I posted on the problems that Bill Browder was having getting back in to the country with my tongue stuck firmly in my cheek. Looks like its worse than that as reported here by the Economist and here by the Observer.
Whilst he is hardly the wealth-maker for Russia that he is portrayed to be; all his money is made for clients and, rightly so, himself. He has been banned as a potential threat to national security; frankly bizarre. He is a little abrasive and, as with many money-managers, a little egotistical. A threat to national security - no.
The Economist assumes that Bill's anti-corruption campaigning is the reason that he has been banned. That is, his desire to increase share prices of his favorite holdings through forcing non-market contracts to be turned in to market ones. I struggle to believe that the 5th Directorate Thugs are that stupid; history/evidence would suggest that I am wrong.
Sometime ago in struggling to understand the logic behind another bizarre decision I was helped by Vladimir Vladimirovich. He suggested that if Russia had to do something bizarre every now and then to keep us all on out toes.
As an associated thought its actions like this that give Illarionov's rants re cleptocracy some credibility, contrary to Konstantin's thoughts.
The Exile would not be my first choice for an objective economic analysis. The commenter is a little brutal but his point is well made. Avoid economic analysis when its clear that even Illarionov's grasp of economics is greater than yours. The first quoted paragraph shows such a weak grasp of commodity-driven economies that pre-University students would be failed an economics paper for it.