Let us get back to the Liechtenstein part of the money saga. On May 17, 2017, the Liechtenstein prsecutors office launched a probe into Leontiev's money-laundering case. On May 18, the $116 million transferred from Morgan Stanley were seized.

In March 2022, the Liechtenstein authorities eventually dropped the charges against Leontiev. On Apr. 28, 2022, the court declined to pursue new charges.

The investigation failed to trace the funds' true origin and dropped the case citing a political aspect thereof. The account freeze was apparently lifted.

But how come? What did they do to make the court reconsider and subsequently refuse to return the smuggled funds to their rightful owners?

The answer is simple. They found the right words suggested by a shrewd attorney. The Liechtenstein court that was considering the reimbursement of the bank’s creditors cited two reasons for calling off the litigation. One was that the charges were allegedly politically motivated. Secondly, the ASV was a sanctioned state-run corporation representing an unfriendly country that could not act as a plaintiff in the Princely Court of Vaduz.

So, the court dismissed the case as politically motivated, referencing the ruling of the Polish court that had allegedly made an evidence-based decision.

Meanwhile, the Polish court that handled the extradition case chose its words carefully. According to the Polish judiciary, the case “might” have been politically driven, for it “might” have targeted the bank’s bankruptcy and its subsequent acquisition by the government.

Besides, according to the court records, the bulk of evidence, including witness testimony and Vladimir Ashurkov’s statement arguing for the bankers’ ties to Navalny, stoked reasonable doubt as to the criminal charges brought against Yaroslav Alekseyev. Ashurkov’s statement is, in fact, even quoted in the resolution.

But the Liechtenstein court could push further, try the case on the merits, and peruse the official records obtained outside of Russia’s jurisdiction. Moreover, it was related to the money laundered via Wonderworks that wound up frozen in Leontiev and his companies’ Liechtenstein accounts. Sadly, the Liechtenstein court decided against pressing on. Instead, it just referenced the Polish court ruling.

According to the Princely Court of Vaduz, based on the Polish court filings, “the Russian criminal prosecution targeting Mr. Yaroslav Alekseyev and the second plaintiff <...> is politically motivated.” Odd that. The Polish court did not state it. It only invoked reasonable doubt.

Based on that conclusion, the preliminary probe the Liechtenstein prosecutors had conducted for several years was dismissed without ever being decided on the merits. The creditors’ appeal seeking to resume the litigation was dismissed, too.

Ashurkov’s statement played a major role in both litigations. The statement convinced the Polish court there might have been a political aspect to it, and stopped it from getting to the bottom of Alekseyev’s dealings. The Liechtenstein court then merely referenced the Polish court decision and discontinued the preliminary investigation.

There is an ongoing trial in Liechtenstein that already features the bank’s customers trying to recover their seized funds. Vladimir Ashurkov will be tried as a witness. Most likely, he will be insisting the case is politically motivated.

Meanwhile, the litigation is ongoing in Liechtenstein. The banks's customers—this time, without the ASV's mediation—are trying to recover their money from Leontiev. The latest decision in one of these trials, the one that came in May 2024, appointed the witnesses to be tried. Leontiev insisted that they reach out to Vladimir Ashurkov who could explain «the real state of affairs.» The court granted Leontiev's request. It will give Ashurkov the floor for a two-hour witness deposition.

(Because it is an ongoing trial, the lawyers advised that we withhold the information unrelated to Ashurkov's statement.)