Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Maldives Denies Russian Claims That Secret Service Kidnapped a Politician's Son

Posted by timothy on from the 30-year-old-napping-is-totally-different dept.

Rei (128717) writes As was previously reported here, the Russian government has accused the U.S. Secret Service of kidnapping the son of ultranationalist LDPR MP Valery Seleznev in the Maldives. The son, Roman Seleznev, stands accused of running one of the world's largest carding operations, with others charged in the affair having already been convicted; however, Roman had until recently been considered out of reach in Russia. Now the Maldives has struck back against these claims, insisting that they arrested him on an Interpol Red Notice and transferred him to the US, as they are legally required as an Interpol member state to do. "No outsider came here to conduct an operation," president Abdulla Yameen stated. "No officials from another country can come here to arrest anyone. The government has the necessary documentation to prove it." Note: the Slashdot post linked didn't include the accusations of kidnapping, but the Krebs On Security link above mentions these claims.

13 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Consipricy nuts, go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me guess. All of you who claimed the US overstepped it's bounds in the previous Slashdot article will now claim that the Maldives is lying to cover for the US. Rather than simply just admit your knee jerk reaction was wrong.

    1. Re:Consipricy nuts, go! by timrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the only question I have is why the US didn't just say that Maldives law enforcement was responsible for the arrest in the first place. It could've been spun as good PR for both countries - "Cooperation Between US, Maldives Law Enforcement Leads to Arrest of Card Hacker" or somesuch. That would've quelled any questions about who was responsible for the arrest in the first place as well.

    2. Re:Consipricy nuts, go! by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Objection: relevance.

      These other things are not the topic of discussion. They are just red herrings to distract from the fact that the US appears to have acted in a civilized manner this time.

      Civilized behavior should not be swept under the rug because you have a hate-on for some particular country. Your nonsense undermines the positive reinforcement that encourages good behavior and discourages bad behavior.

      Doesn't matter if it's the US or Hezbollah.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Consipricy nuts, go! by Zeorge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How is it the fault of the US Government when news agencies are going at each other neck-and-neck, to have the latest, sensationalist story (to drive up ad revenue)? There may be some underlying Interpol related stipulation or other legal framework that has to be followed first before any details can be released. The Secret Service HQ is in DC, Maldives are in the Pacific, factor in time zones, operatives working, relaying info, people having to sleep, etc. So, the timeline makes sense. Having a PR statement is important but not as important as other legal things that need to be taken care of first.

    4. Re:Consipricy nuts, go! by mi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Face it, the US has more or less become the enemies of global freedom and privacy

      Far less so than Russia. Instead of detaining the accused and bringing him in, they would've simply poisoned the man.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:Consipricy nuts, go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's what the DOJ actually said. The rest was just the media going wild trying to mix together the statements of the DOJ with the claims of the Russians. The DOJ statement says nothing about him being "arrested overseas", just that he was arrested. This, and always was, a question for the Maldives government to respond to. And now they have.

    6. Re:Consipricy nuts, go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have the sequence out of order. The US issued warrants for this guy back in 2012.

      If you're going to throw around ad hominem attacks coupled with suppositions, you should attack the the Russian leader for hating the Ukraine for its perceived turn towards the power that has warrants out for his son.

    7. Re:Consipricy nuts, go! by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the only question I have is why the US didn't just say that Maldives law enforcement was responsible for the arrest in the first place. It could've been spun as good PR for both countries - "Cooperation Between US, Maldives Law Enforcement Leads to Arrest of Card Hacker" or somesuch. That would've quelled any questions about who was responsible for the arrest in the first place as well.

      How do you know that they didn't? The only thing we saw in Slashdot a few days ago was some article without any sources that seemed to claim that US agents were going buck wild in Maldives and made the arrest themselves. I, and others, pointed out in that thread that the article was likely a very badly written summary and I was sure that the Maldives made any arrest and only after a valid arrest warrant came through. Yes, I told (some of) you so.

    8. Re:Consipricy nuts, go! by Xest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Meanwhile Russia has actually kidnapped a Ukrainian doing nothing illegal beyond defending her country against Russian state sponsored terrorists:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

      I have zero sympathy for Russia in this case given that they're crying wolf whilst doing exactly what they're crying about to others.

  2. Re:Red notice by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're not always effective; governments seem to be free to ignore these things if it appears to be politically motivated.

    INTERPOL itself has no teeth. It's left to the nations themselves to decide if they care what it has to say on a case-by-case basis. It permits information sharing (etc) but does not require it. Their goal is "To ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police authorities within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and not to enforce laws themselves.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Say what you will about the US by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But there are no credible reports of the US allowing criminals to just wantonly defraud Russian and Chinese citizens. While all of our governments spy on each other (and each other's economies), the US at least tends to take a dim view toward its citizens committing criminal acts against foreigners.

  4. I'm surprised the Russians would complain too much by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since it would seem to only lead to more focus on the mafia-like nature of the Russian government and the shadowy links between Russian government, intelligence and organized crime.

    I'm sure the US-haters and the Russian propagandists will begin their usual moral equivocation, NSA, CIA, banking, etc.

  5. Blurring lines between criminality and politics. by linearz69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Russians have been protecting a suspected criminal fraudster who happens to be the son of a government official. These suspicions aren't thin. Seleznev has even admitted to his crimes. If its state sponsored thuggery, then the state is Russia, not US. Roman Seleznev is just another cyber criminal who was dumb enough to step outside of Mother Russia long enough to get caught.

    If this had been Snowden, then I think the argument for political motivation is real. But Snowden, his existence in Russian exile, gives Russia some leverage to make claim of political arrest and state overreach. The US government has put itself in a position where it looks bad even when it is doing something good.