provided for in Part 3 of Art. 33, part 4 art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
In March 2014 in Moscow at the Pushkin cafe I met Alla Vitalievna Kalitvanskaya. The acquaintance was due to the fact that she was trying to find an investor for KB Doninvest or a buyer for this bank. During this meeting, no agreements were reached.
After our joint communication at the Pushkin cafe, another meeting took place at the Borodino hotel, where I participated in a conference of the Zapadny Bank, of which I was a shareholder. Grigory Kulesha was also present at this meeting, who, according to him, knew Kalitvanskaya and her lawyer Zvyagina Lyudmila. I knew KB Doninvest well for a long time.
Being convinced by Kulesha of the prospects of investment, I promised to fulfill his request for assistance in obtaining an interbank loan from KB Zapadny for Doninvest in the amount of 120 million rubles.
(The indicated facts of Kalitvanskaya’s arrival in Moscow in order to find investors for the bank, as well as the serious financial position Bank at that time witness G.I. Kulesha confirmed during questioning in court by P.s.z. dated April 2, 2018, P.s.z. from 04/09/2018).
I spoke with the chairman of the board and the bank’s regulators, after which the interbank loan was issued around the end of March 2014, for a period of one month.
However, about two weeks after the interbank loan was issued, Kalitvanskaya and Kulesha came to me and reported that KB Doninvest could not repay the loan in a timely manner. Moreover, to save the bank, an additional 60-80 million rubles are required.
https://youtu.be/2SgfziaD3r4
I said that until the return of the interbank loan, I did not intend to discuss investing money in this bank. Kulesha, in turn, suggested asking a certain structure friendly to him to finance CB Doninvest for this amount under my personal word, and the bank would be able to repay the interbank loan to CB Zapadny. I don’t know how this technically happened, but the loan was repaid. At the same time, a debt of 120,000,000 rubles to a friendly company that lent the specified amount, on my personal word, remained hanging on LLC CB Doninvest and, accordingly, on me in the event of the bank’s failure to fulfill its obligations to repay this debt.
The next meeting with Kalitvanskaya took place at the end of April 2014. Kalitvanskaya told me that Doninvest Bank has a debt of unfulfilled payments in the amount of about 40 million rubles. Then Kalitvanskaya invited me to register part of the shares for myself, I told her that I was not interested in the bank itself and its shares. I suggested that Kalitvanskaya sell the Fitness Don property, also located in Rostov-on-Don, in order to pay off her debts. I knew about the presence of this asset from the words of Kulesha, who told me about its high value and liquidity.
She said that she does not resolve these issues, since the Bank has an owner - Mikhail Yuryevich Paramonov, who lives abroad and is ready to meet with me to resolve this situation. During a meeting with Paramonov in the spring of 2014, which took place in Paris, we reached a framework agreement on the purchase of the bank.
At the same time, Paramonov offered to immediately pay off the debt that the bank had in the form of Money borrowed from a friendly structure to close an interbank loan and not returned at this time, register about 25% of the bank’s shares, refusing to repay the resulting debt in any other way. I had no choice but to transfer this 25% to my friends at the end of May 2014. Subsequently, I transferred about another 400 million rubles. to buy out the remaining stake, since owning 25% in a bank means not owning anything, not having a decisive right, only the accumulation of a stake of more than 51% makes sense and guarantees a return on investment. At the same time, at the meeting itself there was no decision to purchase the bank; I decided to do this due to the pressure of the above circumstances!
At the same time, Paramonov M.Yu. said that the Fitness-Don building was of interest to him and he would take it from the bank, as well as a number of loans for which some real estate belonging to him was pledged as collateral. I will have to deposit 400,000,000 rubles into the bank and the bank, according to Paramonov, will be profitable and generate income.
Having signed the agreement, I undertook to fulfill my obligations according to the agreement, namely, I provided Kulesha with money in the amount of 80,000,000 rubles, which I borrowed from my friends; I cannot say how Kulesha arranged for this money to arrive at Doninvest Bank, since I cannot say in detail. did not go into detail, Kulesha was responsible for this.
