Because the media have published information that on 6 November the investigation team has issued a new resolution on bringing up charges against Mr Borodin, we state that the resolution in question again refers to the loan issued by the Bank of Moscow to the Premier Estate Company.
It must be stressed that according to said resolution the investigators do not see any violations on the part of Mr Borodin connected with improper use of government budget funds. We will undertake legal actions to make liable the individuals who actively disseminate wittingly false information that the investigators allegedly see such violations. Downright no. Mr Borodin has nothing to do with any abuses involving government budget funds. By contrast, the fact that he raised last year the question on the illegality of “moneyless” privatisation of the Bank of Moscow has already brought billions into the budget and has served as a serious warning to those who commit fraud with government budget money.
Mr Borodin’s defense team has collected all necessary proofs that the loan to the Premier Estate Company was issued pursuant to a decision of the Bank of Moscow credit committee that met all the requirements of legislation and was secured by pledged expensive property. The investigators have at their disposal numerous expert assessments confirming that the price of the collateral exceeded the amount of the loan. The investigation team is also well aware of the court decisions that have entered into legal force recognising the legality of the deal. In addition, Mr Borodin made no single-handed decisions on issuing said loan. Having all those proofs, the investigation, nonetheless, again charges Mr Borodin of having issued said credit.
Naturally, the charges will be appealed against by Mr Borodin defense. The appeal affects the interests of not only Andrei Borodin but also, as we believe, is publicly significant. In accordance with the investigation’s strange logic, practically any loan issued by a commercial bank should be viewed as a criminal act. Such a stance can hardly add optimism to leaders of credit organisations and improve our already cool investment climate.
What is the reason for the stance taken by the investigation? The reasons are various and all of them have nothing to do with law. They include both the political motivation of Borodin’s case and the desire by a number of individuals to evade personal liability for clearly unlawful measures of criminal-law enforcement applied to Borodin. Just consider: in 2011, when Borodin was removed by the investigation from the post of President of one of the largest banks in the country and Mr Borodin’s personal property was arrested, the loan issued to the Premier Estate Company was the only fault found by the investigation in Andrei Borodin.
By virtue of said circumstances, we must be prepared for the emergence of new charges against Mr Borodin that lack legal grounds.