Trial delay for telecom exec Mark Seidenfeld
A universal picture of human rights treats each profession equally in the call for due process of law. Yet human rights organizations focus upon the treatment of journalists in repressive regimes for good reasons. First, the treatment of journalists reflects our own belief in the importance of steady, trustworthy information. Second, examining the treatment of journalists also provides a focus and indicator of human rights—if a regime treats those who can speak out in such a way, how much worse can it be for the voiceless? In another way, speaking out for journalists reflects our entry point into a culture. These journalists often bridge the gap between local communities that we do not know and the wider world. They are more than reporters: they serve as our interpreters, bringing unfamiliar cultures forward in order that we may compare and contrast them with our own.
A still more sophisticated approach to securing media freedom considers all aspects of media: not just those who manufacture its content, but those who provide for its distribution. This would include business employees and entrepreneurs, particularly those who operate or facilitate the work of publishing houses and telecommunications. Journalists provide the content: media outlets provide the means that make the content available.
Today, Mark Seidenfeld’s trial was delayed another week.
The frame-up
Mr. Seidenfeld is a 39-year old telecommunications executive who has been arrested for stealing USD40,000 worth of assets from his firm, the Kazakhstan branch of Golden Telecom, Incorporated. The equipment he has been charged with stealing has been found, by independent auditors, to be on the property of Golden Telecom, and presumably, still in use. The independent auditor is Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PwC): with an office in Kazakhstan staffed by both expatriate and local Kazakhstan executives. As independent auditors, PwC is not covering up for expat Seidenfeld.
For what reason would Mr. Seidenfeld be charged? Ilan Greenberg at the New York Times suggests that Mr. Seidenfeld was arrested for insisting upon free-market sale rather than forced sale of assets. The resulting free-market auction cost the Kazakhstan businessman who purchased it an added USD five million.
Looks like: privatization. Feels like: expropriation.
In 2002, the biggest telecommunications provider in Kazakhstan was Kaztelecom (KT), which was built upon the existing Soviet infrastructure, and incorporated in 1996. 60% of KT was owned by the government; another 30% was owned by Kazkommertsbank; and 10% was split between European and U.S. investors. Its market share, while clearly the largest, was largely based on fixed telephony. It did not provide the newest infrastructure in mobile telephony, data transmission (internet services) and fiber-optic technologies. Since the 1990’s, new technology provision created a niche for other operators such as Golden Telecom, and other joint ventures between Turkish and Kazakhstani firms.
In 2003, Kazakhstan announced that it would sell 50% of its ownership in KT, so that it might “blossom in the hands of private operators.” By January 2004, independent telecommunications executives were viewing the liberalization with dread. A new media law insisted than any foreign investment in telecommunications be limited to 10%, or that investor would have to be vetted by the government. Furthermore, market access was limited to “backbone companies,”—which have turned out to be affiliates of state-owned companies such as the national railway company, and Kaztranscom, which is owned by Kazakhoil.
Mr. Seidenfeld is one businessman who spoke up: “If these changes go through,” he remarked in 2004, “it will kill any innovation in the telecom market.” He noted that the new media law on liberalization increased the probability of monopoly in Kazakhstan.
The motives for restricting foreign telecommunications ownership by law are titularly those of national security. Nevertheless, the true reason is in profitability: Kazakhstan’s telephony and internet market is considered to be seriously underserved. The number of potential customers is therefore enormous. Telecommunications networks, built up by Golden Telecom and others, in some cases financed by the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (and for a time, part owned by the EBRD until loans were secured), are in much better shape to access a largely untapped market for cellular phones.
In the third quarter of 2004, after the redistribution of telecommunications ownership, the communications market grew by one-third.
The bottom line
Seidenfeld’s incarceration and trial points to another, more fundamental legal problem in Kazakhstan: a failure of the rule of law. For Mr. Seidenfeld, as for many others, partisanship within the legal system means that a fair trial cannot be obtained.
Just as human rights watchers note the harassment of independent journalists, they should take note of the harassment of other aspects of media service provision—and this includes the harassment of businessmen and entrepreneurs in telecommunications, publishing, and electronics. Recently, Registan.net has noted the way that Uzbekistan has silenced opposition by shutting down distribution/transmission avenues, especially electronic ones: the Web sites for opposition parties Erk and Berlik, the broadcasts of Ferghana.ru news agency, and others. Kazakhstan’s media law controls access and broadcast of foreign outlets and foreign content, limiting its percentage of ownership and percentage of play, respectively.