At the end of May or beginning of June 2014, I transferred less than 30 percent of the shares to people I knew who had nothing to do with the banking business, did not make corporate or other decisions, and had never been in the bank itself.
https://youtu.be/epeZIgtwpM0
I am not involved in the theft of funds from KB Doninvest. I am sure that there was no theft, since in fact the funds were returned to the bank in the process of “repackaging” in the form of repayment of old bad loans in order to improve performance financial statements bank and removal from encumbrance of real estate pledges in the interests of Paramonov M.Yu. I learned about this fact only in August 2014.
As it turned out later, Kulesha, who took responsibility to the bank’s management to attract borrowers and wealthy clients, was actually engaged in “repackaging” existing bad loans, earning his percentage for passing money around. The essence of the repackaging was the issuance of loans to new (“technical”) borrowers and the subsequent transfer of these funds through a number of intermediaries to the accounts of Paramonov’s organizations for return to the bank and repayment of the loans. Thus, the bank got rid of problem loans, and the money was actually returned to the credit institution from the debtor organizations. This, in particular, was supposed to improve the health financial indicators in the bank. At the same time, the issuance of loans during repackaging was carried out at the expense of the funds that were deposited by me into the bank when paying for the shares, by crediting funds to the accounts of the former owners legal entities, opened in the same bank.
The fact that this actually happened is confirmed, in particular, by the testimony of Ivashchenko (P.s.z. dated February 19, 2018), A.V. Delibozhenkov. (P.S.Z. dated 02/19/2018), Kuleshi G.I. (P.S.Z. 04/2/2018, P.S.Z. dated 04/9/2018)
G.I. Kulesha himself was involved in attracting organizations to obtain loans. As I know from him himself, for this purpose he turned to Tarasov and Vasiliev, who were previously acquaintances of him even before working at Zapadny Bank, who were managing partners credit broker Management Company "NovaFinance". Subsequently, as far as I know, they, as well as their subordinate employees of Management Company NovaFinance, communicated with Gulenkova and Kalitvanskaya regarding the provision of organizations for issuing loans, and also provided documents for this purpose from organizations included in management company.
The fact that the provision of borrowers to the bank was carried out by Kulesha and the employees of Management Company Novafinance, whom he recruited, was confirmed during interrogation in court by witnesses Arbuzova (P.S.Z. dated 05/03/2018), Goryachev (P.S.Z. dated 09/11/2018), Ugarte (P.S.Z. dated 09.12.2018), Bezrukikh (P.S.Z. dated 09.12.2018), Gavrilova (P.S.Z. dated 09.04.2018). At the same time, all the prosecution witnesses denied that I had anything to do with attracting these organizations or gave instructions regarding the issuance of loans!
I want to clarify that I did not initiate or control the activities of Tarasov and Vasiliev, as well as the “repackaging” of loans and the return of funds to the bank. The verification of organizations provided by these persons, as well as making decisions on issuing loans to them, should have been carried out by the relevant structures of the bank, authorized and obliged to do this in accordance with current legislation And regulatory documents jar. I actually learned that the bank was repackaging loans from Kulesha himself in August 2014.
https://youtu.be/O7aMcJ1zuC0
In August, after passing the inspection of the Central Bank and receiving the report, I became aware of the deplorable state of the bank and its placement (Doninvest) in the fifth pre-bankruptcy category. Moreover, the management knew this back in early July, before registration on my friends controlling stake shares of KB Doninvest. No one informed me of this, which speaks of deception and involvement of me in this adventure against my will! When Kulesha informed me about real situation affairs in the bank, he (Kulesha) said that nothing has been lost yet and he and Kalitvanskaya are engaged in clearing the balance sheet, improving the bank’s performance and fulfilling orders by “repackaging” the bad loans of the old owner, for which large reserves have been added through the issuance of loans to “equipment” and returning money to the bank by paying off non-performing loans. I was outraged by this and asked him not to involve me in this and to find ways for the bank to get out of the difficult situation and return the funds I invested, which were borrowed for me! Kulesza said he had a couple of thoughts.
