

records show, the proceeds generated by UESU were secretly forwarded to Somolli’s account in

Cyprus, and then the 50% kickbacks were forwarded under Lazarenko’s control. All that was

accomplished without corporate formalities, using fake contracts or no contracts.

46. No later than in the fall of 1996, all of the Defendants herein became involved in

Tymoshenko’s money laundering, for concealing UESU’s assets, whose turnover became in the

hundreds of millions of dollars. That scheme, using Bassington, became at the center of those

offshore nominees for holding and concealing UESU’s assets,


12

47. Bassington, IBC No. 203394 in the BVI, was set up on October 23, 1996, on the

orders of the officers of CS Trust, at the address: P.O. Box 122, Helvetia Court, South

Esplanade, St. Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 4EE. CS Trust and CS-G were the fully owned

subsidiaries of CS AG (that was also known as Credit Suisse First Boston for almost ten years),

providing services to Tymoshenko and UESU.

48. Bassington’s initial directors were three Guernsey residents, employees of CS

Trust: Denise Sally Corbet, Sandra Christine Ayres and Catherine Nicolle. These three persons,

acting on Credit Suisse Fides letterhead, retained Mossack Fonseca & Co. (BVI) Ltd. in the BVI

to serve as the agent office for Bassington. The main operator of that agent office in the BVI, for

handling the Bassington file, was Rosemarie Flax.

49. As the BVI offshore documents, recovered through a court action in the BVI,

show, on or about December 11, 1996, that shell entity, Bassington, was sold for purposes of the

UESU scheme. All operations were from that point to be directed through other CS Trust

officers, Glanfield, Le Cheminant and Church. As a part of that scheme organized by CS Trust

and CS-G, Bassington’s authorized capital was increased from 50,000 to 1,000,000 shares.

50. In December of 1996, 90% of the stock in UEIL in London was transferred to

Bassington in the BVI. Thereby Bassington became UEIL’s corporate parent, which, in turn,

was UESU’s parent, in a sophisticated offshore holding scheme materialized by CS Trust.

51. UTICo’s discovery in the BVI, through the Royal Court in Tortola, has shown

that, as a part of such restructuring the holdings for UESU, Bassington’s new directors became

CS Trust’s employees in Guernsey, Le Cheminant, Church, as well as Corbet, the latter being

Bassington’s only initial director.


13

52. The nominal secretary of Bassington was made, as mentioned above, Courtadmin,

operated by CS Trust, handling trust services for hundreds of offshore entities. As mentioned

above, Bassington’s account was set up in New York, through CS-G and CS Trust.

53. These trust officers at CS Trust and CS-G operated Bassington in the BVI in the

interests of money laundering for Tymoshenko and UESU, to avoid UESU’s creditors.

54. On December 23, 1996, Le Cheminant wrote from CS Trust office in Guernsey to

Flax, at Mossack & Fonseca Co. in the BVI, an instruction marked “urgent”, that Bassington’s

authorized capital was to be increased to 1,000,000 shares.

55. As Aksoy testified at the video-taped deposition by the U.S. law enforcement,

Bassington was held by a trust called BL Trust, for Tymoshenkos’ benefit. BL Trust was

operated at CS Trust in Guernsey, where both Tymoshenko and Lazarenko held assets.

56. On December 31, 1996 Lazarenko, abusing his Prime Minister’s powers,

obligated a member of his Cabinet to sign a Ukrainian State guarantee, to secure Gazprom’s

deliveries of natural gas to UESU, for $200 million per month in the event of UESU’s default,

thus allowing UESU to continuously receive huge amounts of natural gas.

57. On January 20 and 21, 1997 UESU’s principal Olexandr Tymoshenko instructed,

by two letters to the Bank of Cyprus on Somolli’s letterhead, to wire transfer $460,000 to

Bassington’s account in New York. Those instructions signed thus by Tymoshenko’s husband

directed those proceeds to CS New York, Tower 49, 12 East 49th

Street, New York, NY, 10017,

account No. 192260-01 held by CS-G, for further credit of account of Bassington, #41427.

58. More specifically, $270,000 was wire transferred from Somolli’s account at the

Bank of Cyprus to Bassington’s account in New York on January 20, 1997 and another $190,000

was wire transferred, from the same account, with the same instructions, on the next day.


14

59. Those instructions to increase the authorized capital of Bassington from 50,000 to

1,000,000, were finalized on February 13, 2007; Le Cheminant and Church signed the directors’

Minutes of Bassington that the authorized capital of Bassington was increased to 1,000,000

shares. The amendment of Bassington’s Articles of incorporation, increasing the authorized

capital was filed by Flax in the Registry of companies in the BVI on March 7, 1997.

