Exposed – Putin ordered Litvinenko’s murder after he accused Russian President of being a PAEDOPHILE

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prince Albert II of Monaco visiting Republic of Tuva

Vladamir Putin may have ordered the murder of Alexander Litvinenko after he claimed the Russian President was a practising paedophile, it was revealed.

Mr Litvinenko accused his rival of abusing children just weeks before two assassins slipped radioactive polonium 210 into his cup of tea in a London hotel in October 2006.

The former Russian spy, who joined MI6, wrote in an article: ‘He (Putin) was a paedophile’ and said a picture of the president kissing the stomach of a young boy near the Kremlin was the evidence.

Describing the incident on the Chechenpress website in July 2006 he said: ‘Putin kneeled, lifted the boy’s T-shirt and kissed his stomach. Nobody can understand why the Russian president did such a strange thing as kissing the stomach of an unfamiliar small boy’.

Litvinenko also taunted Putin by claiming a film of him abusing young boys existed.

Sir Robert Owen said in a major report on his murder that Mr Putin ‘probably’ ordered it and admitted Litvinenko’s ‘highly personal attacks’ may be a motive for his death.

Alexander Litvinenko, pictured shortly before his 2006 death, accused the Russian president of involvement in his killing while on his death bed in London

Feud: Alexander Litvinenko accused his rival of abusing children and said a picture of Putin kissing a boy’s stomach (right) proved it  just weeks before two assassins slipped radioactive polonium 210 into his cup of tea in a London hotel in October 2006

Controversy: Litvinenko used this meeting between Vladimir Putin and a young boy on June 28, 2006 on Moscow’s Kremlin Cathedral Square as evidence the Russian leader is a pedophile

He said: ‘It hardly needs saying that the allegations made by Mr Litvinenko against President Putin in this article were of the most serious nature. Could they have had any connection with his death?’

Sir Robert admitted there were ‘several reasons’ why Russia wanted him dead – enough to target him on British soil.

His sensational report has sparked an international diplomatic row between Britain and Russia ignited today after an independent probe into the killing of Alexander Litvinenko said President Putin had ‘probably’ personally authorised the 2006 killing.

David Cameron, pictured today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, has condemned the 'appalling' murder but admitted he still needs to work with Russia

David Cameron has condemned the ‘appalling’ murder but admitted he still needs to work with Russia

Mr Litvinenko – who had accused the Russian president on his death bed – was killed by two FSB spies who slipped radioactive polonium 210 into his tea pot at a Mayfair hotel in central London, Sir Robert Owen said today in a major report.

Prime Minister David Cameron today said the report outlined what happened was ‘absolutely appalling’ but he admitted the Syria crisis meant Britain had to have a relationship with Russia albeit one with ‘clear eyes and a cold heart’.

Mr Cameron said the last Labour government had reacted properly to the killing in 2007 once the ‘state sponsored nature of the assassination had become clear.

He said the Government had done the right thing today by ensuring Interpol warrants were in place the assassins and freezing their UK assets.

But as the war of words escalated, a spokesman for Putin said ‘such a quasi-investigation such as the one being talked about today undoubtedly is able only to still further poison the atmosphere of our bilateral relations’.

Mr Litvinenko’s widow Marina urged Britain to impose sanctions on Russia has a result of the findings which today prompted the Russian Ambassador to claim there had been a ‘whitewash’ to cover up the ‘incompetence’ of the UK’s security services.

Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko said it was ‘unacceptable’ for Britain to link Russia to a state-sponsored assassination.

Today's public inquiry concluded Andrei Lugovoi, pictured, did kill Alexander Litvinenko with Polonium in London - probably on the orders of President Putin

Today's public inquiry concluded Dmitry Kovtun,  pictured, did kill Alexander Litvinenko with Polonium in London - probably on the orders of President Putin

Sir Robert’s inquiry named Andrei Lugovoi, left, and Dmitri Kovtun, right, as the two men responsible for carrying out the orders to kill Litvinenko by slipping radioactive polonium into a teapot

In his report, inquiry chairman Sir Robert today said he was ‘sure’ two assassins Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun placed the polonium ‘into the teapot’ knowing it would kill their target.

The extraordinary 320 page report provoked fast moving developments throughout the day.

THE MAN WHO STARTED TODAY’S WAR OF WORDS: SIR ROBERT OWEN SPENT A YEAR INVESTIGATING ALEXANDER LITVINENKO’S DEATH

Sir Robert Owen today ignited a war of words between Britain and Russia with his bombshell conclusion President Putin had ‘probably’ personally ordered the killing of Alexander Litvinenko.

A former High Court judge, Sir Robert was first handed the Litvinenko file as an assistant coroner for North London.

His inquiry at the High Court heard seven months and was completed in almost exactly a year.

Despite repeated requests, Sir Robert was not able to hear evidence from either of the two men he named today as assassins.

But he did hear from the family of Mr Litvinenko and a string of expert witnesses as he built a picture of what happened and why.

Testimony was given on the potency of polonium 210, Mr Litvinenko’s treatement after he was poisoned and statements made by the alleged assassins in Russia.

  • The report found Mr Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned by others – namely Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun.
  • It is a strong probability that Mr Lugovoi poisoned Mr Litvinenko under the direction of Moscow’s FSB intelligence service. Mr Kovtun was also acting under FSB direction, possibly indirectly through Mr Lugovoi but probably to his knowledge.
  • The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by then-FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev and also by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
  • The report prompted an immediate reaction from Marina, Mr Litvinenko’s widow, who demanded sanctions and the expulsion of all Russian spies from London.
  • Theresa May said the killing was a breach of international law and told MPs the Russian Ambassador would be summoned to the Foreign Office.
  • But following the meeting, Ambassador Yakovenko blasted the report as a ‘whitewash’ which was covering up British ‘incompetence’.
  • Prime Minister David Cameron intervened in Davos, telling reporters the ‘appalling’ findings of the report confirmed what ministers had believed since 2007 – that the Kremlin had ordered an assassination on the streets of London. He said the necessary relationship between Britain and Russia would be continued with ‘clear eyes and a very cold heart.
  • Moscow reacted with derision as a spokesman for President Putin dismissed the report as an example of ‘subtle British humour’ that would do nothing but ‘poison’ bilateral relations.

Following the publication of report, Mrs Litvinenko said: ‘The chairman found as a fact and to a high degree of probability that the FSB directed Mr Lugovoi and Mr Kovtun to murder Sasha and also found as a fact that both Vladimir Putin and Nikolai Patrushev, director of the FSB at the time, personally approved the assassination.’

She told waiting journalists outside the High Court that Mr Cameron should now expel all Russian agents from London and impose economic sanctions on Russia.

 ‘This report confirms what we’ve always believed, and what the last Labour government believed at the time of this dreadful murder, which is it was state sponsored action.’
David Cameron reacting to the public inquiry into the killing of Alexander Litvinenko today

She continued: ‘I’m, of course, very pleased that the words my husband spoke on his deathbed when he accused Mr Putin of his murder have been proved true in an English court with the high standards of independency (sic) and fairness.

‘But now it is time for David Cameron. I’m calling immediately for expulsion from the UK of all Russian intelligence operatives … based at the London embassy.

‘I’m also calling for the position of targeted economic sanctions and travel bans against named individuals including Mr Patrushev and Mr Putin.’

Speaking in Davos, the Prime Minister said: ‘What happened was absolutely appalling and this report confirms what we’ve always believed, and what the last Labour government believed at the time of this dreadful murder, which is it was state sponsored action.’

He said Britain’s actions in 2007 had continued, adding the relationship with Russia was ‘tough’.

Mrs Litvinenko, speaking on the steps of the High Court in London today, called for the expulsion of all Russian spies from London following the public inquiry 

Mrs Litvinenko, speaking on the steps of the High Court in London today, called for the expulsion of all Russian spies from London following the public inquiry

RADIOACTIVE TRAIL ACROSS EUROPE…

Following one of the most extensive criminal investigations in British history – and a £2.25million inquiry – the Mail here lays bare a blow-by-blow account of how the state-sponsored assassination of Alexander Litvinenko unfolded.

October 2004

Sir Robert Owen believes Andrei Lugovoi may have started plotting when the pair met in London to discuss a ‘business proposal’. By then Mr Litvinenko was being paid £2,000 a month by MI6 to pass information about organised gangs linked to senior Kremlin figures.

October 16, 2006

Mr Litvinenko travels by bus to an office in Mayfair for a meeting in the boardroom of security firm Erinys. He meets consultant Tim Reilly, along with Russians Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun, who had flown to London that morning from Moscow. They are carrying a vial of polonium-210 from a Russian nuclear reactor. They attempt to kill Litvinenko by spraying a small amount of polonium-210 into his cup. Sir Robert concluded that Lugovoi and Kovtun ‘knew they were using a deadly poison’ and intended to kill Litvinenko, but did not know precisely what the poison was.