It should be noted that at the beginning of 2014, CB Doninvest LLC was in a deplorable state, with a huge volume of non-repayable loans issued to companies affiliated with the former owner Paramonov. This is more than 1.2 billion rubles, which is confirmed by numerous witness statements given by me , as well as regulations of the Central Bank of Russia.
I agreed to purchase the Bank only under Paramonov’s promises that he would repay part of the loans with the money I contributed, and would service the rest, gradually repaying them. The result was a banal “repackaging” of loans (rather than repayment) and the withdrawal of assets that actually belonged to Paramonov and were pledged (the Krasny Aksai plant, the Fitness-Don building, the Don Bus Station, etc.). These operations were carried out by bank employees controlled by Paramonov, and not just by Kalitvanskaya and Gulenkova.
All of them, as witnesses Zayats, Strukov and others showed, obeyed him unquestioningly and worked with him for more than 20 years. It is noteworthy that both Kalitvanskaya and Gulenkova, immediately after leaving the bank, were employed in companies controlled by Paramonov. As we see, to this day they are shielding their owner, trying to shift all responsibility for the theft of funds and the collapse of the bank onto completely innocent persons - me and Volchkov.
The complete and unconditional subordination of Kalitvanskaya and Gulenkova to Paramonov and Khvesko is confirmed, in particular, by the testimony of prosecution witnesses G.I. Kulesha. t. 224 pp. 133-136, 235-238, t. 236 103-121 and Fradkina t. 42 pp. pp. 173-178
There was virtually no money in the Bank at the time of the change of owners, which is certainly confirmed by the regulations Central Bank Russia and other documents indicating the critical condition of the correspondent account and the transfer of the credit institution to the 4th unsatisfactory, and then to the 5th pre-bankruptcy group) and there was nothing to withdraw from the bank except for the assets pledged and subsequently withdrawn by Paramonov, since In the process of repackaging the loan portfolio (non-refundable) and encumbered by the instructions of the Central Bank, the money I actually contributed to pay for the shares made it possible for the bank to live and work for several more months, as well as to pay off depositors’ claims in the amount of more than 200 million rubles.
These circumstances are confirmed by numerous instructions of the Central Bank of Russia T.12, pp. 189-191, T.13, pp. 159-161, T.45 pp. 207-209, T.46 pp. 162-164, T.12 pp. 174-177, T.12 pp. 181-184, T.13 pp. 153-156, T.45 pp.191-194, T.45 pp. 198-201, T.46 pp. 156-159
For this good deed, Volchkov and I have been in a pre-trial detention center for 3.5 years on charges of theft, which we did not commit! Not attracted to criminal liability neither the actual owner of the bank, Paramonov, nor other managers of the bank, who, due to the influence of circumstances, can give truthful testimony against their owner and reveal a criminal scheme of thefts from the bank LLC KB "Doninvest", which lasted for years, and not 4 last month, when the bank was in a pre-bankruptcy state and was actually empty!
Kulesha pursued his personal selfish interests in CB Doninvest LLC, providing borrowers to the bank for repackaging bad loans, earning his interest on this together with Tarasov and Vasilyev, his old acquaintances, and also hoping, after clearing the balance sheet, CB Doninvest LLC to become there as Chairman of the Board.
In this case, I was simply an investor who lost all the funds invested in the bank and was deceived by Kulesha, the bank’s management and M.Yu. Paramonov. I trusted Kulesha as a professional and listened to his opinion, since he had worked in banks all his life and had vast experience!
My work experience in banking sector was one year, and in boards of directors that do not carry out operational management of the bank, making only decisions of a strategic nature. Paramonov owned the bank and was on the board of directors for more than 20 years, Kalitvanskaya, Gulenkova, Kulesha were professional bankers with extensive work experience, it is difficult to deceive them in anything in the banking industry, especially to force them to commit actions that are not beneficial to them! My only fault is that I trusted Paramonov, Kulesha, Kalitvanskaya and invested money in this bank without listening to the arguments of Yusupov and Ermakova.
