The defense of A. Borodin has recently received an expert opinion commissioned by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia within the framework of the criminal case on the Premier Estate loan, in which our client is a defendant. The document once again confirms that the credit agreement signed in 2009 complied with all the requirements for the collateral set by the Bank of Moscow, and in return for cash the bank received adequate security in the form of land of equivalent value.
In particular, in the expert assessment (commissioned by the Ministry of Internal Affairs) the mortgaged land is valued at more than 11 billion rubles, whereas the amount of credit is 12.76 billion rubles. At the same time, the investigators were provisioned with alternative expert opinions which were commissioned by the Bank of Moscow before granting the loan (including the assessment of one of the world largest property audit companies – Colliers). All these documents value the land much higher – more than 14 billion rubles.
Of course, a discrepancy in assessment is possible because there are no clearly defined criteria and/or same tools. One thing is clear – the spread of estimated collateral value is minor and corresponds to the size of the loan issued.
Moreover, the development of the project scheduled to be conducted at the mortgaged land (obtaining permits, project documentation, etc.), which was included in the plan and carried out by JSC Premier Estate for eighteen months after the issuance of the loan, only increased the cost of the land. Obviously, an opening of a criminal case, the prosecution of the executives in the bank, KMD and Premier Estate, the termination of funding, etc. made it impossible for the normal continuation of the project which however did not lead to a decrease in the value of land, as is evident from the latest assessment.
Radio Echo Moskvy
By Vladimir Krasnov, lawyer
I was looking through the 18 December 2012 edition of the Kommersant daily and suddenly saw something very familiar: a person is hiding in London because of his criminal prosecution in Russia for fraud; Russia demands his extradition, and a court in London, having discovered an appalling level of corruption among those who are supposed to counter it, refused the extradition. What follows was reported by the InterRight information agency on 10 December 2012 (written by A. Sedunov): “The British judge was horrified by video and audio recordings that confirm beyond doubt that high-level officials at the Russian General Prosecutor’s Office in collusion with high-level officials of the Russian Interior Ministry Investigation Department are demanding a bribe of $1 million to drop all criminal charges against the subject. The amount of the bribe was to be divided as follows: $500,000 to Pavel Lapshov, deputy chief of the Investigation Department; $100,000 each to the supervising prosecutors and $100,000 to General Ignashin.”
The situation and the names are from the case of my client Andrey Borodin. He was prosecuted in the same pattern: a false accusation (a loan from the Bank of Moscow to the Premier Estate Company), a fraud charge in his absence, a request sent to London… Continue reading
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. Continue reading
To: S. V. Kudeneyev
Prosecutor of the city of Moscow
From: M. S. Dolomanov
Attorney, Dolomanov & Partners
Registry Number 77/922
When I was received at the Russian General Prosecutor’s Office on 12 March 2012, I handed over to the host party a statement dated 11 March 2012 by Andrei F. Borodin addressed to the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation to be considered on its merits. The statement contained facts pointing to misapplication of budget funds and numerous legal violations during the so-called “financial restructuring” of the Bank of Moscow.
On 16 March 2012 Mr Borodin’s statement was groundlessly forwarded by the Russian General Prosecutor’s Office to the Investigations Department of the Russian Interior Ministry to check the arguments in the course of the investigation of Criminal Case No. 89816. I have lodged a complaint against that action. Because my complaint was granted, Mr Borodin’s statement was forwarded to the Russian Interior Ministry Main Administration for Moscow Economic Security and Corruption Control Directorate to organize a check under Articles 144-145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Continue reading
Moscow, London, 17 March 2012 – Today’s announcement by the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation that it has requested that Andrey Borodin, the founder of the Bank of Moscow, be extradited from the United Kingdom has been expected by Mr Borodin for some time.
Mr Borodin’s legal team had previously been in touch with the British authorities informing them that they expected an extradition application and confirming that their client proposed to cooperate fully with them. There has never been any question of Mr Borodin concealing his whereabouts.