60. As a part of that scheme, Bassington stock in a bearer form was issued to

Tymoshenko as UESU principal to be held, on information and belief, through BL Trust.

Namely, on April 24, 1997 Le Cheminant and Church in Guernsey wrote to Flax in the BVI,

advising that 451,872 shares were issued on April 8, 1997 in a bearer form, each share

representing $1.00. On information and belief, this corresponded to the earlier payment of

$460,000 from Somolli’s account to Bassington’s account in New York, for Bassington’s

capitalization by UESU, plus CS Trust’s processing fees.

61. Then Bassington was used for the UESU scheme, to conceal the kickbacks and

bribes to Lazarenko. As banking records show, Bassington was a part of the scheme, as a result

of which ca. $101,079,339 was transferred in kickbacks to Lazarenko through correspondent

accounts in New York. Most of those wire transfer instructions were signed, on Somolli’s

letterhead, by Olexandr Tymoshenko.

62. Together with UESU and several individuals, Ukrainian nationals, Bassington

became an instrumentality of an enterprise using money laundering perpetrated by Defendants.

Markedly, all of those Ukrainian nationals involved in UESU were subsequently convicted

(Lazarenko in the USA, Tymoshenko in Ukraine, as well as several others).

63. As the questioning by the Swiss and U.S. law enforcement of officers of CS AG

subsequently showed, CS AG’s headquarters in Zurich and Geneva were fully aware of the


15

money laundering undertaken in the interests of Lazarenko. For example, that was shown in the

transcripts of CS AG’s officer André Wolkowitz, who was the CS AG’s accounts handler for its

Eastern European clients. CS AG operated Lazarenko’s coded account NIHPRO (#98882-50) in

Geneva, liquidated in early 1998, all its assets transferred to CS-G, to his trust in Guernsey.

64. As another example of UESU’s and Tymoshenko’s kickbacks to Lazarenko, from

April to December of 1996, CS AG, Geneva branch, serviced a coded account called ORPHIN

(NIHPRO read backwards), held by Lazarenko’s assistant Petro Kiritchenko (“Kiritchenko”).

Thus, pursuant to the UESU scheme, the ORPHIN account at CS AG received from Somolli,

$23,049,386. In the course of 1996, those proceeds were included into $40,447,000 transferred

by Kiritchenko from the ORPHIN account to Lazarenko’s NIHPRO account at CS AG.

65. In July of 1997 Lazarenko was removed from the position of the Prime Minister,

on the allegations of corruption related to UESU.

66. UESU’s operations in the gas distribution were audited by authorities in Ukraine.

Pursuant the new Government’s audit published by June of 1998, UESU was sanctioned for

withdrawing proceeds, and a penalty of about $704 million was imposed. That was based on the

illegal transfers effected by UESU from Ukraine, as discovered by that time.

67. On or about May 7, 1998, Glanfield, Le Cheminant and Church resigned as

officers of Bassington, replaced by Primary. Their minutes, showing such a replacement,

pointed to Primary’s address in the Bahamas, whereas Primary also had the address in Guernsey,

identical to CS Trust. The corporate minutes were signed, in the name of Bassington’s corporate

secretary Courtadmin, by Church and another officer of Courtadmin, Geoffrey David Le

Poivedevin, without their printing their names in the document.


16

68. On July 7, 1998, based on UTICo’s discovery of evidence concerning UESU

incorporated into Ukraine’s Letter Rogatory, Bailiff’s office in Guernsey issued a subpoena to

CS-G, mandating the production of documents concerning UESU, UEIL, Bassington,

Tymoshenko, Lazarenko and a number of their co-conspirators. As a result, CS-G blocked the

assets related to those accounts (including, on information and belief, Tymoshenko’s BL Trust).

69. After CS-G froze those assets, UESU, UEIL, Bassington, Tymoshenko,

Lazarenko and others filed in Guernsey an appeal from the Bailiff’s decision to release banking

records to investigators CS AG, on information and belief, froze all assets related to UESU.

70. In December of 1998 Lazarenko, traveling on a Panamanian passport, was

detained and arrested in Switzerland. He was charged with money laundering. Those charges

were, in part, related to the UESU scheme. After 10 days of incarceration, Lazarenko was

released on bail, pending a trial to be held in Geneva, Switzerland.

71. In February of 1999 a resolution by the Prosecutor General of Ukraine to strip

Lazarenko of the parliamentary immunity was submitted before the Ukrainian legislature.

Without awaiting the outcome of the vote, Lazarenko absconded from Ukraine, traveling to New

York, where he was detained and later arrested towards an extradition to Switzerland.

