"I think we did well"

Russian journalists - about how they studied the "Panama archive"

For more than a year, 380 investigators from 70 countries of the world worked on the Panama Archive project. They represented their own media, as well as the International Consortium of Journalists-ICRUSTERS (ICIJ) and the Center for the Study of Corruption and Organized Crime (OCCRP). Joint journalistic work of this scale has been done for the first time in history. The Special Corps of Medusa Katerina Gordeeva recorded monologues of four journalists from Russia who participated in this project.

Roman Anin

"New Gazeta"

The International Consortium of Journalists (ICIJ) is a global organization that includes the best representatives of the profession from around the world. Not that I considered myself the best, but I’m entering a consortium. And I am very proud of this.

The current investigation is not the first in which I participated. But all that I still participated is ten times less than the current history.

As I understand it, the history of the “Panama archive” began with the fact that the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung received documents, the volume and scale of which was so impressive that it became clear - alone could not cope. And Süddeutsche Zeitung turned to ICIJ with a request to help process and verify the documents received. And then ICIJ journalists around the world were attracted to take part in this project. New Gazeta became a Russian partner of the investigation.

The whole history in Russia was engaged in four journalists: Mika Velikovsky, Olesya Shmagun, I and Roman Shleinov. In our team we worked with Mika and Olesya, we had such a mini-edit. There was no clear separation who was doing whom. As there was no order from anyone from ICIJ, from the “new” or center for the study of corruption and organized crime (OCCRP), which was also a partner of the investigation.

The rules of work for all of us were simple: you are a journalist, you write about what is interesting to you and your readers. Of course, I understood that our officials are interested in here. We have chosen those stories that seemed important to us and have been doing this for a year.

It is completely wrong to say that the investigation began with Russia. It immediately began with many states. At the first our meetings, we were talking about officials from many countries: the files already had data about Ukraine, Egypt, Brazil, China. Russian officials only went through a comma in this long list. Stories are really impressive!

I can say that not everything has been published today - neither in terms of Russia, nor in terms of the rest of the countries. Just paper and even online - not rubber. It cannot be placed at once. There will be also important parts of our investigation of both Russia and our neighbors: there are impressive documents, for example, in Ukraine and Azerbaijan.

380 journalists participating in the investigation are a huge team. It is impossible to imagine a fly in which everyone is involved. But there were no such flyers. However, there were no particular detective stories with turnouts and passwords either; I have nothing to impress. There were a couple of international meetings of journalists who participated in the project. They needed them rather for acquaintance and coordination of actions. Basically, all cooperation took place using online platforms that were specially developed for this story and which, I hope, will be used in the future, so I cannot tell in detail about how it all functioned.

Russia is the only country in which they react to the results of our investigation based on some conspiracy theories. But if you look at the situation sensibly, then journalists from 70 countries participated in the investigation, combine them in order to achieve dubious goals or manipulate them is unrealistic. Russia and Russian officials are the only ones who screams about the planned attack, forgetting that the investigation concerns other countries, including enemies and friends of Russia, and those with whom Russia fought, and those with whom he is trying to be friends: Great Britain, Iceland, China, Brazil, Australia and Ukraine. Is there some kind of conspiracy the basis? No. The principle is different: in each of these countries, officials came across offshores. And only in Russia they see politics in this.

Until the very last moment, everything happened without unnecessary noise. And then, for a certain time before the publication of the investigation, we sent requests to the Kremlin and other addresses. There were specific questions about specific cases. And then they, of course, were nervous: this is the reason made, as it were, ahead of the statements of the same Peskov.

Actually, the investigation was supposed to be released a little earlier. Dedine "moved out" due to the volume of documents. In addition, some new files came only in March. It took time to process them and check the reliability of the information set in them.

Honestly, we did a huge job and, above all, are very tired: recent months had to work without interruptions and weekends. So far, I have not yet realized that it was all over, that we did this work. But of course, I understand that I was involved in the historical case and historical investigation. This is from that category when they say that there will be something to tell about their grandchildren.

