Magnitsky libel case 'may be backed by the Kremlin Mr White told the court that if the case went to trial, the costs would be "£3m to £4m on our side alone." Under UK libel law, Mr Karpov can seek up to a maximum of £240,000 in damages. Even if he wins, lawyers said, his damages would be unlikely to cover his costs. The defence said: "The court can not be satisfied that the Russian state is not behind the claims in some way - perhaps by agreeing to indemnify the friend... The litigation appears to pursue an avowed political objective of the Russian state. This suggests that the claim is abusive and should be struck out. The case has become a political minefield since Mr Magnitsky uncovered a $230m fraud against the Russian taxpayer five years ago. After going public with his findings and naming officials, he found himself targeted - resulting in his arrest on charges of fraud. He was held in jail for a year, refused medical attention after developing pancreatitis, was beaten and left to die. Mr Browder's campaign culminated in the "Magnitsky list," under which 18 Russians linked to the death have been barred from the US and had their assets frozen. Mr Karpov was one of the 18. In retaliation, the Kremlin banned US officials from travelling to Russia, prohibited Americans from adopting Russian orphans, and launched legal proceedings to discredit Mr Magnitsky and Mr Browder. In an extraordinary court ruling earlier this month, Mr Magnitsky was found guilty post-humously of tax evasion and Mr Browder was sentenced to nine years in jail in absentia. Mr Karpov's case will also renew questions about "libel tourism" in the UK after a similar claim was thrown out of court in Russia. "We consider it an abuse of process to try again here," Mr White told the court. Mr Karpov's lawyers, Olswang and Andrew Caldecott QC, said the evidence was "more consistent with this claim being pursued in a genuine search for individual vindication than as a vehicle for promoting Russian state interests." Mr Karpov explained that his considerable personal wealth was greater than that of an ordinary police officer not because of any fraudulent gains, as Hermitage has alleged, but thanks to occasional stints as an interior designer with his mother, who also supported him. In addition, another unnamed "very wealthy entrepreneur" friend has "from time to time given me very generous gifts and financial support," Mr Karpov said in his witness statement. He added that the libel action "has put my family's assets at risk" and that he had "now spent much of my family's savings on funding my lawyers in London." He wants Mr Browder to retract his allegations.