I want to focus the court’s attention on some of the testimony given by prosecution witness G.I. Kulesha. Despite the fact that the entire accusation is based on the testimony of this man, even his words confirm the contradictory and far-fetched nature of the accusation brought against me.
So, for example, on ld. 22 t. 224 he told the investigator that as a result of repackaging, the money went back to the bank. Kalitvanskaya solely managed the bank until the license was revoked. The decision on lending was made by Kalitvanskaya, and not by the Board of Directors.
On the ice 24 of the same volume recorded Kulesha’s testimony that in fact only my money was in the bank and was circulating in circles in on-lending, that there was a large outflow and money (mine) was given to depositors. Kulesha also confirmed that Kalitvanskaya and Paramonov were withdrawing liquid property from collateral.
According to Kulesha’s testimony recorded on the affidavit. 134, 143 t. 224, it confirms the lack of money from CB Doninvest LLC and the existence at the same time of non-repayable loans worth 1.2 billion rubles, and also confirms the presence of serious problems with current liquidity. Also Kulesha on ld. 52 t. 225 confirms that Kalitvanskaya introduced additional procedure agreement with Volchkov so that she would not be accused of embezzling funds.
From his testimony on the ld. 242 of the same volume he confirms that he, Kulesha, possessed a huge banking experience.
On the ice 118 t. 224 Kulesha describes in detail the on-lending scheme, and describes the interest on the transfer of money, as well as who exactly received it. I note that Kulesha does not name me among the beneficiaries of these operations!
I want to note that initially Kulesha G.I. was questioned on September 2, 2015 as a witness in criminal case No. 2015717105 with the participation of lawyer V.V. Filipkov.
Kulesha’s longtime acquaintances from St. Petersburg, Tarasov and Vasiliev, were looking for a bank to buy, as a result of which I offered to buy a share in Zapadny CB Tarasov, since I myself was going to acquire a share there, and the money to buy a serious block of shares, implying voting and decision-making on There was no board of directors. Thus, I wanted to confirm for myself the seriousness of their intentions, to understand whether they were talkers! But it turned out that they also only had enough money for a “frivolous” block of shares - up to 20%, which subsequently neither I nor they managed to increase, almost the entire remaining block of shares of more than 50%, as well as management of the bank through the board, which appointed by Leus, remained with the old owner of the bank - Leus, as in the case of KB Doninvest Paramonov! It’s not for nothing that popular wisdom says: it doesn’t matter who owns, but what matters is who controls! I never managed to “get” to this “management”!
I am not aware of other circumstances related to KB Doninvest, since I was not aware of the real state of affairs due to the lack of control and information from the management of KB Doninvest. I received all the available information from Kulesha, since Volchkov did not understand anything about banking, especially in lending, which requires either specialized education or long-term work experience in a bank, which he did not have, even though he signed up for a four-month period in a representative and economic position! They didn’t provide him with any lending documents, I know this from him, but they forced him to sign some papers; he didn’t even understand the essence of the papers and their meaning! When I found out about this (July - August), I told him not to sign anything, since I don’t know and don’t understand what’s going on in the bank and he could be set up by bank employees who are knowledgeable and understand all the nuances.
I believe that the testimony of witnesses shows that all loans and assets were withdrawn before my brief ownership of the bank’s shares by Paramonov M.Yu. and his team, and they are trying to make Denis Viktorovich Volchkov and me the culprits and shift the burden of responsibility. I just invested huge amounts of money and lost them in this bank, due to the outflow of money from deposits, as witnesses also say. I also believe that all this money and assets could have been discovered and returned to the state, if not for the selectivity of the investigation and the investigation of only the last four months of the bank’s activities!!! I also do not rule out a corruption component, since the investigation did not want to hear about the former owners of Bank Zapadny and DonInvest (Leus and Paramonov, respectively), as well as large-scale thefts from these banks, despite my repeated statements!
I also petition the court to restore justice and return the case for additional investigation, indicating documented facts and numerous testimony of witnesses.
I did not commit any theft of money or assets from Zapadnoye and DonInvest, nor was I ultimate beneficiary of these funds, which could have easily been established by a financial and economic (analytical) examination, which you refused completely without reason!
