Blog of Vladimir Krasnov, Andrey Borodin’s Attorney, on the website of “Echo Moskvy”
I am positive that those following the Bank of Moscow situation will remember how the tension was being whipped up, how alleged “criminal conduct by the former bank management” was repeatedly “exposed”. The tidal wave of this special operation knocked RUR 295 billion out of the federal budget, brought about the demise of the deputy Chairman of the Central Bank responsible for supervision, deprived the Government of Moscow of its own bank and of the proceeds from its sale. Also, the planned result has been achieved, which doubled as the method of achieving the goal set – criminal prosecution of A. Borodin and his associates is getting into high gear. If anyone still had doubts it has been demonstrated to them yet again that, in modern Russia, business depends, first and foremost, not on the market situation or one’s ability, but on the preferences of the authorities.
However, a bank is an entity that lives by its own, fairly strict and transparent rules. Everything that happens inside a bank eventually ends up in its financials.
This is exactly what has happened to the Bank of Moscow. The perfectly orchestrated hysteria has given way to the time to disclose information about the real state of things. It is not unlike the result of forensic medical examination: someone is either alive or dead. Continue reading
On October 12, 2011, the media reported that the Tverskoi court of the city of Moscow, via a ruling dated October 11 of this year, refused to accept a statement of claim, which I had filed on October 4, in defense of the honor, dignity, and business reputation of Andrey Borodin. It was reported, citing the court’s press secretary, that “in his application, Mr. Borodin has lodged a complaint against actions taken by the investigators, something for which a different procedure is provided for by the law. The Court has explained that the applicant may lodge a complaint against the investigators’ actions following the procedure set forth in Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”.
The reason and basis for filing a claim with the court was a public information notice posted at the official website of the Interior Ministry of Russia on September 29 of this year and alleging that new charges were brought against A. Borodin on that day. The statement of claim provided proof that no such fact had taken place on September 29 and, therefore, such information was not true. Thus, rather than appealing any actions taken by an investigator or the contents of a service document, the claim argued as to the unreliability of information about the very fact that such an investigative action had taken place, not the same thing, by any stretch. The claim filed is fully compliant with the requirements of the law. The Defense has proof that there were no plans to bring new charges on September 29. It transpired after the claim was filed that this particular investigative action was scheduled for a later date. Incidentally, I had not been informed of that in due time. Continue reading