If it is still difficult to feel outrage over the failed telecoms in Kazakhstan, and the plight of those megabuck suits who developed it:
Imagine that your journalists have their phones and internet cut off. They are still walking the street; no operative has a hand over their lips; but they are gagged all the same.
Imagine how they must feel, unable to complete their work, unable to tell someone what is going on.
Imagine them looking over their shoulder, wondering what comes next.
Additional information from the European Commission Market Access Database. Photos: a2mediagroup.com; peopledaily.com; Zhaksy.com
April 26th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
[…] Bonnie Boyd on how the treatment of journalists is a good gauge of the general human rights environment. She also has a good backgrounder on the show trial of American businessman Mark Seidenfeld on trumped up charges in Kazakhstan, and what that can also say about a country’s rights. […]
April 26th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
[…] Bonnie Boyd on how the treatment of journalists is a good gauge of the general human rights environment. She also has a good backgrounder on the show trial of American businessman Mark Seidenfeld on trumped up charges in Kazakhstan, and what that can also say about a country’s rights. […]
April 26th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
[…] An American businessman in Kazakhstan, Marc Seidenfeld, has been arrested in what appears to be a frame-up by local business interests to retaliate against him for selling his business in an open auction, raising its final sale price. Bonnie Boyd says that this points to a serious problem with rule of law in Kazakhstan. Share This […]
April 30th, 2007 at 8:19 am
To everyone interested in this case:
I received a long letter rather than a comment about this post, the first portion of which I will paste here:
“About your blog entry referring to Mark Seidenfeld, you (and the others) have it completely wrong.
“It is obvious that you are only repeating what you have read, and you are not doing justice to the true situation.
“The New York Times article about Mark Seidenfeld is an extremely shoddy piece of journalism filled with errors. There was absolutely NO fact checking and everything was wrong. “If you compare the NYT article with the Las Vegas Sun article about Mark Seidenfeld, even reading both stories you will see that there are significant differences. And the Las Vegas Sun story was riddled with errors and a one-sided false view by Mark Seidenfeld, who has to come up with a story why he is in jail.
“There have been thousands and thousands of foreign businessmen in Kazakhstan since 1991 who come and go freely in Kazakhstan, and they just don’t end up in jail unless they did something. In fact, you cannot find one other American businessman case in Kazakhstan but this one, because Kazakhstan plainly does not personally mistreat foreigners (although some Kazakhs might try to find ways to cheat them out of money, which is not the case with Mark Seidenfeld).
“The US Embassy is the most active and influential embassy in Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan has lots of bilateral ties with the US, and the US Embassy has been closely monitoring this case and has NOT reported any incorrect procedures that have been done. Kazakhstan has been completely legalistic in their actions to avoid being blamed of any improper activities.”
Please note: I am following up with this person to see if any further light might be shed on this matter. In the meantime, the Las Vegas Sun article is at http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2007/mar/07/566632104.html .
Bonnie
April 30th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Bonnie, If you would like substantiation for what has been reported in the NYT and Las Vegas Sun, you may reach me. Aside from one confusion in the NYT article - ZAO Arna (d/b/a/ “Ducat̶
was not a Golden Telecom subsidiary, but was a company in which the EBRD was a shareholder, and it was the EBRD’s stake that was sold for $5 million more than the Kazakh shareholder wanted to pay for it - Ilan Greenberg got the story correct. I am interested to see the attack on you and the NYT article, as that writer’s vehemence in defending Mark’s detention is wholly unjustified and therefore highly suspect. Mark is the victim of an elaborate extortionate scheme initially intended to compel him or someone who cares about him to pay a ransom of between $2.5 and $5 million. At this stage, more factors seem to be at play, including the accuser’s need to protect his/its own reputation since the charges brought against Mark can be shown to be false. In most jurisdictions, there are consequences for bringing about someone’s imprisonment on false charges. The former CFO and EBRD representative at Ducat, who have first hand knowledge of Mark’s innocence are willing to testify in a Kazakh courtroom about Mark’s innocence. It would appear their willingness to travel to Almaty and testify may not be unconnected to why the trial has been postponed and Mark continues to be held unjustly. You may reach me at (202) 342-5266 or bloomda@gmail.com. I am the Derek Bloom identified in the Las Vegas Sun article. I would welcome your continued attention to Mark’s plight as he is the victim of a terrible ongoing injustice. Best regards, Derek
April 30th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Dear Mr. Bloom,
Thank you for the clarification on the ARNA/Golden Telecom mixup, which will feature in a subsequent post. It certainly appears that more facts are needed and more light shed upon the case.