Appendix: notarized inspection of the conceptual agreement between Grigoriev A.Yu. and Paramonov M.Yu. on 6 sheets, a copy of the protocol of interrogation of witness G.I. Kulesha. for 6 l.
The victim and deceived investor of Doninvest Bank, Alexander Yuryevich Grigoriev, continues to be tried in the Leninsky District Court of Rostov. Precisely the victim, and precisely the deceived, there is no other way to call a person who was groundlessly sent to trial on someone’s order. Entrepreneur Grigoriev had the intention of acquiring Doninvest Bank, and before the purchase he even invested more than 350 million of his own rubles in it. This happened at a time when the bank was experiencing quite serious difficulties, which pushed it to the brink of bankruptcy. As it turned out later, this position of Doninvest was directly related to the fact that the structure had debts of about a billion rubles. Loan money, which no one was going to return, was issued to organizations controlled by the management of Doninvest Bank and Mikhail Paramonov ( former owner"Doninvest"). Alexander Yurievich Grigoriev ended up in this whole story in a completely unsightly way, being completely uninvolved in what he was accused of.
Doninvest Bank was in a precarious position even before Grigoriev made the decision to purchase it. That is why the bank’s management and its former owner used the 350 million rubles he invested in their own interests, and not as agreed. All the money simply ended up in the accounts of Paramonov’s enterprises. Subsequently, the situation reached the point that the next planned inspection of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation could simply reveal the true state of affairs at Doninvest Bank. At this moment, Mikhail Paramonov and his associates (Kalitvanskaya, the chairman of the board of the bank and her deputy Gulenkova) decided that the time had come to sell the bank with all the “dowry”. Somehow, miraculously, they managed to contact Kulesha Grigory, who also happened to know businessman Alexander Grigoriev. It was he who was persuaded to buy the bank. Kulesha presented Doninvest Bank to Grigoriev in the form of an extremely promising purchase, and with his eloquence brought him to a deal to purchase the bank. And then a nightmare began for Grigoriev - it turned out that if someone owns a billion, he can practically do anything.
When an investigation began into the bankruptcy of Doninvest Bank, its management, Deputy Chairman of the Board Gulenkova and Chairman Kalitvanskaya herself were initially arrested. However, soon, for some unknown reason, Grigoriev was also arrested. Moreover, his arrest was replicated by the media almost as an event of the century: an alleged super-casher who withdrew $50 billion from the Russian Federation was detained. It turned out that all this was aimed at tarnishing Grigoriev’s name. The idea assumed that such high-profile accusations would ensure a biased attitude towards the businessman, including for the court and investigation. In fact, what was expected was achieved by the customers. Grigoriev never took part in dubious scams, and was simply not involved in what was discussed, but his reputation was damaged.
The purchase and sale of Doninvest Bank was accompanied by a memorandum between Mikhail Paramonov and Alexander Grigoriev, which spelled out the rights, obligations and features of the transfer of the bank to the new owner. An unpleasant fact, but only Grigoriev fulfilled his obligations. Paramonov did not consider it necessary to fulfill the terms of the agreement.
Instead, secretly from Grigoriev, Kalitvanskaya, Gulenkova and Kulesha decided to carry out a “refinancing”. This means that instead of real organizations-debtors of Doninvest, owned by Paramonov and his company, shell companies were presented. To ensure visibility of the movement of funds a small amount money was simply transferred from account to account, pretending to receive funds. Of course, all this happened without Grigoriev’s consent and knowledge. While the “on-lending” was going on, Kulesha provided him with reports from which it was possible to draw conclusions that things were going well at the bank. Fact - Alexander Yuryevich Grigoriev was deceived, the bank lost its license.
While the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Rostov was investigating the bankruptcy of Doninvest, Gulenkova, Kalitvanskaya and the bank’s management were arrested, as their involvement was revealed. Later, the investigation of the case turned out to be transferred to investigator Nikolaev, and from here the most interesting thing began: Alexander Grigoriev was arrested and found guilty of stealing funds from Doninvest.