The assassination fails as Litvinenko does not take a sip. A month later the green baize tablecloth is still contaminated with radiation. After the meeting they go for lunch at Itsu in Piccadilly, which is contaminated.

October 17

The assassins move to the Parkes Hotel in Knightsbridge, which they also contaminate. Once again they meet Mr Litvinenko, but do not try to poison him.

October 18

Lugovoi and Kovtun fly back to Moscow from Gatwick, contaminating the plane with radiation.

October 19

Mr Litvinenko makes a speech publicly blaming Vladimir Putin for the murder of a Russian journalist.

October 25

After an almost certain rebuke, Lugovoi returns to London, contaminating the aircraft.

October 26

He meets a contact called Badri Patarkatsishvili, a wealthy Georgian, and contaminates his car. He is visited by Mr Litvinenko at his hotel, the Sheraton Park Lane, where radiation is also later found. They met the following day before he returned to Moscow on a BA flight.

October 28

Kovtun flies from Moscow to Hamburg, where he visits his ex-wife. Traces of radiation are later found in her flat as well as locations including his mother-in-law’s home.

October 31

Lugovoi arrives in London with his family on a BA plane that also tests positive for polonium. They were ostensibly visiting to watch CSKA Moscow football club play at Arsenal’s ground.

November 1

Kovtun arrives in London, meets Lugovoi and they start planning their assassination attempt by luring Mr Litvinenko to central London. Lugovoi calls Mr Litvinenko and suggests a meeting at the Pine Bar in the Millennium Hotel.

Litvinenko takes a bus from his home in Muswell Hill, north London, then a Tube to Piccadilly Circus where he has a 3pm lunch with his associate Mario Scaramella.

He fields calls from an increasingly irate Lugovoi. By this stage the killers have ordered three teas, three gin and tonics, one straight gin, one champagne cocktail, one Romeo y Julieta cigar No 1, and some green tea. The bill is £70.60.

Moments before Mr Litvinenko arrives, some polonium is sprayed from a vial into the pot of green tea and this time he does drink some.

Before leaving, Lugovoi returns to the bar with his eight-year-old son Igor. Lugovoi introduced him to Mr Litvinenko and Igor shakes his contaminated hand.

Mr Litvinenko’s teapot gave off readings of 100,000 becquerels per centimetre squared – 10,000 ingested is enough to kill someone. The biggest reading came from the spout. Their table registered 20,000 becquerels. There were traces on bottles of Martini and Tia Maria behind the bar, the ice-cream scoop and a chopping board. After putting the poison in Mr Litvinenko’s teapot, Kovtun goes to his room and tips the rest of the liquid solution down his bathroom sink. At 5.20pm Mr Litvinenko gets a lift home from his friend Akhmed Zakayev. Mr Litvinenko later falls violently ill.

November 4

Mr Litvinenko admitted to Barnet General Hospital, north London, under his pseudonym Edwin Redwald Carter.

November 17

Medics transfer him to University College Hospital, where he is placed under armed police guard.

November 20

The polonium starts to take hold and he suffers weight and hair loss. Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism unit begins investigation.

November 22

Litvinenko has a heart attack in the night.

November 23

He dies and Scotland Yard launch a major operation and London is put on lockdown as chemical experts try to clear up radiation. Scotland Yard detectives were dispatched to Moscow in search of evidence but repeatedly obstructed.

He added: ‘We must now read the report in its entirety and take everything into account but be in no doubt, this shocking event was reacted to years ago when it happened and we are toughening our action again today.’

The Prime Minister said he was not ruling out further punitive action against Russia but links could not be severed.

‘Do we at some level have to go on having some sort of relationship with them because we need a solution to the Syria crisis?,’ he said.

‘Yes, we do but we do it with clear eyes and a very cold heart.’

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that ‘such a quasi-investigation such as the one being talked about today undoubtedly is able only to still further poison the atmosphere of our bilateral relations.’

Mr Peskov said the report ‘cannot be accepted by us as a verdict.’

But speaking to MPs in the House of Commons, British Home Secretary Theresa May condemned a ‘blatant breach of the fundamental tenets of international law’ – but she admitted the findings were not a surprise and announced few new measures in response.

Mrs May said the findings were ‘deeply disturbing’ and added it was a ‘blatant and unacceptable breach of the most fundamental tenets of international law’.

But she warned: ‘But we have to accept this does not come as a surprise.’

Russian Ambassador Mr Yakovenko, summoned to meet Europe Minister David Lidington, said: ‘I told him we consider the Litvinenko case and the way it was disposed of a blatant provocation of the British authorities.

‘Second, we will never accept anything arrived at in secret and based on evidence not heard in open court of law.

‘Third, the length of time it took to close this case in this way makes us believe it to be a whitewash of the British special services incompetence.

Marina Litvinenko, holding a copy of today's report, has urged the British government to take harsh action against Russia. But Maxim said she did so because she lives in London and must 'play the game'

Marina Litvinenko, holding a copy of the report, has urged the British government to take harsh action against Russia based on the findings

Russian Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko was summoned to meet Europe Minister David Lidington at the Foreign Office following the report

Mr Yakovenko told Mr Lidington the report's findings were 'unacceptable'

Russian Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko was summoned to meet Europe Minister David Lidington at the Foreign Office following the report. Mr Yakovenko, pictured left following the talks, told Mr Lidington the report’s findings were ‘unacceptable’

‘Fourth, we noticed the British government suspended the coroners inquest which was open for public and media and where the investigative committee in Russia took part as an interested person, in favour of a public inquiry in secret, at the height of concern over Russia and Ukraine in 2014.

‘We view it as an attempt to put additional pressure on Russia in connection with existing differences on international issues.

‘Fifth, for us it is unacceptable the report concludes the Russian state  was in any way involved in the death of Mr Litvinenko on British soil.’

Mr Yakovenko said the row would inevitably hit British-Russian relations.

Mr Lidington told Mr Yakovenko ‘the Russian State’s probable involvement in this murder was deeply disturbing, demonstrating a flagrant disregard for UK law, international law and standards of conduct, and the safety of UK citizens,’ a spokeswoman for the Foreign Office said.

‘The minister set out the UK Government’s deep concern regarding the findings of the independent Litvinenko Inquiry report,’ she said.

‘He made clear that the inquiry’s conclusion concerning the Russian State’s probable involvement in this murder was deeply disturbing, demonstrating a flagrant disregard for UK law, international law and standards of conduct, and the safety of UK citizens.

BROTHER CALLS REPORT A SMEAR ON PUTIN AND BLAMES BRITAIN

Younger brother Maxim Litvinenko blames Britain

Younger brother Maxim Litvinenko blames Britain

The brother of murdered Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko has blamed British secret services were responsible and branded today’s report blaming Putin as a smear.

Younger brother, Maxim, today said it was ‘ridiculous’ to blame the Kremlin and that he believes British security services had more of a motive to carry out the assassination.

Alexander was a former Russian spy who joined MI6 and it was revealed today that he had accused President Putin of being a paedophile in an online article, just months before his death.

However, Maxim claims the report is a ‘smear’ on Putin, and far from being an enemy of the state, his brother had plans to soon return to Russia and had even contacted old friends about the move.

Maxim, a chef, who lives in Rimini, Italy, said: ‘The sentence is a set-up to provide more bad publicity against the Russian government,’ reports The Mirror .

He also went on to downplay Alexander’s role as a spy, working for either Russia or MI6, saying he was ‘more like a policeman’.

Alexander worked to combat serious organised crime such as murders and arms trafficking, but did not know any state secrets, his brother claims.

‘It is the Western media that have called him a spy,’ he added, claiming that the report – 10 years after the death – was a set-up to put pressure on the Russian Government.

Maxim said he and his father have no faith in the report, and even doubted the accepted fact the polonium was responsible for Alexander’s death.

He also suggested that several other deaths could be linked, including the suicide of Boris dissident Berezovsky, who financially supported Alexander, and the owner of a nightclub – where polonium was found – who died.

His views differ vastly from Alexander’s wife, Marine, who today urged Britain to impose sanctions on Russia after the report, which has severely strained international relations between the two nations.

But Maxim today claimed she only made such comments as she lives in London and has to ‘play the game’, despite the fact that he too initially blamed the Russian regime for the death.

Maxim, left, and his brother Alexander (right) in November 2006. Maxim claims his brother, far from being an enemy of the state, had plans to soon return to Russia

Maxim, left, and his brother Alexander (right) in November 2006. Maxim claims his brother, far from being an enemy of the state, had plans to soon return to Russia

‘The minister said that this would further complicate bilateral relations, undermine trust, and damage Russia’s reputation internationally.

‘This was a reminder of why the UK had introduced a series of steps to respond to Russia in 2007.

Earlier, the Prime Minister’s official spokeswoman today said Britain had expelled four Russian diplomats over the killing in 2007, suspended talks on a bilateral visa regime and distanced British links with the FSB.

In the year’s since, diplomatic relations between Britain and Russia have eased – particularly following the bombing of a Russian airliner by ISIS last year.

