Blog of Vladimir Krasnov, Andrey Borodin’s Attorney, on the website of “Echo Moskvy”
So, today Andrey Borodin made a very important statement (Borodin’s blog 31 August).
As the lawyers say, the cause and reason for this is a new campaign, initiated in the media close to authorities, dedicated to the “new charges.” On 29 August, as if by command (although, why as if?), TV channels “Russia” and NTV, Itar-Tass, RIA-Novosti, and others, who followed them, happily reported that the Investigatory Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs had “new questions” for Andrey Borodin and his associates. The logical conclusion to this bacchanalia was put by ‘Rossiyskaya Gazeta’ on 30 August.
Given how much there has been already said and how many more of such “stories” will be mentioned, it is not interesting to repeat these “new” allegations.
Something else is interesting.
Andrey Borodin is right to pay attention to the fact that yet another hysteria in the press is a reaction to his difficult questions about the fate of 103 billion rubles as well as the validity and extent (1% of GDP) of public participation in the “rescue” of the bank, acquired by VTB through a hostile takeover. Also, his rhetorical questions about who may benefit from this are rather uncomfortable. …
Vladimir Krasnov, Andrey Borodin’s lawyer’s blog on the Echo of Moscow website
Yesterday, the informational space was shaken up by the “news” about the latest accusations against my client, Andrey Borodin. This time, “a source in the law enforcement bodies of the capital” anonymously shared their “concern” over the “illegal sale of shares in the Estonian Credit Bank.” This can be hardly called a sensation as few months ago same “tip-off” has already been given. Borodin himself commented on the situation. It seemed that the news outlived itself. But no.
… So. The investigation still has not established anything but Borodin has already been presented, not in a legal sense, but publicly, with yet another set of charges. The investigators, as representatives of public authority, allow themselves, through violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, to intervene in private cases… Who are these “experts”, who can legally, before an announcement of charges, evaluate the legality of certain actions and even talk about the damage caused by them? And what was the “fact” that was confirmed by the Interior Ministry of the Russian Federation?
… It seemed that the time for irresponsible statements has passed. It is obvious that all this hype was needed to assist with the capture and then the “rescue” of Bank of Moscow. As a result, the public was persuaded of the “necessity and inevitability” of the unprecedented injection of budget funds into state-owned VTB’s acquisition.
The original material published in Russian on Vladimir Krasnov’s blog on Echo of Moscow site.
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. Continue reading
According to officially published information, as recently as last February, the city of Moscow was still a shareholder in the Bank of Moscow and controlled, accounting for its stake in OJSC Capital City Insurance Group, 62.06% of the Bank of Moscow stock.
Last February, the above-mentioned shares in the Bank of Moscow and Capital City Insurance Group were privatized. The amount of proceeds received by the budget of the city of Moscow due to the privatization of these high value assets remains unknown. However, the following is well-known.
If, as the law prescribed, those shares had been privatized in a public tender then the proceeds from the sale of shares in the Bank of Moscow and the Capital City Insurance Group would have had to be credited, immediately and in full, to the budget of the city of Moscow.
However, someone found it necessary to replace a public tender with a dubious scheme to privatize the city of Moscow-held stock; a scheme that continues to meet with great skepticism on the part of lawyers, economists, financiers, and even government officials. Continue reading