The judges of one of the country’s top book prizes have complained that a study of corruption in Russia under president Vladimir Putin has not been published in the UK because of fears of legal action.

As the shortlist for the annual Pushkin House prize for the best book about Russia was announced last week, judges lamented that the new work, Putin’s Kleptocracy, by US academic Karen Dawisha, was not eligible for the prize because it is not for sale here.

The author said this is “a win for Team Putin”, and argues that concerns about libel have made Britain a safe space for rich Russians. Academic publishers who have previously brought out several of Dawisha’s works explained their fears in a letter to her last year: “The decision has nothing to do with the quality of your research or your scholarly credibility. It is simply a question of risk tolerance in light of our limited resources,” wrote John Haslam, an executive publisher at Cambridge University Press (CUP).

Six other books were chosen for the Pushkin House shortlist a week ago, but unusually the judges, chaired by Lord Browne of Madingley, have made public their frustration that Dawisha’s book, published by Simon & Schuster in the US, is not available for legal reasons.

“The Pushkin House Russian book prize seeks to showcase, promote and encourage publication of serious and accessible books about the Russian-speaking world,” Andrew Jack, the co-chairman of the prize, told the Observer. “We attempted to get hold of the Dawisha book but the publisher would not submit it to us because of legal advice about UK libel laws. Our judges noted the book and said it raised important issues that deserved a wider audience, but unfortunately could not all get hold of a copy to pass judgment. Happily, they were able to select a very strong shortlist of six other excellent and varied books, all of which contribute to deeper understanding of Russia and have resonance with the situation today.”

One of the objections to the book put forward by lawyers for CUP was that it could be legally dangerous to publish a work that claimed Putin, a former KGB agent who worked in Dresden, had been involved in espionage.

“As you know,” the CUP told Dawisha last year as it rejected her manuscript. “claimants, Russians among them, tend to look to English courts to bring defamation claims, as they are very friendly to claimants. Even with the recent modernisation of the libel laws in England, the fact that the book would be published by an English company would arguably give a claimant the necessary nexus to England required to give the courts jurisdiction.”

Dawisha is a distinguished Russia expert based at an institute attached to Miami University and her recent research has concentrated on links between ex-KGB agents, business and organised crime in St Petersburg in the early 1990s.

Economist writer Edward Lucas, who read the manuscript last year, has described it as “admirable: lucid, incisive and devastating”.

Dawisha has written of her surprise at CUP’s decision not to publish, because although she “always knew it would be an explosive book”, her prospectus for the work had been well-received by other academics.

“I felt that their very rejection sounded an alarm bell about one of the Kremlin’s real powers – the power to cow western institutions into submission. The Kremlin and its supporters use the courts to scare off researchers who want to expose the corruption at the core of this regime.

“I know of several manuscripts that have been suppressed in this way. My own book is not available anywhere outside the United States, and my own wonderful publisher, Simon & Schuster, has taken the view that they should not allow it to be published in any foreign language. So this is a kind of win for Team Putin,” she wrote.

Her book covered allegations that Siemens, the German engineering giant, was involved in bribery in its dealings with Russia. CUP’s lawyers felt this caused problems despite the fact Siemens has paid a record fine of $1.6bn to American and European authorities to settle such charges. They were also worried that Dawisha chronicles the involvement of the late Anatoly Sobchak, mayor of St Petersburg, in widespread municipal corruption.

A statement issued by CUP said it had made efforts to find a compromise with Dawisha. It reads: “Even though we initially took the view that there would be considerable risks under English law to the Press were we to proceed with publication, you should be aware that earlier today, prior to hearing from you, we contacted Professor Dawisha after reading her response, to see whether we might be able to find a compromise.”