Mr Cameron has met with President Putin several times as Prime Minister – including at the Sochi Winter Olympics and in Downing Street.

The Litvinenko family lawyer today indicated the Government moves would not be enough, telling a press conference a failure to take significant action over ‘nuclear terrorism’ on the streets of London would be ‘craven’ and an ‘abdication of responsibility’.

Ben Emmerson QC said a judicial process had now linked President Vladimir Putin and the Moscow authorities to the murder of the dissident in 2006.

Family: At a press conference following the report's publication, Marina Litvinenko and her son Anatoly demanded action from the British government against Russia

At a press conference following the report’s publication today, Mrs Litvinenko and her son Anatoly demanded action from the British government against Russia

Theresa May, speaking in the Commons today following the report's publication, said the Russian Ambassador would be summoned to the Foreign Office 

Theresa May, speaking in the Commons today following the report’s publication, said the Russian Ambassador would be summoned to the Foreign Office

He said: ‘The responsibility now that lies on Government is to act in a way that shows determination and the requisite degree of courage,’ he told a press conference after the publication of Sir Robert Owen’s inquiry into the former spy’s death.

‘It would be craven for the Government, for the Prime Minister, to do nothing in response.

HOW PUTIN’S ASSASSINS CARRIED OUT THEIR TASK: INQUIRY REVEALS THE TEAPOT USED TO POISON LITVINENKO

Sir Robert Owen’s report today revealed chilling details about the method of killing used by the FSB assassins who killed Alexander Litvinenko.

Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun slipped their radioactive poison into a teapot used by Mr Litvinenko at a Mayfair hotel in central London.

They left a radioactive trail in a number of locations around the capital, including a hotel sink where they deposited leftover polonium.

The revelation that Litvinenko, a father-of-three, had been poisoned with a radioactive substance triggered a major security alert following his death.

The inquiry also uncovered a first attempt at the killing earlier in October.

‘It would be an abdication of his responsibility to do the thing which, after all, is the first function of a state, which is to keep its people safe.’

Sir Robert found Lugovoi and Kovtun had made an earlier attempt to poison Mr Litvinenko, also using polonium 210, at a meeting in London on October 16 – a fortnight before he ingested the fatal dose, the report found.

It said the pair then placed the substance in a teapot at the Millennium Hotel’s Pine Bar on November 1, 2006.

They left a radioactive trail in a number of locations around the capital, including a hotel sink where they deposited leftover polonium.

Hotels, airports, restaurants and even a football stadium were contaminated by radioactive material.

The revelation that Litvinenko, a father-of-three, had been poisoned with a radioactive substance triggered a major security alert following his death.

Alex Goldfarb, a close friend of Mr Litvinenko, today said: ‘I think it is a very proper and fair finding, because nobody in the Russian hierarchy would dare to order such a murder without Mr Putin’s approval.

‘The finding is an ultimate justice. As you remember, on his death-bed Sasha Litvinenko named Mr Putin as the person responsible for this poisoning and now it has become a legally established fact.’

In an interview with the Interfax news agency, Lugovoi called the charges against him ‘absurd.’

‘As we expected, there was no sensation,’ he said. ‘The results of the investigation that were announced today once again confirm London’s anti-Russian position and the blinkered view and unwillingness of the British to establish the true cause of Litvinenko’s death.’

In a statement released from his deathbed in 2006, her husband had said: ‘You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.

‘May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people.’

Sir Robert’s 300-page report said Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun were probably acting under the direction of Moscow’s FSB intelligence service when they poisoned the 43-year-old with radioactive polonium 210 at the Millennium Hotel in Mayfair.

David Cameron could face a fresh diplomatic row with Vladimir Putin, pictured in Moscow today, if Russia refuses to extradite alleged assassins Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun

David Cameron could face a fresh diplomatic row with Vladimir Putin if Russia refuses to extradite alleged assassins Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun

David Cameron could face a fresh diplomatic row with Vladimir Putin, pictured in Moscow, if Russia refuses to extradite alleged assassins Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun

Singling out then-FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev alongside Mr Putin, Sir Robert wrote: ‘Taking full account of all the evidence and analysis available to me I find that the FSB operation to kill Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin.’

In his report, Sir Robert wrote: ‘I am sure that Mr Lugovoi and Mr Kovtun knew that they were using a deadly poison and that they intended to kill Mr Litvinenko.

‘I do not believe, however, that they knew precisely what the chemical they were handling was, or the nature of all its properties.’

He continued: ‘I am sure that Mr Lugovoi and Mr Kovtun were acting on behalf of others when they poisoned Mr Litvinenko.’

‘MAY GOD FORGIVE YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE’: LITVINENKO BLAMED PUTIN ON HIS DEATHBED

Mr Litvinenko, pictured in 2002

Mr Litvinenko, pictured in 2002

Alexander Litvinenko levelled his accusations against President Putin and the Kremlin when he knew he was going to die.

Speaking from this death bed, he said: ‘I would like to thank many people. My doctors, nurses and hospital staff who are doing all they can for me, the British police who are pursuing my case with vigour and professionalism and are watching over me and my family.

‘I would like to thank the British government for taking me under their care. I am honoured to be a British citizen.

‘I would like to thank the British public for their messages of support and for the interest they have shown in my plight.

‘I thank my wife Marina, who has stood by me. My love for her and our son knows no bounds.

‘But as I lie here I can distinctly hear the beating of wings of the angel of death. I may be able to give him the slip but I have to say my legs do not run as fast as I would like.

‘I think, therefore, that this may be the time to say one or two things to the person responsible for my present condition.

‘You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed.

‘You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilised value.

‘You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilised men and women.

‘You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.

‘May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people.’

When Lugovoi poisoned Mr Litvinenko, it is ‘probable’ that he did so under the direction of the FSB, the report found.

Sir Robert said Kovtun also took part, adding: ‘I conclude therefore that he was also acting under FSB direction, possibly indirectly through Mr Lugovoi but probably to his knowledge.’

The Metropolitan Police today said it still had warrants out for the two men accused of the killing.

The murder came against a backdrop of a long running personal feud between Putin and Mr Litvinenko.

Mr Litvinenko made a string of personal attacks on the Russian leader in the years after their only face to face meeting in 1998.

The most dramatic allegation came in an article Litvinenko wrote in July 2006 accusing President Putin of paedophilia.

Just days before he fell ill, Litvinenko accused Mr Putin of responsibility for the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. The report said there was ‘undoubtedly a personal dimension to antagonism’ between the two men.

The inquiry was told Litvinenko became involved with MI6 after arriving in Britain, receiving regular payments for consultancy work.

The final report said: ‘It may not take much imagination to consider how the FSB would have reacted to a report that one of its own former officers was working with British intelligence.’

Mr Cameron will face growing calls to impose sanctions on high-profile individuals in Russia if the Kremlin refuses to extradite Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun, the alleged assassins.

Downing Street had no immediate comment on the report, but confirmed Home Secretary Theresa May will be giving the Government’s response in an oral statement to the House of Commons in the next few hours.

Liberal Democrats called for travel bans and the freezing of assets for those involved in the death of Mr Litvinenko.

Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said: ‘A UK citizen was killed on the streets of London with polonium. It was an attack on the heart of Britain, our values and our society.

‘I call for EU travel bans, asset freezes and co-ordinated action to deal with those who committed this evil assassination. I have called for a new Magnitsky Law to make sure that these people are held to account for what they did.

‘These assassins trampled over British sovereignty and we cannot let this go unanswered.’

There is overwhelming evidence linking the pair to the murder but both deny any involvement and Russian President Mr Putin has so far refused to extradite them.

The death of Litvinenko marked a post-Cold War low point in Anglo-Russian relations, and ties have never recovered.

The Foreign Office is eager to avoid a full-blown row, partly because Mr Putin’s cooperation is badly needed in the fight against Islamic State terrorists.

In 2011, Mrs Litvinenko and her son marked five years since the death of Mr Litvinenko at his graveside in Highgate Cemetery, North London

In 2011, Mrs Litvinenko and her son marked five years since the death of Mr Litvinenko at his graveside in Highgate Cemetery, North London

Litvinenko’s wife Marina, who has led a ten-year campaign for justice, believes sanctions should be imposed.

She said: ‘If proved, particularly in an official way in a court, you definitely need to react.

‘They still survive. They are able to travel. I think there should be a very serious discussion about what kind of sanctions and against whom.’

Mrs Litvinenko, 52, is certain that vital information has been suppressed by Moscow.

She said: ‘Both Lugovoy and Kovtun had plenty of opportunities to present their case. It is a shame that the opportunity was not there to question them.

‘They could have been questioned about: if they did it. Did they do it by themselves? Who sent them to do it? How did they obtain that polonium?

‘Why was it that a weapon of mass destruction was used to carry out a murder in Britain?

‘Questions have been raised about Mr Putin [that] he needs to answer.

‘He gave Lugovoy an honour, he made him an MP, he made him a TV star.

