City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Sater

Background

The City of Almaty, Kazakhstan, and BTA Bank JSC moved to hold Felix Sater in contempt, impose sanctions, and refer him to the United States Attorney’s Office for investigation of possible perjury. Their motion concerned Sater’s trial testimony about a 2015 meeting with representatives of the plaintiffs.

The meeting date was important because Litco LLC, Almaty, and BTA had entered into a Confidential Assistance Agreement dated June 12, 2015. The agreement included a release of claims against Litco and its shareholders. Litco had represented that no witness it identified and produced would have an ownership interest in Litco, but the opinion states that Litco was owned by Sater during the relevant period. At trial, Sater asserted the release as a defense. The plaintiffs argued that the release was fraudulently induced because Sater did not disclose his ownership of Litco and that Sater was not a third-party beneficiary of the release. The jury rejected Sater’s release defense.

Before trial, the court had ruled that evidence about the agreement’s execution was relevant, but that evidence about events after the agreement was executed could not be presented without the court first reviewing its relevance. The plaintiffs argued that Sater falsely placed the meeting in early June so that he could present information from the July meeting and suggest that he had disclosed his ownership of Litco before the agreement was signed.

Parties’ Arguments

The plaintiffs pointed to Sater’s earlier testimony, which conflicted with his trial testimony, and to billing records from Robert Wolf, Litco’s attorney. The billing records reflected a July 8, 2015 meeting but not a June 5, 2015 meeting.

Sater and his trial counsel maintained that Sater did not knowingly provide false testimony. His counsel said Sater had reviewed an audio recording and identified details that convinced him the recording was from June rather than July. In responding to the sanctions motion, however, Sater did not identify the specific details that led him to that belief.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that civil contempt is intended to compel future compliance with a court order and benefit the opposing party, while criminal contempt is punitive and protects the court’s authority. The court emphasized that contempt should not be imposed when there is a fair ground for doubt about whether the defendant acted wrongfully, and that sanctions require notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The court found the motion without merit because there was a fair ground for doubt about the wrongfulness of Sater’s conduct. Although the historical evidence indicated that the meeting occurred in July rather than June, that evidence did not establish that Sater knew or remembered the correct date when he testified in 2024, nine years after the meeting. The court therefore could not determine that Sater’s highly argumentative testimony was knowingly false.

The court also found that nothing suggested the testimony affected the trial’s outcome. The jury rejected Sater’s release defense, and the court had denied the defendants’ post-trial motion to set aside that part of the verdict.

Disposition

The court concluded that no sanctions were appropriate and would not refer Sater for further investigation. The plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions and other relief was denied, and the clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry.