Talk:Magnitsky Act

Untitled
Astonishing omission--this whole entry tells you everything about the Mag act, except what it does! It punishes people--HOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campobasso3233 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Magnitsky Act - BEHIND THE SCENES" Documentary
Why is there no information on the only documentary I know of that has investigated Browder and what he has claimed about Magnitsky--and it was made by a Kremlin critic. It has uncovered a lot which counters the narrative that Browder has used to get the Magnitsky Act passed. Here is the website for the documentary: http://magnitskyact.com/. Here's the synopsis for the film: "What started as a docu-drama about a Russian police plot to steal a billion dollars from a US financier and to murder his faithful tax lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, became an investigation of a massive hoax and an unprecedented international cover-up.The Magnitsky Case in the version of the financier Bill Browder became the basis for laws and sanctions targeting Russian police and other officials, and for the claims that Putin personally had received a share of the millions looted from the Russian people. The film’s director and a Kremlin critic, Andrei Nekrasov discovers that a narrative defining Western Russia policies is riddled with falsehooods." Here's the Wikipedia page for the documentary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magnitsky_Act_%E2%80%93_Behind_the_Scenes.Jerri Kohl (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

No mention of Bill Browder
Browder's Hermitage hired Magnitsky to pursue the tax fraud that Russian officials used to confiscate Hermitage-owned companies. Browder was the one who pursued the investigation and produced the evidence presented to legislatures, including the Congress, to encourage them to pass laws sanctioning the Russian violators of human rights in Magnitsky's case. Browder continues to speak out against the abuse, corruption, and human rights violations perpetrated by Putin's thug-ocracy. Browder's book, Red Notice documents his experience in Russia, including the Magnitsky case. Without Browder's dedication, moral courage, financial resources, and passionate desire to honor Magnitsky, there would be no Magnitsky Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pechaney (talk • contribs) 07:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
"While Russian officials desired to pass a proportional response in their own legislature, a proposal to similarly deny entrance to Americans guilty of gross human rights violations[16] would have less of an impact on the United States than the Magnitsky bill, since fewer Americans take vacations or own assets to Russia than Russians do in the United States."

I was thinking of modifying the language a bit. Firstly reference 16 doesn't refer to a desire to pass a proportional response. Secondly, assuming this claim can be referenced correctly, it is very unusual to take everything a government official says as fact. Maybe 'according to Russian officials' might be better since it looks pretty POV at the moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.106.228 (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
"Australian expatriate jurist Geoffrey Roberston, who is representing some of the Magnitksy campaigners, has described the Act"

Is that really a neutral point of view? He's a lawyer representing campaigners. The chances of him being unbiased is even less than a Catholic priest giving positive review on Madonna's latest world tour. The whole world thinks this law is stupid and inflammatory, and only some ozzie lawyers thinks it's good. BadaBoom (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem as long as the statement is appropriately attributed and not WP:UNDUE. What would be problematic is if we were expressing such opinions ourselves. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone straighten out this sentence?
The line reads:

In addition, Russian government reportedly lobbied against the legislature acting through a public relations company led by Kenneth Duberstein.

I suspect "legislature" should be "legislation" but am not sure.Zedshort (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem?

 * This edit. - Here is the source, and I do not really see the "copy paste". This should be probably restored. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump Jr. kerfuffle
On July 9, 2017 or thereabout, the news broke referencing this Act and Donald Trump, Jr.. To my knowledge this is a first, and noteworthy, event that warrants inclusion in the article. He, Trump Jr, admittedly had met with a leading Russian lawyer who advocates for appeal of the Act. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kremlin-denies-knowing-of-donald-trump-jr-meeting-with-russian-lawyer-during-2016-campaign/2017/07/10/c2bfee34-6566-11e7-a1d7-9a32c91c6f40_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_russiatrump-902am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory --Wikipietime (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Rob Goldstone
Rob Goldstone may should be a part of the article? Any feedback?--Wikipietime (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Why was there no mention of how Mr. Magnitsky was killed
Even the Kremlin's own human rights committee came to the conclusion that he was beaten and left for dead by 8 prison guards in riot gear? This feels like blatant window-dressing/whitewashing/state propaganda that Wikipedia is allowing to proceed. I'd like to see this page and other's that relate to Russia and their human rights violations and perhaps proactively protect current & future (T)Ru(mp)ssiaGate submissions. We should not let the fact that Wikipedia is open source and has a mission statement of free flowing information inhibit our ability to protect that information from state actors who wish to clean Putin's record. Perhaps (hopefully..?) I am wrong however, and there is a legitimate reason for the disgusting omission of evidence CENTRAL to a politically motivated murder on the worlds preeminent information hub. "The Free Encyclopedia" should not become the "Free to Gaslight Encyclopedia"