‘He obviously appreciated Lugovoy’s activities.’

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said those responsible for Litvinenko’s murder should be subject to a ban on travelling to the UK and excluded from the British banking system.

‘By poisoning one of their own on British soil, the Russian government completely disregarded the rule of law both within the UK and internationally,’ he said.

Litvinenko, 43, a fierce critic of Mr Putin, was given polonium in a cup of green tea during a meeting at the Millennium Hotel in Mayfair.

It took him three weeks to die.

He had been working with MI6 and other agencies in the UK.

Last night Mr Putin’s spokesman said the Kremlin had no interest in the findings of Sir Robert’s inquiry.

Dmitry Peskov said: ‘It is an inquiry that is taking place in Great Britain and in this case it is not a topic that is of interest to us, or that is on our agenda.’

THE ASSASSINATION OF ALEXANDER LITVINENKO: THE TIMES, PLACES AND NUMBERS BEHIND A STATE SPONSORED KILLING

Some of the key statistics contained in the inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko:

50 micrograms – minimum amount of polonium 210 believed to have been put into the teapot from which Mr Litvinenko drank at the Millennium Hotel in London on November 1, 2006.

26.5 micrograms – amount of polonium 210 believed to have been swallowed by Mr Litvinenko.

100 grams – approximate amount of polonium 210 made in nuclear reactors each year around the world.

4.4 gigabecquerels – the radioactivity of Mr Litvinenko’s likely total intake of polonium 210. This is the equivalent of 4.4 billion becquerels, or 176 kilograms of uranium. Roughly 10,000 becquerels, when ingested, is enough to kill a person.

49,000 becquerels per gram of tissue were found in Mr Litvinenko’s kidneys, the most contaminated of his organs. Some 3,500 becquerels per gram of tissue were found in his lungs, the least contaminated organ.

£2,000 per month – Mr Litvinenko’s payments for supplying information to British intelligence, which began in 2004.

£2.2 million – total cost of the inquiry into Mr Litvinenko’s death.

22 – days after his poisoning that Mr Litvinenko died, on November 23, 2006.

60 – locations examined and assessed as part of the police investigation into his death. Over 200 officers were involved.

15 – countries to which requests for legal assistance were made as part of the investigation.

135,000 – approximate number of words in the inquiry report, running to almost 330 pages.

17 months – total length of the inquiry from the formal setting up date to the submission of the report. Hearings lasted for 34 days and a total of 62 witnesses gave oral evidence.

ECHOES OF THE COLD WAR: TIMELINE OF THE KILLING OF ALEXANDER LITVINENKO AND THE INVESTIGATION INTO HIS SHOCKING DEATH

1998 – Alexander Litvinenko claims at a Moscow press hearing that the FSB – the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation – instructed him to kill high-profile billionaire Boris Berezovsky.

1999 – Mr Litvinenko is arrested and spends nine months in jail.

2000 – Mr Litvinenko flees Russia and seeks political asylum in Britain – it is granted the following year.

2002 – Mr Litvinenko co-writes a book, in which he accuses his former FSB superiors of carrying out a number of apartment block bombings in 1999.

November 1 2006 – Mr Litvinenko meets Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun at the Millennium hotel in London’s Mayfair. Mr Litvinenko is admitted to a hospital in north London several hours later

November 17 2006 – His condition deteriorates and he is transferred to University College Hospital in central London.

November 21 2006 – The Kremlin dismisses as ‘sheer nonsense’ claims that the Russian government was involved in the poisoning.

November 23 – Mr Litvinenko dies in intensive care.

November 24 – Mr Litvinenko’s family releases a statement, accusing Russian president Vladimir Putin of involvement in his death.

May 2007 – The CPS announces its decision to prosecute Lugovoi for murder.

July 2007 – Moscow refuses an extradition request for Lugovoi.

July 2014 – The Home Secretary announces that Sir Robert Owen is to chair a public inquiry into Mr Litvinenko’s death.

January 2015 -The inquiry opens and takes evidence for seven months

January 21 2016 – Sir Robert’s report is published.

It’s a breach of international law says Theresa May – but Britain WON’T be kicking out all Russia’s spies as the family demands

Home Secretary, pictured at the despatch box today, told MPs the findings of the inquiry were not surprising

Home Secretary, pictured at the despatch box today, told MPs the findings of the inquiry were not surprising

Home Secretary Theresa May today told MPs the findings of a public inquiry into the killing of Alexander Litvinenko represented a breach of the ‘most fundamental tenets of international law’.

But she announced only that Interpol warrants would be issued for the arrest of the two men blamed for carrying out the killing in a London hotel. Any assets Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun still hold in Britain will also be frozen.

Marina Litvinenko had called for all Russian diplomats and spies to be expelled from London and for David Cameron to impose sanctions on the country.

Mrs May told MPs: ‘It goes without saying that this was a blatant and unacceptable breach of the most fundamental tenants of international law and of civilised behaviour.

‘But we have to accept this does not come as a surprise. The inquiry confirms the assessment of successive governments that this was a state-sponsored act.

‘This assessment has informed the Government’s approach to date.’

Mrs May confirmed the Metropolitan Police’s investigation into Mr Litvinenko’s murder remains open.

She added: ‘I can tell the House today that Interpol notices and European Arrest Warrants are in place so that the main suspects, Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun, can be arrested if they travel abroad.

‘In light of the report’s findings the Government will go further and Treasury ministers have today agreed to put in place asset freezes against the two individuals.’

Mrs May also said: ‘Russia’s continued failure to ensure the perpetrators of this terrible crime can be brought to justice is unacceptable.’

She told MPs she has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions asking if any further action should be taken in terms of extradition and freezing criminal assets.

Mrs May added the Russian ambassador in London will be summoned to the Foreign Office, noting: ‘We will express our profound displeasure at Russia’s failure to cooperate and provide satisfactory answers.

‘Specifically we have and will continue to demand that Russian government account for the role of the FSB in this case.’

Mrs May later told MPs: ‘You are absolutely right in your description of what has happened in relation to Lugovoi in Russia.

‘And I think that tells you everything you need to know about Russia’s attitude to this action that took place here on the streets of London.

‘Russia of course does participate, it is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and of course there will be national interests which require the British Government to engage guardedly with Russia.

‘There are of course issues relating to Syria and the resolution of the conflict there as an example of that.’

Shadow home secretary Andy Burnham said the killing of Mr Litvinenko using radioactive material exposed thousands of Londoners to unacceptable risk.

‘This, as you said, this is one of the most shocking and disturbing reports ever presented to this Parliament,’ he said.

‘It confirms that the Russian state at its highest level sanctioned the killing of a British citizen on the streets of our capital city and in so doing exposed thousands of Londoners to unacceptable levels of risk.

‘An unparalleled act of state-sponsored terrorism that must meet with a commensurate response.

‘So far reaching are the implications of this report it is important not to rush to judgement today, time must be taken to digest its findings and consider our response.’

Mr Burnham also said the UK should try to prevent Russia from staging the 2018 World Cup.

Metropolitan Police Commander Ball today said: ‘It is important to remember that behind the significant global interest in this case, this remains an investigation into the murder of a man on the streets of London. Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko have shown immense courage and dignity since Alexander’s death and with them, we remain committed to bringing those responsible to justice.

He added: ‘This remains an ongoing investigation and I am unable to comment on the evidence or say anything further at this time.’

Was Litvinenko killed because he suggested Putin was a paedophile? The theories over why the Russian dissident was really a target

Mr Litvinenko, pictured with his book 'Blowing Up Russia: Terror From Within', frequently wrote critically about President Putin and accused him of being a paedophile 

Mr Litvinenko, pictured with his book ‘Blowing Up Russia: Terror From Within’, frequently wrote critically about President Putin and accused him of being a paedophile

The possible motives for the killing of Alexander Litvinenko were the centre of large parts of Sir Robert Owen’s inquiry.

Despite only meeting face to face on one occasion, there was a bitter feud between President Putin and his former KGB colleague.

And a report by Mr Litvinenko suggesting allegations of paedophilia against the Russian president was highlighted by the inquiry as a possible key moment.

The inquiry was told that the report – in July 2006, just months before the assassination – was the ‘climax’ of Mr Litvinenko’s attacks on the Kremlin leader.

In his report, Sir Robert said: ‘It hardly needs saying that the allegations made by Mr Litvinenko against President Putin in this article were of the most serious nature.

‘Could they have had any connection with his death?

‘Nor were these the last public allegations that Mr Litvinenko made against President Putin.

‘Only a matter of days before he fell ill, Mr Litvinenko publicly accused President Putin of responsibility for the murder of Anna Politkovskaya.

‘And, as I have already described, in the statement that he signed on his deathbed, he accused the Russian President of responsibility for another murder – his own.’

Mr Litvinenko had a long record of run-ins with the Kremlin.

