Persistence. That’s what all of us are lacking. Hillary Clinton merely sent some work emails from a personal account, and the American media and public opinion have been hammering her over it for months. It was discussed again at the latest Democratic Party candidates’ debate. I’ve already cited the example of Bill Clinton’s $200 haircut. Here, by contrast, any scandal—no matter how outrageous—along with violations and crimes, is quickly forgotten. The press has no desire to dig deeper into stories or ask uncomfortable questions.
The Anti-Corruption Foundation is trying to be persistent as an organization, and although people write to us saying, “Enough already with Peskov,” we believe the Peskov case—made up of the trilogy of the watch, the yacht, and the house—is neither entertainment nor society gossip. It is an important political effort to mobilize the part of society that refuses to tolerate corruption and illicit enrichment, and that refuses to forget everything by giving equal attention to a corrupt official and to the latest cute internet picture of a kitten playing with a puppy.
Today we will explain why the Anti-Corruption Foundation believes that Tatyana Navka violated U.S. tax law and should be held accountable on the basis of our complaint to the IRS.
In September, the Anti-Corruption Foundation published an investigation into the home of Dmitry Peskov and Tatyana Navka’s family. It found that in January 2015, before her wedding to Mr. Peskov, Ms. Navka purchased a plot of land with a house in the village of Pozdnyakovo on Novorizhskoye Highway. On the real estate agency’s website, the house is listed at $20 million, which at the “new” exchange rate comes to no less than 1 billion rubles.
Let us also recall that earlier, when Mr. Peskov was seen wearing a wristwatch worth around 40 million rubles, he explained that it was a wedding gift from Tatyana Navka. That, of course, does not sound very plausible, since he was wearing the watch before the wedding as well—but let’s be generous and pretend to believe it.
Tatyana Navka is a well-known Russian figure skater and Olympic champion who, incidentally, lived and trained in the United States from 1992 to 2006. We can theoretically allow that a former Olympic champion’s income from advertising, television appearances, and event organization might be enough to buy a watch worth several Moscow apartments as a gift. But buying a 1 billion-ruble house outright, without a mortgage, is highly doubtful. With spending like this on watches, houses, and weddings, Navka ought to be in the top 10 richest female athletes in the world. But she is not.
Moreover, there are many other facts supporting our view that Tatyana Navka’s official income—or, more accurately, the Peskov couple’s official income—does not match their spending.
Thus, one ironclad and indisputable fact remains: Tatyana Navka did not sell her real estate in Moscow or in the United States in order to buy the new house. It was purchased with some new source of funds whose origin is unknown.
Since there is no reason to hope that Russia’s Investigative Committee or the FSB (Federal Security Service) will conduct a fair investigation into the sources of the Peskov couple’s wealth, we will try reporting this possibly unexplained wealth to more effective authorities. For example, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Tatyana Navka lived in the United States for about 14 years—long enough to obtain citizenship. If Navka did become a citizen, then we can say with confidence that she still has a U.S. passport and remains a U.S. tax resident. Lists of people who have renounced citizenship are officially published, and we checked them.
If Tatyana Navka lived in the United States on a “green card” (permanent residency), she may have given it up, and we cannot establish that with certainty. But given that her daughter is a U.S. citizen and the real estate has not been sold, we doubt that Navka gave up her green card so easily. Moreover, giving up a green card does not necessarily remove the obligation to pay U.S. taxes for the following 10 years—certain conditions must be met for that.
We recognize that we may be mistaken, and that Tatyana Navka may not be a U.S. tax resident, and that her legal income in Russia may THEORETICALLY be enough to buy a 1 billion-ruble house without a mortgage. But her husband’s prominent position in public service requires him to demonstrate ethical conduct and to serve as a model of decency, honesty, and transparency. If there is legal income to explain this, then Peskov should disclose it and put all questions to rest. Instead, what we see are examples of lies and evasiveness surrounding Mr. Peskov himself, his wedding, and his trip on a yacht.
The Anti-Corruption Foundation directly urged Peskov not to force us to file a complaint with the IRS, but instead to provide an explanation to us, the media, and the public. He did not do so.
We therefore have every reason to believe that this house was bought with corrupt money “earned” by Mr. Peskov, and we are asking the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to determine what money Tatyana Navka used to purchase real estate worth 1 billion rubles. If we are mistaken, the IRS will simply ignore our complaint.
By the way, an update on our complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice regarding “foreign corruption” connected to the “Peskov yacht” case: we received a message from the DoJ asking for more details about the yacht and the FCPA. This does not mean that a formal investigation is already underway, but our complaint did receive a response.
P.S. What adds a special twist to this whole story is the recent statement by Peskov’s daughter. Elizaveta Peskova spoke rather confusingly about her father’s wedding, saying that “in the official sense, it could not even have been discussed,” and that photographs “can be faked.” If there was no official marriage registration, then Peskov could not legally have received a watch worth five times his annual salary as a gift. On the other hand, he would not have to report Navka’s income in his financial disclosure, since she would not be his wife. But he would still have to report the billion-ruble house as property at his disposal. Or are not only the wedding photos “fake,” but Peskov and Navka also living separately? We will find out. This is not a matter of celebrity gossip; this is about corruption.
If you like what the Anti-Corruption Foundation is doing, that’s a reason to click here.