72. In June of 2000 Lazarenko pled guilty in absentia to money laundering in

Switzerland, forfeiting more than $8 million to the Canton of Geneva and accepting half of the 3

years of the maximum punishment for money laundering in Switzerland, i.e. 18 months,

factually spent in the American prisons. Then, instead of release, also in June of 2000,

Lazarenko was charged of money laundering in the U.S., Docket 00cr284 in the U.S. District

Court of the Northern District of California, and he was then retained in prison.


17

73. In 2001 three criminal cases against UESU principals were opened in Ukraine.

Lazarenko was charged, in absentia, of bribery involving UESU proceeds, for ca. $87 million.

74. Among other matters, in May of 2001 Lazarenko was charged of contract murders

(resulting in the killing of 5 persons), for which about $2,479,000 was paid, allegedly from

proceeds, generated by the UESU scheme. Those charges related, in particular, to the shooting

and killing of a competitor to UESU, on the tarmac of the airport in Donetsk (Ukraine), Eugene

Scherban, in November of 1996, who headed an entity that competed with UESU.

75. In July of 2002 the Prosecutor General’s Office in Ukraine petitioned the

Parliament to strip Tymoshenko, then a member of parliament, of immunity and to arrest her, to

stand charges in connection with the UESU frauds. That resolution to strip immunity was

blocked by Tymoshenko’s allies.

76. In September of 2002 the new Prosecutor General, Sviatoslav Piskun, filed a new

Petition to the Parliament to strip Tymoshenko of the immunity, for the UESU frauds.

According to audit and charges, in the course of the UESU scheme, about $2,271,221,873 was

converted and transferred out of the country. That Petition did not muster enough votes.

77. Four top financial managers of UESU fled from Ukraine and were declared

wanted by Ukraine through Interpol. By October of 2002 those four managers of UESU were

located by Interpol in Turkey, arrested and extradited to Ukraine to stand trial.

78. In May of 2004 Tymoshenko was charged with the conspiracy to bribe the

members of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, to secure the release of the UESU’s senior financial

officers from detention, extradited from Turkey, and to close their cases.


18

79. As evidence shows, Tymoshenko paid $125,000 in cash, but her intermediary

refused to hand over the bribe and instead testified against her. Tymoshenko then escaped being

tried, by using, again, her parliamentary immunity.

80. In May and June of 2004 Lazarenko stood a jury trial in the U.S. District Court

for Northern District of California, Docket 04cr0284. He was convicted (sentenced to over 8

years of imprisonment). However, the charges related to the kickbacks from UESU were

dismissed for insufficient evidence. Tymoshenko was identified by U.S. prosecutors as

Lazarenko’s ‘unindicted co-conspirator’.

81. In September of 2004 Tymoshenko was declared wanted by Interpol, per request

of Russia, on the charges of bribery related to UESU.

82. In December of 2004 the final vote in the presidential election took place, upon

which Victor Yuschenko (“Yuschenko”) was declared the winner and the president.

83. After Yuschenko was sworn into the office, he appointed Tymoshenko as the

acting Prime Minister on January 24, 2005, and she was confirmed as the Premier by the

Parliament, despite the track record of the petitions to strip her of immunity to stand trial.

84. As mentioned above, on July 7, 2005 the U.S. District Court made the judgment

in Boston against UESU, in favor of UTICo, for $18,344,480.

85. On September 8, 2005 Tymoshenko was fired by President Yuschenko upon the

claims, again, of corruption. In an interview to the Associated Press on September 13, 2005

Yuschenko accused Tymoshenko of having converted through UESU about $1.6 billion.

86. In January of 2007 Tymoshenko, on information and belief, caused UEIL,

UESU’s nominal parent in London, be dissolved, after UEIL failed to submit mandatory


19

corporate filings in England. UEIL failed to send out the notices of dissolution to creditors.

Bassington became the parent of UESU, after UEIL was eliminated from that holding scheme.

87. Despite increasing protests citing corruption, in December of 2007 Tymoshenko

was voted into the Prime Minister’s position again.

88. Capitalizing on her position as the Premier, Tymoshenko arranged for her bid at

the presidential election in Ukraine. On February 14, 2010 the second round of presidential

election took place, and Tymoshenko lost. On March 3, 2010 the Parliament voted on no-

confidence in Tymoshenko’s Cabinet, and she was removed from all positions.

89. The new Government initiated audit of Tymoshenko’s activities. In 2010 a

complex audit, ordered by the new Government from several firms in the USA, determined that

the damages caused to Ukraine by Tymoshenko’s acting as the Premier, totaled ca. $7.6 billion.