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.222.82 (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Detailed information about the death isn't in this article because this article is about a law that was passed. Information about the death is in a separate, biographical article, Sergei Magnitsky. This article (about the law) links to the biographical article in two different places; interested readers are able to find biographical details with just one click. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Image used in "extract" is misleading
Granted that this is about US policy, I think it's wrong-headed to have The Great Seal pop up as extract when this page's URL is posted in GPlus and FB (and perhaps others). Is there actually good reason to have that as though "front and center"? --BenTrem (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Canada
>The Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), which earlier passed both houses of the Canadian Parliament, on October 19 received royal assent, which is required before a bill can come into force.

Should the Canadian Act be included here? EDLIS Café 12:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs)


 * Hello, EdRicardo. I had the same question. I went ahead and added it to the end of the article. GreyGoose (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magnitsky Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2012/12/18/what-the-magnitsky-act-means/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20140916114524/http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2012/12/18/what-the-magnitsky-act-means/ on http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2012/12/18/what-the-magnitsky-act-means/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This whole section is wrong: Internationalization of the Magnitsky Act
Internationalization of the Magnitsky Act.

This whole section is incorrect and needs to be rewritten. The Global Magnitsky Act is a separate law and deserves its own Wikipedia entry.

The 2012 Magnitsky Act refers to a specific case, conflating the two leads to a complete misunderstand of the Global Magnitsky Act.

Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 - Directs the Secretary of State to publish and update a list of each person the Secretary has reason to believe: (1) is responsible for, or benefitted financially from, the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, participated in related liability concealment efforts, or was involved in the criminal conspiracy uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky; or (2) is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other human rights violations committed against individuals seeking to promote human rights or to expose illegal activity carried out by officials of the government of the Russian Federation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7204:1E00:1D77:CF11:AC57:5A0E (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Dan Gertler article
I added the same content with RS to both the "Global Magnitsky Act sanctions imposed through EO 13818" section in this article and the Magnitsky Act section of the Dan Gertler article on 5 December 2019.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Are we sure the act applies only to human rights violators?
I think the statement that the act is just about human rights violations needs to be expanded or removed.

I come from Bulgaria where several popular figures have been added to the list defined by the act (source). Please note the following

"The Administration believes corruption degrades the rule of law, weakens economies and economic growth, undermines democratic institutions, perpetuates conflict, and deprives innocent civilians of fundamental human rights, and today’s action — the single largest action targeting corruption to date — demonstrates the Department of the Treasury’s ongoing effort to hold accountable those involved in corruption. The U.S. government will continue to impose tangible and significant consequences on those who engage in corruption and work to protect the global financial system from abuse."

In addition

"This designation under the Global Magnitsky sanctions program shows that we are committed to combatting corruption wherever it may be."

and last but not least

[...] under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act due to their involvement in significant corruption.

I checked UN source of course to get familiar with the connection corruption has with human rights. However if it is a human rights violation (I was unable to find a definitive statement on this and just that corruption may lead to such violation) the other problem is that the people mentioned in the list I have linked to at the beginning are officially not sentenced. And this is the problem with corruption - unless there is absolute proof you may feel it is there but you cannot put your finger on it. Note that I do not take sides here and if these people are indeed going against the law I am looking forward to seeing they get proper sentences.

The act is largely used as a leverage by the US government to apply force on foreign governments, politicians and business circles that are in some way inconvenient. In the case of Bulgaria it directly intervened in the elections (now twice and possibly three times) in 2021.Rbaleksandar (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)