For others interested in this matter: At this point, I am continuing to run down facts and wait for replies. I will post on this issue again, and welcome any comments. I will edit against character assassination, but not against factual information or honest opinion, and will follow up any assertions based on facts that you send me here.
Sincerely yours,
Bonnie
April 30th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
[…] For those of you who read my post on Mark Seidenfeld’s incarceration and trial delay, the article by Ilan Greenberg has been corrected at the NYT site (I linked to the International Herald Tribune version of NYT piece). As noted by comments received, Mr. Seidenfeld’s employer was improperly attributed. […]
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:01 pm
[…] The Foreign Policy Association’s Central Asia Weblog article featured the IHT version of Greenberg’s article with other references that highlight his situation in “Trial delay for telecom exec Mark Seidenfeld.” In this article, Bonnie Boyd noted that ensuring media freedom means extending human rights protection to media service providers. The FPA is a U.S.-based non-profit engaged in promoting awareness of the American public in foreign affairs. […]
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
[…] A few days ago, I wrote on Mark Seidenfeld’s incarceration and delayed trial in Kazakhstan. In response, I received two lengthy comments and further research references from both commentators. Since both of them seemed quite knowledgeable, I have followed up with them. One of them has been most generous in sharing information, and I have calls in elsewhere for further updates. […]
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Hello Everyone,
I am a British journalist and would like to go to Kazakstan to interview Mark Seidefeld.
Does anyone have any means of contacting him or someone who knows him that I could uitlize?
For any help I would be indebted.
I am at jonathan@jonathan-green.com
Best,
Jonathan.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:25 am
At least what I said was ‘posted ‘for a few days.
Like I said , if they erase it, then people should start to wonder ‘what is there to hide’?Why are they worried that what he has done to us will influence this case if he is totally innocent?
By the way ,our divorce trial was ‘open’ so anyone who wants to check further can order a copy of the trial from the Clark’s County court for a few dollars ,and get an idea of ,see for themselves - the kind of person he REALLY is today !
May 16th, 2007 at 2:31 am
How come this PwC report is not posted for all to see for themselves?
You want people to take you for your word ,but it is not available for all to see to verify?
May 16th, 2007 at 2:47 am
The reason “mark’ Menachem as been held so long is b/c he fought extradition for a year ,and tried to get the charges dismissed from afar, and NOT b/c they are’ holding him ‘ that long per se. This case could have gone to court long ago.
Many trials, once they begin, get stretched out for numerous reasons or excuses , this case being one of them.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:24 am
To all whom it may concern:
1. After consultation, two previous posts by Ms. Seidenfeld were deleted from the blog comments. They were, in my judgment, off-topic remarks of a personal nature. Both were beyond the purview of foreign policy, Central Asia, and the legalities of this particular trial.
2. The PwC audit was unavailable for upload because it was in .pdf format. Unfortunately, the WordPress system does not upload .pdf documents. We are attempting to find a way to upload the audit.
3. These three comments remain up because they are, in my judgment, on-topic.
This blog’s subject remains Central Asian affairs. Mr. Seidenfeld’s trial has possible ramifications for Kazakhstan’s business community, future investment potential, and the state’s legal systems. This blog is not a forum for personal comments about anyone, concerning Mr. Seidenfeld’s case or any other issue.
I examine all the comments that pass into the blog, and I will continue to prevent, edit or subsequently delete any comments that (in my judgement) interfere with the blog’s primary objective. That objective remains: a conversation on issues that affect the Central Asian region, its important states, critical issues, and rich culture.
I thank everyone for their interest.
Sincerely yours,
Bonnie Boyd
May 16th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
[…] An extract of this attack on Mark Seidenfeld was published at http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/04/25/trial-delay-for-mark-seidenfeld-telecom-executive/ […]
May 16th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Dear Readers,
After getting assistance from more technically competent parties, I’m happy to announce that:
A copy of the PwC audit is available on this site.
The link can be found at “Just the facts, ma’am: The PwC audit” as an uploaded document. You can link to that post from this page using the trackback comment from May 2, 2007 above, or by using “search” on this blog site under the terms “Mark Seidenfeld.”