In 1998 Mr Litvinenko took the extraordinary decision to blow the whistle on an alleged FSB plot to murder prominent tycoon Boris Berezovsky, culminating in a press conference in which he publicly denounced the agency in front of the world’s media.

The report said Litvinenko was ‘regarded as having betrayed the FSB’.

Mr Litvinenko co-authored two books following his arrival in Britain. Blowing Up Russia, published in 2001, asserted that a number of apartment bombings in September 1999, which killed hundreds and were officially blamed on Chechen separatists, were actually the work of the FSB.

Another book, The Gang From The Lubyanka, set out allegations of corruption and involvement in organised crime. The report said the idea of betrayal was ‘compounded’ by Litvinenko’s campaigning in Britain.

Mr Litvinenko was an associate of both Mr Berezovsky and Akhmed Zakayev, both of whom were leading opponents of the Putin administration.

Mr Litvinenko made a string of personal attacks on the President Putin in the years after their only face to face meeting in 1998.

The report said there was ‘undoubtedly a personal dimension to antagonism’ between the two men.

The inquiry was told Mr Litvinenko became involved with MI6 after arriving in Britain, receiving regular payments for consultancy work.

The final report said: ‘It may not take much imagination to consider how the FSB would have reacted to a report that one of its own former officers was working with British intelligence.’

THE LITVINENKO INQUIRY DISMISSED A STRING OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT WHO ELSE MIGHT HAVE KILLED HIM

The Litvinenko inquiry dismissed a series of possible theories over who was responsible for the former spy’s death.

Boris Berezovsky

Chairman Sir Robert Owen referred to suggestions the billionaire oligarch, a fellow dissident, could have killed Litvinenko because he was being blackmailed over illegal activities in the UK.

Litvinenko did ‘occasionally make comments suggesting taking some form of action’ against his long-standing friend after he reduced the amount of money he was giving him. But Sir Robert said he was ‘quite satisfied these were never put into effect’.

‘Litvinenko and Berezovsky remained friends until the end of Litvinenko’s life,’ he wrote. ‘There was no blackmail and therefore no motive for Berezovsky to have Litvinenko killed.’ Berezovsky died in 2013.’

UK intelligence agencies

Lugovoi has also claimed he could have been ‘framed’ by British agents after an ‘operation involving Litvinenko and possibly Berezovsky that went wrong’.

He said the polonium could have been planted on him and Kovtun and left in places they visited.

Sir Robert said: ‘I am entirely satisfied that UK intelligence agencies, and for that matter UK government bodies more generally, played no part at all in Litvinenko’s death’.

Organised crime

Litvinenko had been ‘preoccupied’ by fighting organised crime since his days in the KGB, forerunner to the FSB, the report said.

He wrote books and articles seeking to expose links between the FSB and Russian mobsters, and towards the end of his life was working with Spanish authorities on investigations into Russian gangs there.

Sir Robert found the involvement of Russian organised crime was ‘not implausible’ but was ‘not supported by the evidence that is available to me’.

Police had not uncovered any links, and there were no indications that Lugovoi or Kovtun were ‘commissioned to kill Litvinenko by members of crime gangs’.

‘I am satisfied… that Lugovoi and Kovtun in fact received their orders from another source,’ the chairman said.

Mario Scaramella

Sir Robert said it had been thought at one stage that Italian lawyer Mario Scaramella could have been involved in the killing, as he met Litvinenko the day he fell ill.

The dissident even initially suggested himself that Scaramella could have been responsible – but Sir Robert argued that was a ruse to lure Lugovoi back to the UK to face justice.

The Italian was not contaminated with polonium, the report said. ‘Mr Scaramella clearly regarded Litvinenko as a friend,’ Sir Robert wrote. ‘He had no motive to kill him.’

Chechen groups

Sir Robert said there was ‘no evidence to support the involvement’ of Chechen groups Litvinenko had clashed with in the past.

He also dismissed the possibility that Alexander Talik, whom Litvinenko had previously accused of being an FSB agent, played any part.

Lugovoi sent Beresovsky a T-shirt saying ‘nuclear death is knocking at your door’

One of Alexander Litvinenko’s alleged killers sent a T-shirt bearing the words ‘nuclear death is knocking on your door’ to Britain years after the dissident’s death, the inquiry heard.

Andrei Lugovoi was said to have given the top to an associate in Moscow and asked for it be delivered as a ‘gift’ to billionaire Boris Berezovsky, a friend of the poisoned spy, in 2010.

The front of the black T-shirt had the words ‘POLONIUM-210 CSKA LONDON, HAMBURG To Be Continued’, while ‘CSKA Moscow Nuclear Death Is Knocking Your Door’ was printed on the back.

The front of the black T-shirt, pictured left, had the words 'POLONIUM-210 CSKA LONDON, HAMBURG To Be Continued'
'CSKA Moscow Nuclear Death Is Knocking Your Door' was printed on the back

The front of the black T-shirt, pictured left, had the words ‘POLONIUM-210 CSKA LONDON, HAMBURG To Be Continued’, while ‘CSKA Moscow Nuclear Death Is Knocking Your Door’ was printed on the back, right.

Inquiry chairman Sir Robert Owen’s final report said the writing was ‘in extraordinary terms’.

It said: ‘Taken on its own (and without, of course, the benefit of oral evidence from Mr Lugovoi), it would be difficult to know what to make of this T-shirt.

‘On any view, it demonstrates that Mr Lugovoi approved of Mr Litvinenko’s murder. It was also, clearly, a threat to Mr Berezovsky.

‘Further than that, the T-shirt could be seen as an admission by Mr Lugovoi that he had poisoned Mr Litvinenko, made at a time when he was confident that he would never be extradited from Russia, and wished to taunt Mr Berezovsky with that fact.

‘Alternatively, it could, perhaps, be seen as an extraordinarily tasteless joke.’

Berezovsky died at his Berkshire home in 2013.

One of the Litvinenko assassins who laced cup of tea in Mayfair hotel with Polonium-210 opens a… Moscow tea shop with his model wife

Andrei Lugovoy, who poisoned a pot of tea to kill Alexander Litvinenko, is now running a tea shop in Moscow with his wife

Andrei Lugovoy, who poisoned a pot of tea to kill Alexander Litvinenko, is now running a tea shop in Moscow with his wife

The glamorous wife of a former KGB agent accused of lacing Alexander Litvineko’s tea with Polonium-210 has set up a restaurant chain – and its ‘signature’ is its specially brewed tea.

Ksenyia Lugovoy, 26, a model and TV star, the wife of Russian MP Andrei Lugovoy, owns a small chain of shabby-chic tea shops in Moscow, charging £5.25 for a pot of one of its exotic blends.

The Ded Pikhto successful chain of tea shops come as the Met Police want her husband extradited over the death of former Russian agent, Litvinenko.

Litvinenko met Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun at a hotel in Mayfair back in May 2006 – when it is alleged he drank a cup of lukewarm green tea laced with the radioactive poison.

On his deathbed in a London hospital in November that year, Litvinenko said his murder had been ordered by Russian president Vladimir Putin and named Lugovoy and Kovtun as the assassins.

Both men have protested their innocence and have refused to be questioned at the inquiry into Mr Litvinenko’s death.

Richard Horwell, QC for the police, told the inquiry that the pair were tasked with killing Litvinenko, but that the plan had taken three attempts to execute.

He told the court the finger points ‘unwaveringly’ towards the duo.

But Kseniya, who, at 26, is 22 years her husband’s junior, said she had ‘never heard’ of Lugovoy’s alleged involvement in the sinister case before their kitsch Black Sea wedding in 2011.

Glamorous: Ksenyia Lugovoy, 26, a model and TV star, the wife of Russian MP Andrei Lugovoy, owns a small chain of shabby-chic tea shops in Moscow

Ksenyia Lugovoy, 26, (pictured) a model and TV star, the wife of Russian MP Andrei Lugovoy, owns a small chain of shabby-chic tea shops in Moscow, charging £5.25 for a pot of one of its exotic blends

Popular: The three cafes charge between 350 roubles (£3.75) and 490 roubles (£5.25) a teapot, offering their clientele a range of exotic brews - including their own blend of strawberry, along with apple, ginger and honey

Popular: The three cafes charge between 350 roubles (£3.75) and 490 roubles (£5.25) a teapot, offering their clientele a range of exotic brews – including their own blend of strawberry, along with apple, ginger and honey

And she is unapologetic about her choice of business – and boasts about the signature home-brewed fruit teas.

‘I love our full flavoured ‘Ded Pikhto’ berry tea,’ she boasted.

There is no hint of deadly radioactive isotopes here, of course, and this is made from fresh strawberry, along with apple, ginger and honey.

It’s just cowardly folly to appease this thug, writes EDWARD LUCAS

Contempt: Russian President Vladimir Putin

Contempt: Russian President Vladimir Putin

Russia has murdered a British citizen on the streets of London. It has blustered, gloated and lied. And we are not going to do much about it.

That is the dismal upshot of the public inquiry into the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006.