You know what else for me the importance of this story is another evidence that the world is not a conspiracy, but a case. Here is a case: someone decided to tell the truth and shared with Süddeutsche Zeitung reporters. We do not know anything about this person, we do not know his motives. But we did our job: we checked the reliability of these documents and told people about them - this is all that was required of us. It seems to me that we worked well.

Roman Shleinov

OCCRP

I have long been a member of the International Consortium of Journalists-Resistants (ICIJ) and the Center for the study of corruption and organized crime (OCCRP). Together with other journalists, I worked on a joint investigation of ICIJ about the smuggling of cigarettes in 2008, even when I worked in Novaya Gazeta. Then above the project on the asbestos industry, which ICIJ studied in 2010. He was engaged in the Russian part of data on offshore owners who became available to Le Monde and ICIJ in 2013 (already as a Vedomosti newspaper observer), the Russian part of the Owners of accounts in the Swiss department of the HSBC in 2015. And now he took part in the Russian part of the project on offshore owners who became available to the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. The German newspaper shared data from ICIJ, since these data were huge. ICIJ, in turn, attracted OCCRP and dozens of media around the world.

I began to work with this information as a observer of the Vedomosti newspaper and invited Vedomosti to participate. The project was already completed without me, but with my help. I believe that I fulfilled my obligations.

For an outside observer, everything that we did during this year is rather boring. You sit at the computer, draw diagrams and compare the data. Then you send requests, you speak with people if they agree to speak. That's all. There are no duties either, everyone is looking for interesting characters and stories that are interesting for their country. I, Vedomosti and New Gazeta were interested in Russian stories.

Now voices are heard that the publication of the investigation is allegedly timed to something. Someone says to the elections. But everything is timed to the elections only among politicians. This is in their understanding the whole world rotates around their elections. Fortunately, this is not so. Our deadline was determined when we have time to understand all these arrays of information.

If you have been interested in those who hide some kind of information for a long time, you can probably learn not to allow leaks. Journalists-investigators are conscious people. No leaks in this investigation were allowed.

It's no secret why such documents are interesting. They are interested in the tax authorities of almost all countries, especially in the days of economic crises. They are looking for evaders from paying taxes among their citizens. Accordingly, such data flow and will flow more and more often from the offices that help citizens hide behind offshores, trusts and funds.

But I have not counted on any reaction for a long time. In Russia and in the rest of the world, the reaction will be different, and this is understandable. Panama speaks of a crime (since registration of opaque companies is their bread), official inspections and investigations will be held in Europe, whether taxes are evaded if politicians or status state persons will have serious problems in the lists of offshore owners. And with us, as usual, they will repeat about the “Western provocation”, simply because there is nothing to answer. Our politicians and statesmen have not learned other words since the USSR.

Olesya Shmagun

OCCRP

I joined the investigation in the summer of 2015, Roman Anin, journalist of Novaya Gazeta, my colleague in OCCRP called me to work in the Russian team.

This was not the first experience of my participation in an international investigation. Usually we make stories and publish them simultaneously in Novaya Gazeta and on the OCCRP website. But, of course, in such a large -scale investigation I have not yet had to participate.

The main task of our Russian team was to, first of all, to determine what important and socially significant Russians are mentioned in the documents and what kind of related financial manipulations are being discussed. Between ourselves, we divided the people we break through. I was engaged in deputies of the State Duma and representatives of the Federation Council.

Much has appeared, as they say, in the course of work. Some public or politician suddenly made a loud statement or somehow otherwise attracted attention. And it occurred to us to see if it was in our base. In parallel, work was underway on the main history of the investigation.

ICIJ, we must pay tribute to him, did a giant work and did everything possible to simplify and make the work of journalists participating in the investigation as comfortable as possible. We had two main working platforms. The one through which we gained access to information (if you try to explain, then this is such a search engine, local Google, according to documents that formed the basis of the investigation). And the one, on the basis of which we coordinated the investigation, exchanged data: it looked like a forum, journalists could ask for help from colleagues, share finds, consult.

Obviously, the deadline of our investigation had nothing to do with Russia and the events in it. He was known in advance, but moved several times - we could not cope with the amount of information.