Again, thanks to everyone for their interest.
Bonnie
May 20th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
[…] Выдержка из этого письма была помещена на следующем сайте: http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/04/25/trial-delay-for-mark-seidenfeld-telecom-executive/ Необходимо обратить внимание на то, что Марк Сайденфелд никогда не пытался избежать суда по его делу и ложным обвинениям, выдвинутым против него. Наоборот, Марк Сайденфелд очень хочет дождаться дня судебного заседания, так как он уверен, что в суде у него будет возможность доказать свою невиновность и опровергнуть выдвинутые против него ложные обвинения. […]
May 20th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
[…] Выдержка из этого письма была помещена на следующем сайте: http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/04/25/trial-delay-for-mark-seidenfeld-telecom-executive/ Необходимо обратить внимание на то, что Марк Сайденфелд никогда не пытался избежать суда по его делу и ложным обвинениям, выдвинутым против него. Наоборот, Марк Сайденфелд очень хочет дождаться дня судебного заседания, так как он уверен, что в суде у него будет возможность доказать свою невиновность и опровергнуть выдвинутые против него ложные обвинения. […]
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:46 am
[…] Mark Seidenfeld is still in prison in Kazakhstan, after an April trial delay that pushes back legal presentations until probably June. In the meantime, both Russian and Kazakhstani press are publishing articles that make Mr. Seidenfeld look guilty, or that he is a spy, despite the fact that audits and testimony have shown the opposite. If you get a chance, check that link above for a media summary. It’s not good. […]
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:54 am
Dear Readers,
After receiving a request from PwC, I have removed the PwC audit from the site. Well, it was up for a week, exactly.
Bonnie
May 25th, 2007 at 2:18 am
Dear Bonnie, that’s so sad that you have removed the PWC report… and I missed it…
However, I wanted to say to Ms. Seidenfeld, that if her ex- or, according to Jewish laws, yet not ex-husband has such a bad personality, anyways, it has no connection with the very case of him being held in Kazakhstan under the false accusations. So, really please stop typing all that.
Now to Bonnie, I just want to express my respect to you with this matter and ask that you continue your work on telling us what’s going on and keeping us updated. Although, I haven’t seen the PWC report, I am absolutely sure that it states exactly the same you and Mr. Bloom have been telling us. As for the very case, unfortunately, I believe that if somebody wants to keep Mr. Seidenfeld in jail, he will be held there as long as they want him to. And I am afraid that neither your coverage of the case, nor public protest will be able to get him out of there. I am not comparing him to Russian oligarchs, but even all the noise that was raised with Khodorkovsky case in Russia, didn’t alleviate the sentence…
I am also surprised that there is no response from the US government… Can you explain this?? At least with all that spy stories there is always the same scenario: when country A catches a spy from country B, country B then in turn catches a spy from country A, then they come to a common nice conclusion to exchange their people and do it and everyone is happy. I know it is rude and quite simple how I explained that, but why wouldn’t US government do the same?? ]perhaps, because KZ government doesn’t want to… but if that be the case, then thre are always other ways of pressure…] Because what I read and heard it’s only a few senators from Nevada, if my memory serves me well, who are actually talking about the case, but nothing is heard from the officials here in Kazakhstan.
Thanks a lot for what you do and good luck to you and Derek with the future investigation!!!
May 25th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Wanted to specify, that by the example with spies I didn’t mean to say that Mr. Seidenfeld is a spy or somewhat close to it. It was just used as an example…
May 27th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
[…] New announcements from the Save Mark Seidenfeld site: Mr. Seidenfeld’s new charges have now been announced, after a trial delay announced in April, when initial charges appeared to have been satisfied by evidence. […]
June 15th, 2007 at 7:00 am
IS THERE A TRIAL TODAY JUNE 15 ?
June 15th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Dear Louis,
I checked the savemark site and the best information I have is that the trial begins today. It was put off on June 4th for today, after being put off as noted in this post, April.
Keep your fingers crossed and thanks for asking. I’m keeping track too!
Bonnie
June 15th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
THANK YOU BONNY . PLEASE KEEP US ALL INFORMED .
LOUIS ( MICHA)
July 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 am
[…] Mark Seidenfeld has been in jail since December 7, 2005, on frivolous and insidious charges–but no longer. Based upon an article in the New York Times, I first wrote about this case on April 25, 2007, and looked at some of the evidence on May 2, 2007, with other updates. […]