Bad Journalism: Guardian article connects Pavlov to St Kitts and Nevis

On 24 May, an article by the Guardian linked alleged Russian tax fraudster Andrei Pavlov, who purportedly travelled across Europe more than 70 times in the past four years despite sanctions against him by three EU countries, and visa-free travel to the European Union afforded to successful applicants of St Kitts and Nevis Citizenship by Investment Programme. The link was, however, a figment of author Juliette Garside’s imagination, as Mr Pavlov never received economic citizenship (or any passport) from St Kitts and Nevis.

The Federation of St Kitts and Nevis is a Caribbean nation famed, among other things, for having one of the most rigorous – and successful – citizenship by investment programmes in the world. The Programme, whose due diligence processes were radically enhanced in 2015, offers applicants with the opportunity to become citizens of St Kitts and Nevis if they make a significant investment in the Federation and if they can show a clean record, on both a personal and professional level. To achieve this, applicants must disclose the source of their funds, provide documentary evidence of their activities for the past decade, and release detailed information on their education, employment, financial, and family history. A dedicated, highly-trained Citizenship by Investment Unit handles each application to the Programme.

The Unit is not, however, the only body involved in applicant assessment. St Kitts and Nevis requires all its Programme agents to perform background checks on applicants, and the country employs independent professional firms to conduct multi-tiered, enhanced due diligence. Firms such as Thomson Reuters, BDO Consulting, and S-RM perform on-the-ground and online assessments, including scrutiny of sanctions and criminal lists. Reviews are also conducted through intergovernmental bodies such as Interpol and regional entities such as the CARICOM’s Implementing Agency for Crime and Security (IMPACS) and Joint Regional Communications Centre (JRCC).

It seems iniquitous therefore, that, despite the thoroughness of the due diligence process employed in St Kitts and Nevis, the country should continue to be subject to attacks on its reputation and integrity by certain segments of the media.

Mr Pavlov, who entered multiple European nations, never did so using St Kitts and Nevis citizenship or a St Kitts and Nevis passport. It is unclear, then, why EU MEPs Ana Gomes and Marietje Schaake wrote to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker suggesting he “consider terminating the visa-free status programme with St Kitts and Nevis” in light of Mr Pavlov’s unhindered travels across Europe. Equally unclear is why Ms Garside should try to highlight this false link in her article.

An official statement by the Office of Premier of Nevis, Mark Brantley, who is also Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Federation, was categorical in its response, rejecting the premise that Mr Pavlov’s multiple entries into Europe may be “somehow linked to St Kitts and Nevis.” This, it stated, “is completely and utterly false as Mr Pavlov does not hold and has never held a passport from St Kitts and Nevis. His purported entries into the EU therefore have absolutely no connection with St Kitts and Nevis.”

Also disturbing is the fact that Minister Brantley himself spoke to Ms Garside on 22 May clarifying both that the Federation and himself personally had no relation to Mr Pavlov. Ms Garside, who works for one of the most reputable newspapers in the world, had a responsibility to ensure the accuracy of her article. On her shoulders, and on those of Guardian Editor-in-Chief, Katharine Viner, rests the ability of many to understand events, their causes, and the players involved. Improper reporting jeopardises faith in journalism, particularly in the era of ‘fake news.’ It also undermines the efforts many journalists make to ensure the truth is told – and believed.

St Kitts and Nevis’ Programme is known as the platinum standard of investor immigration, and plays an essential role in the sustainable development of the nation. Recently, it provided a lifeline to families harmed by Hurricane Maria. It seems unscrupulous that persons, including representatives of the European Union, should seek to cut this lifeline. Indeed, where climate change and hurricanes are concerned, it seems rather that the roles should be reversed, with St Kitts and Nevis claiming irreparable damage for the injury Europe’s emissions have done to the Federation – not Europe conjuring damage from St Kitts and Nevis’ Programme.­