Democrats to Investigate Treasury’s Decision to Lift Sanctions on Oleg Deripaska’s Companies

They claim the oligarch will “retain significant influence, if not de facto control” of the firms.

Evan Vucci/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Congressional Democrats want to know if there’s more to the story on why the Trump administration removed sanctions on three companies owned by Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

The energy and aluminum magnate and his companies were sanctioned last April as part of an effort to target oligarchs known to be close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. But in December, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said he planned to remove the firms from the sanctions list because Deripaska had agreed to divest himself of a controlling interest in the firms. Democrats mounted an effort to reverse the delisting decision, but failed to get enough Republican support in the Senate to pass a resolution blocking the move. The sanctions on the firm were lifted on Sunday, although Deripaska personally remains on a list of sanctioned individuals.

Now, Democrats are taking Mnuchin to task over how much control Deripaska really agreed to give up and whether Mnuchin may have had a conflict of interest in the decision resulting from his business relationship with another Russian businessman who stood to benefit from Treasury’s agreement with Deripaska. On Tuesday, the chairmen of the House intelligence, financial services, and foreign affairs committees sent Mnuchin a letter notifying him that they are launching an investigation into the decision-making process behind the delisting. The letter requested Treasury turn over all documents relating to the delisting and ordered the agency to explain who will benefit from the transactions Deripaska agreed to make in connection with his agreement to relinquish control of the companies.

Deripaska is one of Russia’s wealthiest men. He has in the past been banned from entering the United States over alleged ties to Russian organized crime (which Deripaska denies). He has also come under scrutiny in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The oligarch is a former lobbying client and business associate of President Donald Trump’s imprisoned ex-campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who allegedly owes Deripaska millions and tried to repay this debt by offering the oligarch insider briefings on the 2016 presidential election.

From the start, the sanctions against Deripaska’s companies—En+ Group LLC, a large mining and energy conglomerate; UC Rusal PLC, one of the world’s largest aluminum mining companies; and JSC EuroSibEnergo, Russia’s largest private power company—were controversial and rattled the global aluminum market. Although sanctions against Deripaska went into effect immediately—preventing Americans from doing business of any kind with him—Treasury granted a series of waivers to allow his companies to continue to do business as normal. In December, before the sanctions were officially applied, Mnuchin announced that Treasury had brokered an agreement with Deripaska.

According to the public documents released by Treasury, Deripaska would reduce his ownership in the companies to less than 50 percent, transferring his shares to other companies. The documents did not fully disclose the identities of the outfits poised to take control of Deripaska’s shares.

House Democrats summoned Mnuchin to Capitol Hill in early January to explain his delisting decision, and following the briefing they accused the treasury secretary of obfuscating. “With stiff competition, mind you, this is one of the worst classified briefings we’ve received from the Trump administration,” House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters. Mnuchin insisted that he had been forthright and said he was “surprised” that House Democrats felt they didn’t have enough information.

“These entities are undergoing significant restructuring and governance changes that sever Deripaska’s control and significantly diminish his ownership,” Mnuchin said at the time. “They have committed to provide Treasury with an unprecedented level of transparency into their dealings to ensure that Deripaska does not reassert control. As a result, these entities will no longer be designated for sanctions.”

However, according to confidential Treasury documents obtained by the New York Times last week, the details of Deripaska’s agreement to limit his involvement with the sanctioned companies varied drastically from what was presented publicly. For instance, Treasury said that Deripaska would reduce his ownership of En+ from 70 to 44.95 percent. But the confidential documents show that Deripaska will transfer shares to a foundation that he founded and funds, as well as to his ex-wife, her father, and a related company. All told, the shares owned by Deripaska, his foundation, and his close family will total about 57 percent, suggesting he will in fact retain control of En+. Also, despite public claims by the Treasury Department that he would not be allowed to profit from the transactions, the confidential documents suggest that by turning over shares to a Russian state-owned bank, he would benefit by retiring some of his debts to the institution.

In their letter to Mnuchin, which cites the Times‘ reporting, the House committee chairmen note that Treasury’s agreement with Deripaska “appears designed to allow him to retain significant influence, if not de facto control, over En+, Rusal, and ESE.” And the letter notes that “many questions remain unanswered.”

On Tuesday, Democratic Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), the ranking member of the Senate intelligence committee, sent a similar letter, asking for more details on Treasury’s decision to delist Deripaska’s companies.

Earlier this week, Rep. Jackie Speier (Calif.) sent a separate letter probing whether Mnuchin has a personal conflict of interest in the delisting deal. In her letter, first reported by Buzzfeed, Speier noted that prior to taking office Mnuchin owned a movie production company that he sold, in part, to Access Industries, a company owned by Len Blavatnik, a Russian-born billionaire who has ties to Deripaska. Blavatnik sits on the board of a company called SUAL, a major shareholder in Rusal. According to the New York Times, SUAL’s stake in Rusal will increase as part of Deripaska’s deal with the Treasury Department. In short, a man who is believed to have paid Mnuchin as much as $25 million for his movie company may well benefit from the deal to remove Rusal from the sanctions list.

Blavatnik is a US citizen who lives primarily in Britain, where he is sometimes described as the wealthiest man in the United Kingdom. He has donated to American political candidates and PACs for years, but in 2016 tilted his giving heavily to the right; Access Industries donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, and Blavatnik attended the inauguration.

Update: The Treasury responded to Speier’s letter with their own, strongly denying any connection between Mnuchin and Blavatnik, or that there was a deal between the two of them.

A representative for Access Industries did not respond to a request for comment on whether Mnuchin has any ongoing relationship with Blavatnik.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate