Replacement of the Bank of Moscow management has been accompanied by a giant controversy. The new owners have announced that astronomical amounts are missing, which the former management had handed out by way of loans. A search for money missing from the Bank of Moscow has taken us to the city of Krasnokamsk.
According to the latest research data, birch trees that we are so intimately familiar with can provide more than sap, brooms, or firewood to heat up your steam-room. Recently, it transpired that birch can be used to manufacture top-notch paper, a high-tech prototype of sorts of ancient Russian writings on birch bark. Continue reading
The Court agreed that the Committee at the Ministry of the Interior violated the right of the former head of Bank of Moscow for protection.
The Tverskoi District Court of the City of Moscow ruled that the decision of the Investigative Department of the Interior Ministry, by which on 1July it denied Vladimir Krasnov, the second defender of the former President of Bank of Moscow Andrey Borodin, access to Mr. Borodin’s case, was unlawful.
RCB daily has come into possession of [internal] correspondence among Bank of Russia employees in late 2010-early 2011. In it, the Central Bank employees shared concerns over the fact that VTB was funding the company VTB Debt Center via yet another company within the Group – Russian Commercial Bank (RCB) – without previously setting aside a relevant reserve.
The Bank of Russia internal communications estimated the amount of offers presented by VTB in favor of RCB. The conclusions were based on the records of sessions of the bank’s Credit Committee and Management Board as of December 8, 2010 (see Table on page 7). According to the data, the total amount of offers made in favor of RCB stood at USD 5.166 billion.
Original article in Russian is available here.
Translated article is available here.
The controversy involving change of ownership at the Bank of Moscow has dragged out for several months now. The new shareholders have accused the former management of issuing loans to empty shells. Our correspondent has followed the trail of a Bank of Moscow loan.
In July of this year, the workforce of the Segezh Pulp-and-Paper Mill, one of Russia’s largest, has marked the 72th anniversary of the mill. The Segezh Pulp-and-Paper Mill was built on the shores of the lake Vygozero, at the heart of the Republic of Karelia, in 1939. Over time, a town with the beautiful name Segezha sprang up around the mill. In those days, the mill used Europe’s most powerful machines to make kraft paper.
Today, I, Mikhail Dolomanov, filed a claim at the Prosecutor General’s Office asking the Prosecutor General Mr. Chaika to personally monitor the implementation of investigation related to missing funds in the City of Moscow budget gained from the sale of shares of Bank of Moscow and Stolichnaya Insurance Group previously owned by the City of Moscow.
The question about the fact that 103 billion roubles, paid for the above mentioned shares, were not transferred to the City of Moscow accounts was raised publicly my client, Mr. Borodin, in April. At the time, at the request of Mr. Borodin I submitted a claim to this effect to the Prosecutor General.
It is important to note that immediately after the first public statement of Mr. Borodin about the missing funds (paid for the shares) in the Moscow city budget, a decision about his arrest in absentia was made very quickly, even though prior to this, the criminal case was being investigated for several months and the investigators were not thinking about Borodin’s arrest.
After, thank to Mr. Borodin’s efforts, the glaring fact of the missing funds in the City’s budget became public and became known to the Prosecutor General’s office, it seemed that the Moscow’s budget would immediately receive the money. But everything turned out differently. Speaking to the media, representatives of the Moscow Mayor’s Office acknowledged that the multi-billion dollar amount paid for the shares of Bank of Moscow is still not in the City’s budget.
It is with great interest that I have been following comments to my blog entries. There have only been a moderate number of comments (sixty or so) but they certainly have been thought-provoking.
First, surprisingly, a significant proportion of them (over 30%) are objectively positive. Thank you for that.
Second, they suggest that it is necessary to explain the rationale behind what some do not necessarily think of as a “lawyerly” method to defend Borodin. Here is my explanation:
- The lopsided coverage of the “A. Borodin case” in the public domain runs counter to the interests of the forced defense of my client’s interests;
- The said method of defense does not violate the law and, hence, is permissible;
- Until the investigative team allows me to participate in the criminal case I am unable to respond, procedurally, to official and otherwise (“vox populi”) accusations against my client.
As I already mentioned, on July 21, it appears that the tenor is changing of the discussion of the situation involving the Bank of Moscow, including with regard to the character of my client, A. Borodin. Complete and total objectivity, especially in covering such a high-profile case, is unachievable by definition. That, of course, also applies to my position that, in addition to my personal convictions, is determined by my client’s position. In fact, he knows the actual state of things better than anyone.
On July 19, I talked about having to examine the “case file” based on media coverage as a way of defending the interests of my client, A. Borodin. I expressed a timid hope that, following completion of the Bank of Moscow audit by the Central Bank, a serious discussion would start, at last, of the situation inside and around the Bank of Moscow; about the reasons for, lessons of and consequences of this ostensibly corporate conflict.
Given that, as before, I do not have an opportunity to perform my professional duties fully, I continue to read the papers.
It seems that there is, indeed, some progress.
I see evidence of this in the Vedomosti editorial from July 20. I fully subscribe to the Editor’s position that the time has come to switch from emotional statements and groundless allegations to a specific, law-based, economically-minded conversation. This article, titled “A Black Hole”, sets up a proper context for that.
It has been aptly noted that the Bank of Moscow situation has been artificially positioned as having no alternative solutions, other than large-scale government subsidies to the VTB bank.
Of course, there are multiple solutions. Continue reading
Story: The investigative team has denied Vladimir Krasnov, the lawyer asked by Andrei Borodin to represent him, access to participation in the criminal case on charges brought against Andrei Borodin.
Examination, by the Tverskoi Court, on July 18 of a complaint against this decision resulted in a judgment on this urgent matter being postponed until a later date.
Therefore, the violation of Borodin’s right to defense continues. He sees the situation as evidence of the biased nature of the criminal prosecution against him.
In the meantime, the criminal case and communications support for it are going into overdrive.
What can a lawyer be busy doing who has accepted a client’s assignment to represent him but who has been prevented by an investigator, under an artificial excuse, from participating in the criminal case?
Arrest in the home country was upheld as legal, while lawyers are not allowed near the case…
Novaya Gazeta reports that ‘Andrey Borodin’s case’ is starting to develop in full motion: his arrest was upheld while his lawyers are not allowed to defend him in this case and no explanation has been provided.
Vladimir Krasnov, one of the lawyers who were not allowed to defend Andrey Borodin, gave interview to Novaya Gazeta about the development of the criminal case against Andrey Borodin. The lawyer stated that the fact that he was not allowed to defend Andrey Borodin is a severe violation of his client’s right to protection.
The lawyer intends to appeal to Tverskoy Court against the action of the investigator
The Investigative Committee of the Ministry of Interior Affairs has refused to allow lawyer Vladimir Krasnov to act as a second legal representative in the case of the former Bank of Moscow President Andrey Borodin. As Krasnov told BFM.ru, investigator Dmitry Pisarevsky bases his refusal on fact that there is no agreement of Borodin in the case.
In the lawyer’s opinion, it is sufficient to present a warrant and a copy of his service certificate in order to start working on this case. Krasnov and Borodin consider the actions of investigators to be a severe infringement of his rights to protection. ‘This fact confirms the fears of my client that in Russia he does not have any grounds to count on a fair investigation of his case’ – the lawyer notes.
On the 8th of July Krasnov intends to appeal against the actions of the investigator in Tverskoy Court of Moscow.