Statement by Andrei Borodin

The Moscow Commercial Court has appointed for 4 September the main hearing on a claim seeking to invalidate the transaction in which the Moscow-government-owned stake in the Bank of Moscow was made part of the authorized stock of the Central Fuel Company (CFC) with its subsequent sale to the VneshTorgBank (VTB). The claimant, a Mr Devyatkin, demands that the transaction and all its legal consequences be cancelled.

It was clear from the start that the legal arrangement was a sham transaction, only called to conceal the real essence of the deal. The sale of the stake in the Bank of Moscow owned by the Government of Moscow can only happen under privatization legislation, with all the restrictions that it imposes. The sale must happen on an open auction, and a company partially owned by the state cannot be a buyer. If you abide by law, you cannot sell the city-owned stake in the Bank of Moscow to the arbitrarily chosen VTB for an arbitrarily chosen price. Continue reading

Andrei Borodin’s original answers to Vedomosti questions

Q 1. Why do you think you have been listed among the most dangerous criminals?

A.: As I have been saying in my previous interviews, in reality, government financial assistance was provided to the VTB Group, which had taken over the Bank of Moscow, not to the Bank of Moscow itself. The Bank of Moscow was in a good financial condition and did not need financial rehabilitation. Serious buyers, independent from the state, had been interested in buying a stake in the bank. But the special operation of its takeover implied a distortion of the real state of affairs, for the VTB raiders to be able to pocket not only the fifth-largest bank, but also 295 billion of government assistance free of charge. Do you think VTB wants to recognize that publicly? And if it does not, then it needs a covering operation: the bank was allegedly embezzled and the principal villains were my colleagues and partners and I.

VTB representatives act proceeding from the assumption that somebody has to be held accountable for the government money taken; if they recognize everything and accept the assets at their just value, then they will have police interrogations in store for them. And self comes first. Continue reading

Statement by Andrei Borodin

To: A. I. Bastrykin

Chairman, Investigations Committee of the Russian Federation

From: Andrei F. Borodin


On 26 April 2012 the Harju County Court of the City of Tallinn sentenced Indrek Põder, a high-level officer of the Estonian Security Police Department, was sentenced to a prison term for bribery. Six other individuals were also convicted under that criminal case for giving bribes and bribery intermediary services, including Oleg Smoli, an Estonian citizen.

This socially significant criminal case has received much publicity. The Estonian media, newspapers and internet media, have published reports that the current top management of the Bank of Moscow was a customer of the Estonian corrupt official from the security police. Pursuant to norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, said information is sufficient grounds for conducting relevant checks and opening a criminal case. Continue reading

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

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

Statement by Andrei Borodin

I have repeatedly pointed out that the organisers of Bank of Moscow’s take-over and of my political persecution are regularly making attempts to manipulate the Law Enforcement systems of the law-bound states. Sometimes it is effected through the provision of misleading information, but sometimes through committing explicit crimes.

Not long ago Estonian media published the information regarding a high-profile corruption scandal. A senior member of Estonian secret police Indrek Poder provided illegal services including procuring exemption from criminal liability, the issuance of Estonian passports, giving out confidential information etc. for a fee and by misusing his position and his access to information. Continue reading

Statement by Andrei Borodin

To: Yuri Yakovlevich Chaika

General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation



In February of 2011, the VTB Bank Group unlawfully acquired a stake in the Bank of Moscow (an open joint-stock company) that earlier belonged to the Government of Moscow. The stake was acquired without holding an auction, which is required in accordance with norms of Russian privatisation legislation, and in violation of other legal stipulations. In particular, the VTB Bank Group in principle had no right to purchase this stake, because it was 75-per-cent government-owned and therefore could not take part in privatisation of government property. Due to that, in my opinion, all subsequent actions of the VTB Bank Group with respect to the Bank of Moscow and its shareholders are illegitimate and the managing bodies of the Bank of Moscow have been formed unlawfully. I believe that those facts alone need to be investigated by the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation. However, I would like to bring to your attention the following example of the actions of the VTB Bank Group, which have resulted in significant damage to the economy of Russia. Continue reading