What is abundantly clear is that the British Government is not going to respond properly to the outrageous behaviour of what is a rogue state in all but name.

And by ‘properly’, I mean we should be launching major money-laundering investigations into the tide of dirty Russian cash which swills through our financial system.

We should be telling the crooked bankers, lawyers and accountants who facilitate this theft from the Russian people that the game is up.

We should be expelling Russian spies from London, in the full glare of publicity, and prosecuting those who co-operate with them, betraying our country for money, favours and flattery.

And we should be urging our Nato and European Union allies to join us in fighting back against all forms of Russian subversion, mischief-making and influence-peddling – in everything from energy supplies to propaganda.

In understated legal language, yesterday’s report by Sir Robert Owen, a retired judge, tells an extraordinary tale.

Mr Litvinenko, a fugitive former Russian spy, had intimate, first-hand knowledge of the murky overlap between the Russian state and organised crime.

He advised MI6, Britain’s overseas intelligence service, in particular on the activity of state-sponsored Russian gangsters in Spain – touching on the financial interests of the highest levels of power in Moscow. That may have been the motive for his murder.

But Sir Robert also highlights other possibilities – the personal antagonism between Mr Litvinenko and the Russian president Vladimir Putin, for example.

Litvinenko accused Mr Putin of staging a series of apartment-block bombings in 1999 that killed more than 300 people, his aim to create a climate of fear in which Russians would yearn for a strong leader. Almost overnight, Mr Putin became Russia’s most popular politician.

More sensationally, Mr Litvinenko also accused Mr Putin of being a practising paedophile.

Sir Robert’s report contemptuously dismisses the conspiracy theories around Litvinenko’s death – that he poisoned himself, was bumped off by British intelligence, or fell foul of gangland associates.

It deals with other myths, too. The polonium isotope that killed Mr Litvinenko would not have cost million of pounds for the quantity used. Nor did it leave a radioactive signature that could be traced back to a top-secret plant in Russia.

To my mind, these points add yet more credibility to the report. It does not back every allegation against Russia – just those where the evidence is incontrovertible.

Russia is a highly bureaucratic and centralised country. It is inconceivable that anything as risky and important as the assassination of a British citizen, especially one working for MI6, would not be signed off at the highest level.

Sir Robert also had access to secret documents and witnesses – from MI6, from the domestic spy agency, MI5, and from the Government code-crackers of GCHQ.

He makes it clear that the secret evidence implicated the highest levels of the Russian state in the murder. Spywatchers surmise that it may include an electronic ‘intercept’ – a Russian government communication, probably obtained by America’s National Security Agency, and shared with its ally, GCHQ.

Clearly, the Americans want no details of this to come out. If we are indeed able to snoop on the Kremlin’s secrets, it is best not to give clues of how we do it.

The contempt Mr Putin and his cronies have shown for Britain is astonishing.

Mrs Litvinenko arrived at the High Court today with her son Anatoly Litvinenko to hear the results of the public inquiry into her husband's death 

Mrs Litvinenko arrived at the High Court today with her son Anatoly Litvinenko to hear the results of the public inquiry into her husband’s death

Yesterday, they dismissed our legal system as a politicised sham, and have accused us of ‘colonial’ thinking for having the temerity even to request the extradition from Russia of the men identified in the report as the assassins, Dmitry Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoi.

By contrast, the greatest credit for the report goes to Mr Litvinenko’s widow, Marina. With dignity and determination, she has pursued her demand for an inquiry – in the teeth of sustained opposition from the British authorities.

Only when relations between the two countries cooled after Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014 did the Government finally back down and agree to give Mrs Litvinenko and the other witnesses their day in court. Yet none of the evidence given to the inquiry will have come as a surprise to the authorities. Britain’s intelligence services are all too well-informed about the depravity, greed and murderous brutality that reign in the Kremlin.

They report this in graphic detail to Mr Cameron and other leaders, to the point that the Prime Minister feels physically repelled by Mr Putin when he has to meet him in person.

But the unusually blunt language used in the report creates a diplomatic problem. It is not only the reptilian Russophiles in the City of London who want, for their own self-interested reasons, to maintain a working (ie lucrative) relationship with the Putin regime.

It is the pinstriped appeasers closer to Downing St who are the bigger problem. Our own diplomats see the naming and shaming of the Putin regime not as an opportunity to be exploited, but as an obstacle to be overcome.

They believe that Russia’s help is indispensable in the attempt to start peace talks over Syria, where Mr Putin’s ally President Assad is benefiting from the Russian aggression against militant opposition armies.

That is a catastrophically mistaken approach. If we want to bring the Assad regime to the negotiating table, we should be increasing pressure on its backers, such as Russia and Iran, not soft-soaping them.

The Russian state murdered Mr Litvinenko to send a message to other Russians: do not defect; do not co-operate with Western spy agencies. If you do so, we will hunt you down and mete out a slow, agonising death.

It was a message to Britain, too: Russia can do what it likes in the streets of our capital city. British citizenship bestows no protection.

What message will Mr Cameron send in response?

  • Edward Lucas writes for The Economist and is the author of The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces Both Russia and the West

REVEALED – PayPal Notice of Class-Action Settlement

Paypal, paypal lawsuits

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:38:47 -0500
From: “PayPal” <paypal@e.paypal.com>
To:
Subject: Notice of Class-Action Settlement

John Young,
View online
NOTICE OF CLASS-ACTION SETTLEMENT.

THIS NOTICE MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

A settlement has been reached in a class action in which the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that PayPal improperly handled disputed transactions on PayPal accounts and improperly placed holds and reserves on accounts or closed or suspended accounts. Plaintiffs also allege that PayPal failed to provide annual error-resolution notices and monthly account statements under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

You are a member of the Settlement Class if you had an active PayPal account between April 19, 2006 and Nov. 5, 2015. Certain Settlement Class Members who had a hold or reserve placed on their account and/or who had their account closed or suspended by PayPal are eligible to receive a monetary payment upon submission of a valid claim form.

This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the settlement, please see the Settlement Agreement available at http://www.accountholdsettlement.com/ or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays.

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.

Please do not reply to this email. We are unable to respond to inquiries sent to this address. For immediate answers to your questions, visit our Help Center by clicking “Help” located on any PayPal page or email.

Copyright © 2016 PayPal, Inc. All rights reserved. PayPal is located at 2211 N. First St., San Jose, CA 95131.

NA03703

Die Methode “GoMoPa” enthüllt – Tagesschau berichtet

 https://www.tagesschau.de/resources/framework/img/tagesschau/background/base.jpg
Screenshot der Internetseite von GoMoPa
https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/gomopa-101.html

Gomopa.net – ein Teufelskreis?

Sie sind Kapitalanleger und suchen nach Erfahrungsberichten anderer Kapitalanleger, die ebenfalls Geld bei der von Ihnen favorisierten Firma angelegt haben? Dann passen Sie auf, dass Sie nicht in die „Gomopa-Falle“ des Klaus Maurischat tappen. Was zunächst aussieht wie eine objektive Berichterstattung und News aus „Insiderkreisen“ entpuppt sich für uns bei genauem Hinsehen als ein Teufelskreis..

Gomopa.net – wie wertvoll sind diese Insiderinformationen

Unseren informierten Kreisen liegen zuhauf Fälle vor, bei denen Gomopa.net und der Drahtzieher dahinter (im Übrigen ein verurteilter Betrüger!) Klaus Maurischat sich die Wahrheit selbst „stricken“. Die Vorgehensweise dahinter ist immer die gleiche: zunächst erhält das in den Focus geratene Unternehmen einen netten – natürlich anonymen – Brief oder eine E-Mail. In dieser Email fordern der oder die Absender die Empfängerfirma auf, eine bestimmte Summe zu zahlen, da man sonst delikate Unternehmensinterna veröffentliche. Der Casus Knaxus: Diese „Interna“ sind in der überwiegenden Mehrzahl der Fälle bloße Hirngespinste.

Gomopa und Klaus Maurischat – nur Kasse machen?Geht es bei dieser Form des „Geldverdienens“ nur um den ahnungslosen Kunden? Wohl kaum! Vielmehr scheint es darum zu gehen, ehrbare Kaufleute um den Lohn ihrer harten Arbeit zu bringen. Wie geht das schneller als mit einer gepflegten Erpressung??? Tatsächlich bezahlt aber nur ein Bruchteil der erpressten Firmen. Aus verschiedenen Gründen: Entweder hat man das Geld nicht oder man will nicht bezahlen, weil die Anschuldigungen vollkommen haltlos sind. Was der Unternehmer nicht weiß: Den Erpressern ist es egal, ob die Firmen bezahlen können oder nicht. Die eigenen Netzwerke aus schamlosen „Informationsportalen“ werden es schon richten.

Maurischat und Gomopa – verantwortlich für Shit-Storms?

