Statement by Andrei Borodin

The accusation levelled today at Alexei Navalny is an extremely telling example of how the Russian authorities are fighting with the opposition in the broad sense of the word. No one doubts that Navalny is being persecuted for his political activity. By his participation in activities of the opposition and organization of protests and by his anti-corruption investigations, Alexei has scared the authorities. Yet, as we see, formally, the charge needed to neutralize Navalny has been brought under an “economic” article, which fact will later make it possible to deny the political nature of repression and talk about an “ordinary criminal act.”

The authorities use this simple trick every time when the need arises to punish political opponents or simply people who disagree with this or that aspect of what is happening in the country. There are no articles in the Russian criminal code that make a person liable for political views and activity. For those purposes, the Russian justice system, which has turned into an appendage of the executive branch of government, uses economic elements of crime. It is important to realize that and remember about that when we face a new high-profile economic case. In this sense, the Navalny case is a good example where utter absurdity of charges clearly displays the mechanism of unlawful use of justice in settling accounts in politics and competition.

Statement by Andrei Borodin

A local catastrophe in Segezha, Republic of Karelia, was barely avoided in February 2012. Back then, during winter colds, the operation of the Segezha Pulp and Paper Plant was temporarily suspended. Apart from the fact that the plant is the enterprise forming a company town and gives employment to more than 2,000 town residents, the Plant owns a boiler house that provides heating to the town of 30,000. The enterprise and the boiler house did not suspend their operation for a long time only thanks to emergency action undertaken by the Republic’s administration jointly with the top management of the VTB Group (the enterprise’s principal creditor).

True, it is necessary to note that the enterprise had been driven to that critical point by the very same subjects. However, I have already discussed that.

Today, six months later, it is necessary to raise the topic of VTB work with enterprises of the InvestLesProm Holding Company again. I believe that it is important to do so at this particular point in time for a situation similar to the one that almost happened in Segezha not to repeat in the next few months. Continue reading

Sale of city stake in Bank of Moscow to VTB through CFC challenged in court

Interfax

The transactions involving the transfer of the Russian capital’s stake in Bank of Moscow (RTS: MMBM) to OJSC Central Fuel Company and its subsequent sale to state bank VTB (RTS: VTBR) are being challenged in court.

VTB became aware of the lawsuit in July, and a preliminary hearing of the case is scheduled for August 20, VTB said in a memorandum for its upcoming offering of perpetual bonds, obtained by Interfax. VTB said it intends to resolutely defend its interests.

The lawsuit challenging the transactions was filed with the Moscow Arbitration Court on May 5 by Sergei Devyatov, and proceedings were initiated on July 3. The substance of the claims is not disclosed in public court documents. The defendants in the case are VTB, the Moscow Property Department and CFC. Continue reading

Statement by Andrei Borodin

The Russian Interior Ministry Investigation Department spokesmen have repeatedly been asserting that I am being charged of causing harm to property of the Bank of Moscow as a result of a transaction of the sale of two shares of Stolichnaya Strakhovaya Gruppa in 2010. The damages have been assessed by the investigators as amounting to 1.7 billion roubles.

On 16 July the Moscow Commercial Court handed down its decision in which it rejected a claim by ZAO Finansovyy Assistent, a Bank of Moscow subsidiary, which had earlier sold those two shares and which sought to reclaim them from alien unlawful possession.

The court found that the claimant had failed to prove that the two shares had been alienated against its will and that the sole executive body had been involved in abuse. In addition, the court did not agree with the claimant’s arguments that the completed transactions were of fictitious nature. Continue reading

Moscow Commercial Court Decision, 16 July 2012

MOSCOW COMMERCIAL COURT

17 Bolshaya Tulskaya St., Moscow 115191

http://www.msk.arbitr.ru

 

D E C I S I O N

In the name of the Russian Federation

 Moscow Case # A40-72710/11

34-637

 16 July 2012

The operative part of the decision was announced on 10 July 2012

Full text of the decision was produced on 16 July 2012

 

Commercial Court made up of Judge A. A. Kochetkov,

With the minutes of the court session taken by assistant G. A. Sukhareva,

Having considered in an open session a claim by ZAO Finansovyy Assistent

Against AKB Bank of Moscow (Open Joint-Stock Company), Marvil Management, Ltd.

Third parties: Billiton, Ltd., OOO Registrator KRTs

For reclamation from alien unlawful possession of nominal equities and their entry on a personal account of the claimant

With participation of representatives:

From the claimant – M. V. Sizov, power of attorney of 9 December, 2011

From the 1-st defendant – failure to appear

From the 2nd defendant – Y. I. Reznik, power of attorney of 12 December 2011

From the 1st 3rd party – Y. I. Reznik, power of attorney of 26 January 2012

From the 2nd 3rd party – failure to appear

HAS ESTABLISHED:

The claim is made to reclaim from alien unlawful possession by Marvil Management, Ltd., of nominal equities of OAO Stolichnaya Strakhovata Kompaniya in the amount of two units, share issue government registration number 1-01-55281-E and obligate AKB Bank of Moscow (Open Joint-Stock Company) to charge off account #003003П01, belonging to Marvil Management, Ltd., two equities of OAO Stolichnaya Strakhovaya Gruppa, issue registration number 003003П01, and enter them on account #000993П01, belonging to ZAO Finansovyy Assistent.

The claimant has supported the claim. Continue reading

Russia’s Bank of Moscow denies offshore firm repaid $3 bln debt

Prime News

Russia’s Bank of Moscow has denied receiving U.S. $3 billion in debt payment from Oneworld, the managing company of the bank’s former top management, a bank representative told PRIME Wednesday.

“The Bank of Moscow has not received any duly formalized assets from this company or from any individuals affiliated with it. Non-resident companies’ liabilities with the Bank of Moscow -extended earlier as credits – have yet to be repaid,” the representative said. Continue reading

The Moscow Times Police Search Office of Realtor Inkom

The Moscow Times

Police on Thursday searched the central office of real estate firm Inkom in connection with an investigation into the theft of 550 million rubles ($17 million) at formerly city-owned Bank of Moscow.

Uniformed officers armed with submachine guns arrived at the Moscow office Thursday morning in search of documents linked to ”an employee of the company,” Konstantin Popov, formerly head of Bank of Moscow’s audit committee, Inkom Real Estate spokesman Anton Gololobov told Interfax. Continue reading