The office of the Moscow Prosecutor has granted a complaint by Andrei Borodin’s attorney Mikhail Dolomanov. The complaint appealed a decision by the Main Department of Russia’s Interior Ministry for the city of Moscow to refuse to commence criminal proceedings to investigate the failure by the budget to receive proceeds from the sale of OJSC Bank of Moscow and OJSC Capital City Insurance Group shares once owned by the Government of Moscow. Continue reading
Attn: Lieutenant-General (Police) V.V. Kozhokar,
Head, Investigative Department, RF Interior Ministry
Law firm «Dolomanov and Partners»,
14/17 Pokrovsky Blvd., Bldg. 1, Suite 9, Moscow, 101000
Law firm «Gauf and Partners»
7 B. Strochenovsky Lane, Moscow, 115054
Law firm «Gridnev and Partners»
1 Golutvinsky Lane, Domus Business center, Suite 9, Moscow, 119180
(as per Art. 124 of the RF CCP)
A. Borodin’s Defense has submitted a complaint to the Head of the Investigative Department of Russia’s Interior Ministry, arguing that a September 29, 2011 investigator order to bring new charges against A. Borodin is illegal.
Immediately after a November 21, 2011 interview, where A. Borodin provided additional, and substantial, grounds for his original position that the Bank of Moscow takeover and his criminal prosecution were both politically motivated, the RF Prosecutor-General informed that it had issued to Interpol an order for Mr. Borodin’s search. Notably, the Interpol’s Charter expressly bans searching for individuals persecuted for political considerations. Therefore, in response to denunciations by A. Borodin, which, essentially, constituted information about a crime and called for an inspection, by investigative authorities controlled by the very same Prosecutor’s office, the oversight agency clearly demonstrated that the Government’s response to A. Borodin’s attempts to call attention to large-scale violations of the law in this case was going to be quite traditional: Continue reading
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
30 September 2011
The circumstances and the timing of the new charges being made against Andrey Borodin demonstrate politically motivated persecution.
Today, the media circulated the announcement made by The Investigative Department of The Ministry of Internal Affairs concerning new charges against the former head of the Bank of Moscow. However, neither Andrey Borodin, nor his defence team have been notified of the new charges. This is a grave violation of legal protocol. It should also be noted that the “new charges” appeared at exactly the same moment as that when the earlier charges, relating to abuse of power, fell apart under the weight of many contradictions.
The new charges are also unlawful and groundless. A situation such as this where legal cases are built, not in relation to crimes, but as a direct attack on specific individuals, is a firm indication of political rather than legal motivation. While the attempts of the law enforcement authorities to inform the public about fictitious investigative actions is nothing else than a disinformation campaign.
So, today Andrey Borodin made a very important statement (Borodin’s blog 31 August).
As the lawyers say, the cause and reason for this is a new campaign, initiated in the media close to authorities, dedicated to the “new charges.” On 29 August, as if by command (although, why as if?), TV channels “Russia” and NTV, Itar-Tass, RIA-Novosti, and others, who followed them, happily reported that the Investigatory Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs had “new questions” for Andrey Borodin and his associates. The logical conclusion to this bacchanalia was put by ‘Rossiyskaya Gazeta’ on 30 August.
Given how much there has been already said and how many more of such “stories” will be mentioned, it is not interesting to repeat these “new” allegations.
Something else is interesting.
Andrey Borodin is right to pay attention to the fact that yet another hysteria in the press is a reaction to his difficult questions about the fate of 103 billion rubles as well as the validity and extent (1% of GDP) of public participation in the “rescue” of the bank, acquired by VTB through a hostile takeover. Also, his rhetorical questions about who may benefit from this are rather uncomfortable. …
Yesterday, the informational space was shaken up by the “news” about the latest accusations against my client, Andrey Borodin. This time, “a source in the law enforcement bodies of the capital” anonymously shared their “concern” over the “illegal sale of shares in the Estonian Credit Bank.” This can be hardly called a sensation as few months ago same “tip-off” has already been given. Borodin himself commented on the situation. It seemed that the news outlived itself. But no.
… So. The investigation still has not established anything but Borodin has already been presented, not in a legal sense, but publicly, with yet another set of charges. The investigators, as representatives of public authority, allow themselves, through violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, to intervene in private cases… Who are these “experts”, who can legally, before an announcement of charges, evaluate the legality of certain actions and even talk about the damage caused by them? And what was the “fact” that was confirmed by the Interior Ministry of the Russian Federation?
… It seemed that the time for irresponsible statements has passed. It is obvious that all this hype was needed to assist with the capture and then the “rescue” of Bank of Moscow. As a result, the public was persuaded of the “necessity and inevitability” of the unprecedented injection of budget funds into state-owned VTB’s acquisition.
Here is some new information for those interested in the progress of the framed-up criminal case against Andrei Borodin: today I have received an order by investigator D. Pisarevskyi to grant my petition to attach certain media reports to the case file as evidence. If follows from those media reports that, as it turns out, the RF Interior Ministry, as represented by some of its officials, is perfectly aware of both the whereabouts of my client and such pivotal fact as the location of the 12,760,000,000 rubles, the fund that allegedly precipitated this criminal case. According to the Interior Ministry, once the money – by way of a loan extended by the Bank of Moscow – hit the account of Premier Estate it was transferred to Ye. Baturina’s personal accounts. Continue reading
According to officially published information, as recently as last February, the city of Moscow was still a shareholder in the Bank of Moscow and controlled, accounting for its stake in OJSC Capital City Insurance Group, 62.06% of the Bank of Moscow stock.
Last February, the above-mentioned shares in the Bank of Moscow and Capital City Insurance Group were privatized. The amount of proceeds received by the budget of the city of Moscow due to the privatization of these high value assets remains unknown. However, the following is well-known.
If, as the law prescribed, those shares had been privatized in a public tender then the proceeds from the sale of shares in the Bank of Moscow and the Capital City Insurance Group would have had to be credited, immediately and in full, to the budget of the city of Moscow.
However, someone found it necessary to replace a public tender with a dubious scheme to privatize the city of Moscow-held stock; a scheme that continues to meet with great skepticism on the part of lawyers, economists, financiers, and even government officials. Continue reading