All this time, we tried to think as little as possible about what would happen after the publication of the investigation, about how and what it would affect. In the end, this is not our job. I see my role in checking as many documents as possible and making their contents available to as many people as possible. All. And how all this will come around, it will respond ... Alas, in Russia it is impossible to predict a lot. Who could think that the FBKinvestigation that the wife of the prosecutor general conducts a business with the head of the Russian gang of the century to be so easily forgotten and almost affect anything? It was difficult to predict such a sluggish reaction.

Of course, in our investigation we are not talking about murders. Here we are talking about commercial crimes. But it seems to me that it is important for citizens of the country to know how and on what those in whose hands are power earn.

I did not sign any special papers that prohibit me to do something or force me, on the contrary, to act in some certain way. It seemed to me from the very beginning that this was a huge journalistic success to be in such a project. Like all other participants, I understood that it was important that our story sounded loudly and suddenly for everyone.

I do not know who the person from whom it all started, who handed over the documents Süddeutsche Zeitung. But I have no doubt that this story is of great public significance.

I am satisfied with the work done and proud of it. To be in such a project is a huge journalistic luck. But now there is a sense of confusion: it is not clear what story can be comparable to this.

Dmitry Velikovsky

OCCRP

For the convenience of journalists who worked on this global investigation, ICIJ has created a universal platform: first of all, this is the base to which the search for all the documents available in the arsenal of the documents is screwed. Of course, there were some internal restrictions regarding what documents and in what form can be published - this is due to both the personal data contained in them, and with the need to ensure the safety of the leak source. With all the journalists who participated in the investigation, they spoke these “rules of the game”, there was a universal memo that was written not in the form of an order, but as a commercial memo. And there it was just said how to work with the search, with the platform, with the documents themselves. But there were no strict conditions, frames or restrictions.

This whole year we were, as if in the same edition of friendly people who are united by a common cause and goal. And it doesn’t matter that many of these people have never seen each other, were not familiar and, perhaps, never recognize each other. Involvement unites. There was a feeling or, more precisely, the hope that none of these people would be genuine. Therefore, there was no need for any written obligations, which are so often connected by their employees of large corporations, where the work is not based on the common motives and interests of employees, but on something else, an outsider.

The feeling of the team did not leave me all this year.

Of course, first of all, in the documents that we had at the disposal, we were interested in everything that concerns Russia. But this is normal. Austria was interested in Austria, Brazilians - Brazil, Ukrainians - Ukraine. The opportunity to figure out how corruption is arranged in your country, which of the civil servants are involved in illegal or dubious activities is a serious motive for journalists. I think that every participant in the investigation was motivated.

The desire not to harm this common goal explains the absence of plums for this whole year. It was the original deadline, was the original goal. And there was a great desire to achieve it. To kill this motivation - it would mean to do dishonestly.

To blame someone something about the progress of the investigation on friendship or during conversation is boasting. Boar is a one -time thing. An attempt to become famous in this way - on the verge of heroostrace. For one second, a person will become famous - see what I have - but will lock up a huge common cause. For what?

It seems to me not very correct now to say who and what exactly did in our team, who investigated and which part. Important things did everything together. Of course, specific texts were written by specific people. But all the investigation is the result of the general work.

I tried not to think about the consequences of this investigation all year, while it lasted, I don’t think now. My duty as a journalist is to do everything in my power. In the interests of society, for history, from professional ambition.

After that, the world will turn over or no one will notice written - this is outside my competence.

It seems to me that in Russia it is quite difficult to predict a reaction to such an investigation. In countries where there are strong civilian institutions and close interaction of power and society, it is easier to predict the reaction. For example, the one that the investigation caused the Prime Minister of Iceland . In Russia, civilian institutions are quite weak, many citizens are indifferent, and too many power, financial and media resources are concentrated in their top leaders in their hands.

This work of ours is likely to have some continuation. The base with which we worked is huge. We will continue to study it, and, as the stories are discovered, of public interest, we will continue to publish them.

Perhaps such investigations are created for those who are engaged in them, some additional risks. But there are things that, being a journalist, you can’t pass in any way: you must tell people what you know. I believe that when making a decision to participate in this investigation, all journalists from around the world were guided precisely by these professional principles.

Katerina Gordeeva

Riga