Bezahlt ein Unternehmer nicht, nicht gut genug oder auch nicht oft genug, kann man die Tage bis zu einem beginnenden Shit Storm auf Gomopa.net an den eigenen zehn Fingern abzählen! Vielleicht sind das nur Zufälle. Vielleicht ist ja der vorverurteilte Klaus Maurischat und seine saubere Gomop-Truppe nur selbst das Opfer eines Informanten, der sie reinlegen will – wer aber glaubt einem verurteilten Straftäter einfach alles? Sie sollten es nicht, und wir tun es ebenfalls nicht. Machen Sie sich doch einfach mal den kleinen Spaß, und suchen Sie im Internet das Aktenzeichen 28 LS 85 / 05 des AG Krefeld. Ein Mensch, der wissentlich andere um ihr Geld bringen will und bereits einschlägig vorbestraft ist, ist sicher ein guter Berater – wenn man das exakte Gegenteil dessen macht, was er rät.

Gomopa. net – Bleiben Sie stark!?

Bleiben Sie stark – so enden immer die Newsletter der Gomopa-Bande um Klaus Maurischat. Bleiben Sie stark – wie darf man das verstehen? Als Unternehmer – soll man sich eben nicht erpressen lassen? Als Kapitalanleger – soll man diesem Ring aus vorbestraften Menschen widerstehen? Wenn das der Rat ist, den Gomopa und Klaus Maurischat uns mit auf den Weg geben wollen, klären wir weiter auf – und bleiben stark!

  1. Gomopa – ein Windrad in der Brise?
    Erstaunlich. Früher nannte man die FDP die „ich dreh mich nach dem Wind“-Partei, weil sie schnell mal den Koalitionspartner wechselte. Erstaunlich. Manche Dinge werden von anderen einfach kopiert. Erstaunlich. Die Gomopa macht nichts anderes.
    Was macht Gomopa nicht anders?
    Die Gomopa versteht sich als „Finanznachrichtendienst“. Soweit erst einmal gut. Sicher ist es wichtig, den sogenannten „Grauen Kapitalmarkt“ im Auge zu behalten. Und wenn es eine Instanz gibt, die das objektiv macht, umso besser. Erstaunlich aber, dass die Gomopa gerne mal ihre Meinung wechselt, wie andere Menschen die Unterhose. Denn die Gomopa ist alles andere als objektiv. Wir haben uns die aktuelle Berichterstattung über Gomopa und K. Maurischat angeschaut. Eine richtige Schlammschlacht. Pfui. Was aber erstaunlich ist: Die Vorgehensweise der Gomopa hat sich seit Jahren nicht geändert.
    Die Vorgehensweise der Gomopa
    Erst wird tatsächlich mal „objektiv“ berichtet. Das bedeutet, ein Unternehmen ist – aus welchen Gründen auch immer – in den Focus der Gomopa gerutscht. Das Unternehmen wird „beleuchtet“. Das ist gut so. Wenn das Unternehmen erfolgreich ist, oder noch wird, kann es sich da aber schon einmal „warm anziehen“. Laut Presseberichten – unter anderem auch in der Süddeutschen Zeitung – geht die Gomopa dann „zum Angriff“ über. Ahnungslose Geschäftsleute werden angeschrieben, in aller Regel erst einmal anonym, und sollen einen Betrag X zahlen, weil man sonst unangenehme Dinge veröffentlichen würde. Unangenehme Dinge. Das sind Berichte, die ein ganzes Unternehmen in den Abgrund reißen können. Dagegen ist ein sauber geplanter Shitstorm auf einer Social Media Plattform ein reinstes Kaffeetrinken mit Udo Jürgens und viel Sahne zum Kaffee.
    Der Abgrund: Gomopa und das Netzwerk
    Denn wenn der Unternehmer nicht bezahlt, veröffentlicht die Gomopa nicht nur auf ihrer eigenen Plattform und Webseite einen einzelnen Artikel. Es geht eine Welle um. Keine Welle der Begeisterung, sondern die Gomopa verfügt über ein ausgeklügeltes, teilweise anonym gehostetes Netzwerk an Webseiten, dem ein deutscher Unternehmer nichts – absolut nichts – entgegensetzen kann. Doch eines: Er bezahlt die horrenden Forderungen, die als „Beratervertrag“ sauber getarnt werden.
    Pikantes Detail bei Gomopa
    Gomopa selbst ist im Grauen Kapitalmarkt aktiv und hat Beteiligungen verkauft. Die Hintermänner wurden dafür auch zur Rechenschaft gezogen, denn es konnte nachgewiesen werden, dass die von ahnungslosen Anlegern bezahlten Beträge nicht dem eigentlichen Ziel zugute kamen. Gomopa hat sich damit selbst ins Abseits gestellt.
    Quelle:

Revealed – Mount Whitney Investments LLLP v. Goldman Morgenstern & Partners Consulting, LLC et al

 http://www.standupamericaus.org/sua/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RICO.Justice.jpg
Plaintiff: Mount Whitney Investments LLLP
Defendant: Goldman Morgenstern & Partners Consulting, LLC, Manfred Ritter, Thomas Schulte and Stefan Elsterman
Case Number: 1:2015cv04479
Filed: June 9, 2015
Court: New York Southern District Court
Office: Foley Square Office
County: Albany
Presiding Judge: Edgardo Ramos
Nature of Suit: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Cause of Action: 18:1962
Jury Demanded By: None

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Der Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (kurz RICO oder RICO Act) ist ein am 15. Oktober 1970 erlassenes Bundesgesetz der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika.

Das Bundesgesetz „18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968“[1] wendete sich ursprünglich vor allem gegen das „Racketeering“ der amerikanischen Mafia („La Cosa Nostra“) und gegen die Vorgänge innerhalb der Gewerkschaften, insbesondere der Transportgewerkschaft der Teamsters. Es ist eine Rechtsgrundlage zur Bekämpfung und Verurteilung von kriminellen Aktivitäten von Mobstern und kriminellen Vereinigungen des organisierten Verbrechens.

Die Möglichkeiten der Strafvergabe für Drogenhandel waren am 1. Juli 1957 bereits durch den „Narcotic Control Act“ ausgeweitet und zu einem Bundesvergehen erklärt worden. Der RICO Act ermöglicht es Bundesanwälten darüber hinaus, Klage zu erheben, wenn eine Person in Verdacht steht, einer kriminellen Organisation anzugehören. Dies kann der Fall sein, wenn der Angeklagte innerhalb von zehn Jahren zwei von insgesamt 35 definierten Straftaten mit demselben Ziel oder Resultat begangen hat. Zunächst nur wenig, wurde die Regelung dann in den 1980er Jahren in zunehmendem Maße angewendet.

Aus deutscher Sicht bemerkenswert ist die Möglichkeit, Kriminalität nicht nur durch drastische strafrechtliche Mittel, sondern auch durch zivilrechtliche Klagemöglichkeiten und umfangreiche Schadenersatzansprüche für geschädigte Dritte zu verfolgen.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Verfahren und Verurteilungen (Auswahl)

1979 wurde das Gesetz gegen Ralph „Sonny“ Barger angewendet, um insbesondere den Drogen- und Waffenhandel der Fraktion der Hells Angels in Oakland zu unterbinden. Allerdings kam es damals zu einem Freispruch.[2]

Frank Tieri war am 21. November 1980 der erste Cosa-Nostra-Boss, der auf Grundlage des RICO Acts angeklagt und am 23. Januar 1981 zu zehn Jahren Haft verurteilt wurde.

1987 wurde Anthony Salerno, ein weiterer Boss der Genovese-Familie, vor einen „Mafia Commission Trial“ geladen, der auf Grund des RICO Acts einberufen werden konnte. Dort wurde die Korruption zwischen Mafia und Gewerkschaft behandelt und Salerno wurde zu insgesamt 100 Jahren Haft verurteilt. Außerdem erreichte im September 1987 Rudolph Giuliani eine Verurteilung eines Großteils der Mitglieder der irischstämmigen Westies, die Assoziierte der Gambino-Familie waren. Allein der Anführer James „Jimmy“ Coonan erhielt eine Freiheitsstrafe von 60 Jahren.

1989 wurde der amerikanische Finanzier und Investmentbanker Michael Milken, der als Symbol der Gier an der Wall Street während der 1980er Jahre gilt, des Finanzbetruges angeklagt, bekannte sich in fünf Punkten für schuldig und wurde zu 10 Jahren Haft verurteilt, jedoch nach 22 Monaten Gefängnis im Januar 1993 entlassen.

1999 bis 2007 diente der RICO Act als Grundlage einer Klage der US-Regierung gegen die US-Tabakindustrie. Der aktuelle Prozessstand wird auf tobacco-on-trial (englisch)[3] oder von Philip Morris USA (englisch)[4] sowie als Zusammenfassung (deutsch)[5] dokumentiert.