90. Tymoshenko’s several bribery and kickbacks’ schemes were uncovered, resulting

in new charges of Tymoshenko. On October 11, 2011 Tymoshenko was convicted by a

Ukrainian Court to 7 years of imprisonment. Tymoshenko was charged in Ukraine with several

more criminal cases, including the UESU scheme, tax evasion, kickbacks, and bribery.

91. Despite the public revelations showing corruption and money laundering

undertaken for implementing UESU’s scheme, Defendants herein have continued to conceal the

UESU assets for the benefit of Tymoshenko and her BL Trust.

COUNT 1. JUDGMENT DEBT RECOVERY

92. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 91 above.

93. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants undertook concealment of UESU’s

assets, to prevent their collection. That continued before and after UESU caused the litigation

UESU v. UTICo, docket 97cv12180 be filed in Boston in 1997.


20

94. UTICo is entitled to sue garnishees, including the banking entities and trustees,

identified herewith as Defendants, on the unsatisfied judgment debt.

95. Plaintiffs are entitled to relief on this Count, to collect the judgment debt.

COUNT 2. CONVERSION.


97. At all times hereinabove alleged, Defendants undertook the scheme to convert the

UESU proceeds to render UTICo’s judgment uncollectible, among other defrauded creditors.

98. Among other acts, the trustees and/or officers for BL Trust and Tymoshenko, i.e.

Glanfield, Le Cheminant and Church, and others at CS Trust, CS-G and CS AG, without

limitation, obtained the legal title to UESU’s proceeds. Defendants exercised control over those

assets, in the interests of concealing UESU assets from creditors, such as UTICo.

99. Numerous transactions undertaken by Defendants in the U.S., fell under the

prohibitions of the money laundering statutes 18 U.S.C. §1956 and §1957, as well as Congress’s

Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. §1952, which are a part of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt

Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. §1961, et seq.

100. Upon freezing the BL Trust assets and other UESU-related assets, corporate

Defendants have been using those as a free capital, with a very small interest and large

maintenance fees for that trust. On information and belief, the assets shown on banking records

were only fictitiously posted as the sums on deposit on the accounts of CS-G in Guernsey.

101. On information and belief, CS AG has been in a position to use those proceeds,

fictitiously shown on the trust accounts, but with little prospective of being quickly unfrozen, as

free and unaccountable capital, including for transactions on the U.S. market.


21

102. Plaintiffs, that were deprived of obtaining the judgment debt of UESU, withheld

by Defendants, is entitled to relief on this Count.

COUNT 3. UNJUST ENRICHMENT


104. At all times relevant here, by way of holding UESU’s assets, Defendants,

including CS AG, CS Trust, CS-G, were unjustly enriched, as a part of the scheme to render

UTICo’s judgment uncollectible. As mentioned above, the proceeds were at CS AG’s disposal

as its free capital, unaccounted for, allowing substantial undisclosed gains.

105. As a part of that scheme and of unjust enrichment, CS Trust and CS-G obtained

from capitalization of Bassington $460,000, originated from UESU proceeds, for shares in a

bearer form. That capitalization was little else than to divert UESU’s proceeds, in aide of the

scheme to make UTICo’s judgment uncollectible, among other debts owed by UESU.

106. Individual defendants, Glanfield, Le Cheminant and Church were unjustly

enriched, while obtaining fees for improper concealment of UESU’s assets, on information and

belief, deducting those from the assets held in BL Trust and otherwise.

107. Plaintiffs are entitled to relief on this Count, based on unjust enrichment.

COUNT 4. PIERCING CORPORATE VEIL, ALTER EGO


109. Defendants set up Bassington in the BVI, never intended to be a true corporation,

used only for fraud and fabrications in a sophisticated money laundering scheme.

110. Bassington’s Board, initially represented by Glanfield, Le Cheminant and Church,

later replaced by Primary, was fictitious. As the records in the BVI showed, no proper corporate

documentation was generated. Its only purpose was ‘protection’ of UESU’s assets from


22

creditors and concealment of evidence from the law enforcement. The BVI agent, operating

through Flax, acted on the instructions of those directors, providing a cover for the scheme.

111. As a mere nominee for BL Trust, on information and belief, beneficially held by

Tymoshenko, Bassington’s corporate veil should be pierced and/or Bassington declared as

UESU’s alter ego, for purpose of satisfying the judgment debt.

112. Plaintiffs are entitled to relief on this Count.

COUNT 5. IMPOSITION OF CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST.


114. At all relevant times Defendants made calculated efforts to camouflage the

offshore control over UESU’s assets, in a sophisticated scheme of the offshore holdings, using

UEIL in London, Bassington in the BVI, and BL Trust, maintained by CS AG, CS Trust, CS-G.

