Here is some new information for those interested in the progress of the framed-up criminal case against Andrei Borodin: today I have received an order by investigator D. Pisarevskyi to grant my petition to attach certain media reports to the case file as evidence. If follows from those media reports that, as it turns out, the RF Interior Ministry, as represented by some of its officials, is perfectly aware of both the whereabouts of my client and such pivotal fact as the location of the 12,760,000,000 rubles, the fund that allegedly precipitated this criminal case. According to the Interior Ministry, once the money – by way of a loan extended by the Bank of Moscow – hit the account of Premier Estate it was transferred to Ye. Baturina’s personal accounts.
As a matter of fact, this is nothing new for those who have paid at least some attention to the developments around the Bank of Moscow. This is something that was mentioned from the outset. However, it has now been confirmed or, putting it more carefully, it has not been officially refuted. I have already had an opportunity to comment on this remarkable fact in the sense that, under the circumstances, the charges against A. Borodin and D. Akulinin completely crumble apart: the money “has been found”, [if] you think there are indications the money was ill-gotten then go ahead and take measures, as provided for by law, against those involved, which a priori does not include the two above-mentioned gentlemen. The so-called victim, VTB bank, must drop its lawsuits against them; the court must lift attachment of assets; investigator D. Pisarevskyi must stop the case. The remaining questions – whether those loans were “right” or “wrong” – are essentially civil law matters that are not subject to examination in the context of criminal court proceedings. Everything is as simple as [saying] bon jour.
Yet the recently renamed as ‘police’ investigators are in no rush. I would be willing to agree but with the following significant reservations.
It is well known that the criminal case was instituted based on indications of the crime contemplated in Part 4, Article 159 of the RF Criminal Code: fraud, i.e. theft of others’ property committed by an organized group or on an especially grand scale (do not confuse this with the knowingly false charges against A. Borodin and D. Akulinin under Part 1, Article 201 of the RF CC – abuse of power).
If the following phrases were to be construed as follows:
- “others’ property” refers to the assets of the Bank of Moscow;
- “organized group” refers to unidentified (to quote from the order to institute the criminal case) individuals who have engineered hostile takeover of the Bank of Moscow or a “giant con that will go down in criminal science books” (to quote from the blog maintained by A. Navalnyi, 07.20.2011) using a scheme that A. Kudrin referred to as a “horrendous… very inappropriate mechanism” (N. Kostrov, “How Bank of Moscow Minority Shareholders Were Conned”. The Moscow Post, 08.02.2011);
- “particularly grand scale” refers to the money due for the Bank of Moscow shares, which the Government of Moscow has yet to receive from VTB (just a reminder, we are talking about 103 billion rubles), and also an entirely mind-boggling amount that VTB is on the cusp of receiving, at the taxpayers’ expense, so it can “rescue” its hostile acquisition,
In that case, I strongly support continued investigation with prejudice. Under such circumstances, A. Borodin should simultaneously appear in that case as the principal witness for the Prosecution and as a victim.
Until this happens I will refer to my feeling of joy in response to the emergence in the case file of fresh evidence of the knowingly false nature of charges against my client A. Borodin as quiet since, left without an answer, remain the above and other important questions that are very obvious for any unbiased observer.