Zwischen dem 14. Februar und 15. Mai 2000 musste sich James Marcello zusammen mit Anthony Zizzo einem Prozess stellen. Die Anklage lautete auf Verschwörung, illegales Glücksspiel und Mord.[6] Marcello wurde zu 12, Zizzo zu 10 Jahren Haft verurteilt. Marcello wurde jedoch im November 2003[7] aus der Haft entlassen und nahm offensichtlich seine Tätigkeit für das Chicago Outfit wieder auf, als dessen aktueller Boss er nach Auffassung des FBI anzusehen ist.

Im März 2006 wurde Barry Mills, Anführer der „Aryan Brotherhood“, auf RICO-Grundlage angeklagt und zu einer lebenslagen Haftstrafe verurteilt.[8]

Im Jahr 2007 wurde eine Sammelklage gegen Microsoft und das Handelsunternehmen Best Buy in einem Berufungsverfahren vor dem United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco – trotz Bedenken – auf Grundlage des RICO Act zugelassen. Die Klage hatte im April 2000 James Odom angestrengt, der beiden Firmen Betrug vorwarf, da sie bei Käufen über Kreditkarten Kundeninformationen austauschten und der Kunde darüber nicht informiert werde. Microsoft hatte sich nach einer Investition von 200 Millionen US-Dollar in Best Buy verpflichtet, Werbung für diese Firma zu machen, im Gegenzug sollte der Händler Produkte von Microsoft bewerben.[9]

Im Januar 2008 erhob Star Energy eine Klage auf RICO-Act-Grundlage gegen RSM Top Audit (Moskau), RSM International (London) sowie einzelne Vertreter der Buchprüfungsfirmen und andere Einzelpersonen. „Star unterstellt ein Muster krimineller Geschäfte, das auf die Finanzmärkte der Vereinigten Staaten abzielt.“[10] Demnach soll RSM, eine der sieben größten internationalen Wirtschaftsprüfungsorganisationen weltweit, Buchprüfungen russischer Unternehmen fälschen, damit diese an den Kapitalmärkten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika Kapital aufnehmen können. Das Verfahren ist noch nicht entschieden.

Am 19. Juli 2010 wurde gemeldet, dass Anwälte von Geschädigten der Katastrophe der Deepwater Horizon in den USA mindestens drei Klagen gegen BP unter dem RICO Act eingereicht haben. Derzeit prüft das US-Justizministerium, ob der RICO Act in diesem Fall zur Anwendung kommt.[11]

Im Zuge der Ermittlungen wegen Korruptionsvorwürfen 2015 wurde bekannt, dass die US-Strafverfolgungsbehörden den internationalen Fußballverband FIFA als korrupte Organisation im Sinne des RICO Act betrachten.[12]

Einzelnachweise

  1. RP Online: Alle FIFA-News im Ticker

Literatur

  • Jan Christoph Witte: Der US-amerikanische RICO Act und deutsche Unternehmen. Recht Und Wirtschaft GmbH (Juni 1999). ISBN 978-3800511969

Weblinks

New York Southern District Court
Judge: Edgardo Ramos
Referred: Gabriel W Gorenstein
Case #: 1:15-cv-04479
Nature of Suit 320 Torts – Personal Injury – Assault, Libel, & Slander
Cause 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Case Filed: Jun 09, 2015
Docket as of: Saturday Feb 06, 2016 12:15 AM EST

Friday, February 05, 2016
56 order Order on Motion for Conference Fri 10:49 AM
ORDER denying without prejudice54 Letter Motion for Conference. Judge Ramos directed plaintiff to discuss this request with opposing counsel and to seek a conference only if there is a dispute. See Docket # 45 at 15. This letter does not reflect that plaintiff has complied with Judge Ramos’s directive. If there is a future application on this issue, the letter to the Court should comply with paragraph 2.A of Judge Gorenstein’s Individual Practices. (HEREBY ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein)(Text Only Order) (Gorenstein, Hon. Gabriel W.)
Thursday, February 04, 2016
55 order Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge Thu 6:14 PM
ORDER OF REFERENCE TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute (INCLUDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE)* Letter Motion doc. 54. Referred to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.SO ORDERED. Motions referred to Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 2/04/2016) (ama)
Wednesday, February 03, 2016
54 motion Conference Wed 5:54 PM
LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Charles C. Rainey dated February 3, 2016. Document filed by Mount Whitney Investments LLLP.(Rainey, Charles)
53 misc Letter Wed 5:31 PM
LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Charles C. Rainey dated February 3, 2016 re: RESPONSE TO LETTER-MOTION FILED ON BEHALF OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT SCHULTE ON JANUARY 27, 2016. Document filed by Mount Whitney Investments LLLP.(Rainey, Charles)
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
52 order Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Tue 6:30 PM
ORDER granting51 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File motion to dismiss. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (Ramos, Edgardo)
utility Set/Reset Deadlines Tue 6:44 PM
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 2/8/2016. (jar)
Monday, February 01, 2016
51 motion Extension of Time to File Document Mon 4:55 PM
LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Kevin J. Connolly dated February 1, 2016. Document filed by Goldman Morgenstern & Partners Consulting, LLC.(Connolly, Kevin)
Att: 1 Affidavit unsworn declaration of Klaus Marischat,
Att: 2 Supplement memorandum of law
Friday, January 29, 2016
50 order Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Fri 5:05 PM
ORDER granting49 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is due Feb. 1, 2016. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (Ramos, Edgardo)
49 motion Extension of Time to File Document Fri 1:09 PM
FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File motion to dismiss addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Kevin J. Connolly dated January 29, 2016. Document filed by Goldman Morgenstern & Partners Consulting, LLC.(Connolly, Kevin) 

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court’s PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court’s Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mount Whitney Investments LLLP v. Goldman Morgenstern & Partners Consulting, LLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mount Whitney Investments LLLP
Represented By: Charles Conway Rainey
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Goldman Morgenstern & Partners Consulting, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Manfred Ritter
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Thomas Schulte
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Stefan Elsterman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Confidential – U.S. Army Document and Media Exploitation Manual

 

TC 2-91.8 Document and Media Exploitation

Page Count: 98 pages
Date: June 8, 2010
Restriction: For Official Use Only
Originating Organization: Department of the Army
File Type: pdf
File Size: 1,744,779 bytes
File Hash (SHA-256): 5A8211F859747A4DC27F499B391C1E9F003A7F3DEC20A66B20362EFFF1882846

Download File

TC 2-91.8 provides doctrinal guidance to Army professionals in a tactical, operational, or strategic environment who conduct and support document and media exploitation (DOMEX). TC 2-91.8—

• Can be used by leaders; planners; doctrine writers; trainers; and training, materiel, and combat
developers for addressing DOMEX-related issues.

• Informs commanders and their staffs about the mission, requirements, and capabilities of
DOMEX assets.

• Is an integral component in supporting the overseas contingency operations.

• Supports the development of training support packages; doctrine, tactics, and techniques
packages; and mobile training teams.

For purposes of this manual, captured materials include captured enemy documents and captured enemy materiel.

Modern military operations are conducted in complex and ever-changing operational environments. Tactical military leaders must have access to accurate and timely information when conducting operations. Tactical, operational, and strategic leaders are enabled by accurate information about enemy forces through rapid and accurate extraction, exploitation, and analysis of captured materials.

Document and media exploitation (DOMEX) is an increasingly specialized, full-time mission that requires advanced automation, communications, and analytical support, as well as expert linguists. DOMEX and translation operations were once considered human intelligence (HUMINT) processing activities, directly associated with language capabilities and extensive background knowledge in area studies. Currently, HUMINT is not the sole asset capable of conducting DOMEX operations. Personnel involved in DOMEX do not require HUMINT training to screen or translate documents. DOMEX is an Army-wide responsibility used by all military specialties.

To use DOMEX products as force multipliers, rapid exploitation of captured materials must occur at the lowest echelon. At the tactical level, DOMEX assets provide timely and accurate intelligence support to the warfighter besides the collection, analyses, rapid exploitation, and evacuation of captured materials. DOMEX assets also provide commanders with discussion ideas and feedback from higher echelon analysis operations.

The intelligence staff uses any form of communication to disseminate vital information, including DOMEX-derived information. Depending on the tactical situation, available resources, commanders’ critical information requirements, and specific information requirements, the staff disseminates critical information quickly and accurately from the lowest to the highest echelon—specifically to tactical commanders.

Commanders and staffs determine how to task-organize their intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets to accomplish the mission. For commanders’ or task requirements that cannot be fulfilled by assigned assets, units consider requesting specialized or uniquely trained units. Assigning these specialized units to the requesting organization may be the best solution, but often they are assigned to higher headquarters and attached to requesting organizations based on availability and priority.

Efficient DOMEX operations require a synchronized concept of operations. Other than in intelligence units, representation from assigned intelligence personnel generally ends at the battalion level with the battalion intelligence staff. Battalion staffs plan for the DOMEX operations of their subordinate units. They provide intelligence below the battalion level by task-organizing intelligence personnel as company intelligence support teams, or they train company or platoon personnel in specific handling, screening, and inventorying techniques.

domex-examples domex-examples-2