The new motion complains that Mueller's case against the firm is legally flawed because it fails to allege that the company acted "willfully" in violating U.S. law. | Saul Loeb/Getty Images Russian firm accused of funding U.S. election trolling disputes Mueller charge Company tied to Putin's chef says prosecutors invented 'make-believe crime.'

A Russian firm with ties to an ally of President Vladimir Putin is challenging the legal basis of special counsel Robert Mueller's charge that the company funded Moscow's effort to disrupt the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting — a Saint Petersburg-based business said to be controlled by a Russian oligarch known as Putin's chef — are accusing Mueller of inventing a "make-believe crime" in order to achieve a "political" goal of prosecuting someone for interfering in the U.S. presidential race.


The Justice Department, attorneys Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly wrote in a motion filed in federal court in Washington Monday, has "licensed a Special Counsel who for all practical political purposes cannot be fired, to indict a case that has absolutely nothing to do with any links or coordination between any candidate and the Russian Government."

"The reason is obvious, and is political: to justify his own existence the Special Counsel has to indict a Russian — any Russian," they added.

Aside from serving as a vehicle to attack the prosecution, the new motion complains that Mueller's case against the firm is legally flawed because it fails to allege that the company acted "willfully" in violating U.S. law. Typically, criminal election law violations require proof that the defendant knew about the legal requirement and intentionally ignored or evaded it.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

In the filing, Concord's attorneys suggested that prosecutors are trying to dodge that rule, noting that DOJ had indicted a foreign firm "with no presence in the United States" for not complying with "certain regulatory requirements that are unknown even to most Americans."

Dubelier and Seikaly asked U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich to require prosecutors to turn over records showing whether grand jurors who returned the indictment were told of the willfulness requirement.

A spokesman for Mueller's office declined to comment on the motion. Defense attorneys said they asked prosecutors for their views on the issues nearly a month ago and got no response.

Concord Management is one of three Russian businesses and 13 Russian individuals indicted in February for an alleged scheme to use social media advertising, so-called internet trolls and other methods to foment strife in advance of the 2016 election. The indictment claims that most of the activities were intended to support Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump or undermine Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The charges claim the scheme amounted to election-related expenditures that were illegal under U.S. law.

Concord is owned by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a wealthy businessman known as Putin's chef who is one of the 13 people DOJ charged in the case. Prigozhin is alleged to have used several of his firms, including the Internet Research Agency and Concord Catering, to advance Russia's effort to meddle in the U.S. election.

The 13 individuals remain at large and are considered unlikely to ever submit themselves to a U.S. court.

Concord Management's decision to appear in the case through American attorneys was unexpected and seems intended to force prosecutors to turn over details on what evidence supports the charges. Some legal experts believe prosecutors will dismiss the firm from the case, rather than provide that information or hold a trial where no human defendant will appear.

The new filing by Dubelier and Seiklay pulls no punches, arguing that the United States has regularly sought to influence elections in other countries.

"Between 1946 and 2000, the United States and its agents interfered in many global elections for the purpose of influencing foreign voters to elect candidates favorable to the United States," the attorneys wrote, also noting the U.S. role in overthrowing elected leaders in Iran and Chile.

Echoing Russian government talking points on the Mueller investigation, Concord's attorneys said the prior U.S. actions give the criminal case "a strong odor of hypocrisy." However, the lawyers did not discuss the possibility that the U.S.'s actions were illegal under other countries' laws and could have been prosecuted there.

Dubelier and Seikaly appeared last week before a federal magistrate judge to enter a formal not-guilty plea for the company. Prosecutors asked Friedrich to put off that hearing, but she declined. The first hearing in front of Friedrich is set for Wednesday.