115. CS AG is subject to the banking regulations in the USA. Therefore, its retaining

control over UESU’s proceeds should be adjudged to be holding UESU’s assets in constructive

trust, for purposes of liability on the judgment.

116. Plaintiffs are entitled to relief on this Count, with the imposition of contrastive

trust up to the amount of the judgment debt plus accrued interest.

COUNT 6. IMPOSITION OF EQUITABLE LIEN.


118. As the investigation of the scheme to conceal UESU’s assets shows, Defendants

‘protected’ UESU’s assets from creditors, including from UTICo’s collecting the judgment debt.

119. UTICo pleads that this Court impose equitable lien on the assets held by CS AG

and its subsidiaries CS Trust, CS-G and others, up to the amount of the judgment, $18,348,480

plus statutory interest, for purposes of enforcing a judgment of this Court.


23


COUNT 7. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.


122. At all times relevant here Defendants undertook a sophisticated scheme that

included fraudulent conveyances and transfers to convert UESU’s proceeds, to avoid collection

by the creditors, including UTICo.

123. Due to the international scope of the UESU scheme, the transfers cited above

were fraudulent under the laws of several jurisdictions.


COUNT 8. CIVIL CONSPIRACY.

125. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 124 above.

126. As described herein, Defendants undertook a sophisticated scheme that

represented a part of the continued conspiracy to make UTICo’s judgment uncollectible.

127. For example, CS Trust and CS-G, using the fictitious instrumentalities serving

money laundering such as Bassington, Primary, and Courtadmin, through the nominal directors,

conspired among themselves and with others to conceal UESU’s assets. That conspiracy

represented a sophisticated scheme of offshore holdings providing secrecy and “protection” for

the perpetrators of criminal activities, i.e. kickbacks, involving Tymoshenko and others.


COUNT 9. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT


130. There is an actual controversy whether Bassington has been a true corporation or

rather its corporate veil should be pierced for purposes of collecting UTICo’s judgment.


24

Additionally, holding Bassington severally and jointly liable with UESU on the judgment should

be adjudged in a declaratory relief.

131. Likewise, there is an actual controversy whether BL Trust has been illegal and

whether it should be declared void, for purposes of satisfying the present judgment debt.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

a) To declare and order that Defendants CS AG, CS-G, CS Trust and the individual

trustees, enumerated above, or those that currently serve as such trustees of the BL Trust, be

severally and jointly liable for the judgment debt under UTICo’s judgment of July 7, 2005

against UESU;

b) To order Defendants CS AG, CS-G, CS Trust and others, without limitation, to pay

the judgment amount from the assets under their control at BL Trust at CS-G and/or from the

capitalization of the assets of Bassington, paid through New York for its shares in a bearer form;

c) To declare the corporate veil of Bassington pierced for purposes of satisfying the

judgment debt from the assets held for the benefit of UESU through Defendants;

d) To hold nil and void the fraudulent conveyances and transfers of UESU proceeds and

assets to BL Trust and Bassington, staged for avoiding the payment of the judgment debt owed

to UTICo, including under the State law, common law and foreign law as applicable;

e) To allow post-judgment remedies, including the imposition of constructive trust,

imposition of equitable lien, writs of attachment, injunctive relief, deposits into Court and/or

appointing a receiver;

f) To allow the statutory calculation of the interest on the judgment debt amount from

the date of the judgment entered on July 7, 2005, 28 U.S.C. §1961;


g) To award damages for actions, undertaken by Defendants, to conceal and handicap

UTICo's collection of the judgment debt;

h) To pay attomeys' fees and such other relief, without limitation, towards collection of

the judgment debt, as the Court deems just and proper.

The present Complaint is without prejudice to any and all other remedies available to a

judgment creditor for collection of its judgment.

Respectfu lly submitted,

Dated: January ..., 2012

J

177 Waverly

lsl

D.C. bar #979327,subject to applicationfor pro hac vice admissionLaw Offices ofLeonard Suchanek1025 Connecticut Ave., #1000 NWWashington, D.C., 20036T el. (202) 640 1897, F ax (202) 7 47 7797

Attorneys for P1aintiffsUniversal Trading & Investment Co.,Inc. andFoundation Honesty International, Inc.

25


G3

Typewritten Text

G3

Typewritten Text

G3

Typewritten Text

G3

Typewritten Text

G3

Typewritten Text

11

UNIVERSAL TRADING & INVESTMENT CO vs CREDIT SUISSE

Documents

Transcript of UNIVERSAL TRADING & INVESTMENT CO vs CREDIT SUISSE