Mr Borodin denies the allegations of criminal conduct on his part and maintains that the prosecution is without foundation and is politically motivated.
Mr Borodin will robustly defend the extradition proceedings and is confident of a successful outcome.
Author: Vladimir Krasnov, lawyer
“Honest” has been the word of the day lately. The call “For honest elections” has resulted in major shifts in the political coordinate system. This slogan is uniting all those whose sense of dignity dominates, all those who have not lost their civic consciousness.
Among the principal civil and human rights, the right to justice in general and judicial justice in particular is among other rights whose recognition, honouring and protection are proclaimed to be an obligation of the state (Article 2 of the Constitution). It is precisely these inalienable and direct-action rights that determine the sense, content and application of laws and are supported by judicial justice (Article 18); it is from there that general equality before law and court, proclaimed in the Constitution, stems (Article 19).
It would seem that everything is fine: the citizen has his rights and all the state, represented by its plenipotentiaries, does is thinking about honouring them. I am sure that participants in any of the latest rallies, both the Bolotnaya one and the Poklonnaya one, have good grounds to believe that this, regrettably, is far from being that way.
Journalists justifiably believe that their best “article” is Article 29 of the Constitution: “The freedom of mass communication shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be banned.” Continue reading
The Investigations Department of the Interior Ministry has made yet another strong statement with accusations against Andrei Borodin, founder and former head of the Bank of Moscow. Following time-tested tactics, instead of legal procedural actions of official indictment, the Ministry of Internal Affairs continues to spread publicly unsubstantiated information smearing Borodin’s reputation. Continue reading
Having refused the appeal of Andrei Borodin’s defence team against the decision of Moscow’s Meshchanskiy District Court on 1 February 2012, the Moscow City Court made conclusions that are clearly at odds with law.
“The decision of the Moscow City Court clearly shows that Russian courts refuse to provide judicial protection to my client even in cases when it is by all means provided to all who bring similar claims. There are no doubts that the decision made by the Moscow City Court is politically motivated and is at odds with uniform practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in totally identical cases and the legal stance of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In its Decree No. 3-P of 25 March 2005, the Constitutional Court pointed out that severance of a labour contract under Paragraph 2 of Article 278 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation, as it happened in the case of Mr Borodin and the Bank of Moscow, is inadmissible without the payment of compensation. Nonetheless, the Moscow City Court, in its aspiration to do away with Mr Borodin’s legal guarantees, made a conclusion that is directly opposed to the legal stance of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,” Mikhail Dolomanov, a lawyer of Andrei Borodin, noted.
The appeal was against the unlawful decision of the Meshchanskiy District Court in Moscow, which refused Andrei F. Borodin’s suit against the Bank of Moscow seeking compensation for an early severance of his labour contract. Andrei Borodin was intending to give the entire amount of the compensation to charity.
Radio Echo Moskvy, 24 January 2012
Attorney Vladimir Krasnov
On 24 January, the Vedomosti daily published an article that in fact says that the former president of the Bank of Moscow Andrei Borodin is under investigation not only in connection with a criminal case concerning a credit issued to the Premier Estate Closed Joint-Stock Company but also a number of other cases.
The official and the only version known to the defence team is Criminal Case #89816, opened in December of 2010, under which a new order was issued on 29 September 2011 to prosecute Mr Borodin on a fraud charge (Part 4 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The defence team was notified about the order in a form that fails to comply with legislation. Continue reading
Today, the Investigative Department of the Russian Interior Ministry has issued a statement claiming that conduct by former President of OJSC Bank of Moscow Andrey Borodin and his first deputy Dmitry Akulinin contains elements of corpus delicti contemplated in part 2, article 201 of the RF Criminal Code, “Abuse of Authority”, allegedly pertaining to transactions with CJSC Investlesprom stock.
In this regard, A. Borodin’s defense attorneys find it necessary to point out certain circumstances. Continue reading