As for the testimony, all bank employees who were involved in the fraud in one way or another directly pointed to the culprits, but not to Grigoriev. Grigory Kulesha also came to the attention of law enforcement agencies, and during his first interrogation, on September 2, 2015, he did not say a word about Grigoriev’s guilt and involvement. On the contrary, he told the whole truth. Only later, realizing that he might end up in a maximum security colony for 10 years, did he decide to agree to cooperate with the investigation. Apparently, investigator Nikolaev knew how to convince people. After this, Kulesha’s testimony changed radically; in his words, Grigoriev was to blame for everything! Everything happened with his supposed suggestion and approval. At the same time, investigator Nikolaev did not consider it necessary to preserve the first protocol of Kulesha’s interrogation in the materials of the criminal case. But Grigoriev’s lawyers retained it.
Among other things, Alexander Yuryevich Grigoriev himself and his two accomplices (according to the investigator), upon arrival from Moscow, were sent to the Rostov pre-trial detention center, or more precisely, to pre-trial detention center-1. In fact, it is a prison within a prison, intended for the most dangerous murderers and terrorists. Gulenkova and Kalitvanskaya, who were serving as perpetrators in this criminal case, were kept in ordinary cells, not in complete silence, not without a TV and refrigerator, unlike Grigoriev.
Throughout the entire period of investigation of the case, investigator Nikolaev in every possible way ignored the requests of Alexander Grigoriev and his lawyers, and only when patience came to an end, he agreed to conduct forensics, which was supposed to shed light on all the secrets kept in Doninvest. The experts had to identify whether there was a theft of money from the bank, and if so, who took the money and where. The result of the examination only managed to be in the hands of Nikolaev, and then, like the first interrogation report of Kulesha, it disappeared in an unknown direction.
The commencement of the consideration of the criminal case on its merits also did not bring joy to Grigoriev: all (about twenty) of the defendants’ petitions were rejected by Judge Strokov, who was hearing the case. It is important that all the prosecutor’s requests were satisfied by him. I would not like to believe that Judge Strokov will not consider it necessary to establish the truth in this criminal case, but everything has its time.
The first sentence was handed down to one of the organizers of the withdrawal bank funds to Moldova.
In Rostov-on-Don, a court sentenced members of a criminal group that stole about 2.1 billion rubles. in Zapadny and Doninvest banks. The group was led by the actual owner of these banks, Alexander Grigoriev, who was acquitted of charges of organizing an organized crime group, but was sentenced to a 9-year sentence. At the same time, Mr. Grigoriev, whom the Ministry of Internal Affairs considers one of the organizers of the scheme to transfer billions of rubles to Moldova, faces at least one more trial.
Alexander Grigoriev was accused of embezzling funds from the Moscow bank Zapadny and the Rostov bank Doninvest. Top managers of Doninvest Alla Kalitvanskaya, Svetlana Gulenkova, Denis Volchkov, as well as lawyers Oksana Ermakova and Rinat Yusupov were tried for embezzlement only in a Rostov bank.
According to the prosecution, Alexander Grigoriev established control over Zapadny in the fall of 2013. After this, the banker, together with St. Petersburg entrepreneurs Anton Tarasov and Oleg Vasiliev (who are on the international wanted list), organized the issuance of obviously non-repayable loans to companies registered in the names of dummies.
According to investigators, about 1.4 billion rubles were withdrawn from Zapadnoye in this way.
In April 2014, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation stopped the activities of this bank, revoking its license.
Two months later, Alexander Grigoriev bought Doninvest Bank. To avoid attention from the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the banker arranged the purchase in the name of his friends, assigning a share of up to 10% to each. Among the nominal owners of Doninvest were his friend Oksana Ermakova and relative Denis Volchkov, who was later appointed vice president of the bank. According to investigators, the thefts at Doninvest were committed according to the same scheme as at Zapadnoye. In this illegal activities Alexander Grigoriev involved the chairman of the board of Doninvest Alla Kalitvanskaya and her deputy Svetlana Gulenkova, who, using their official position, signed loan agreements with shell companies through which funds were withdrawn. Moscow lawyers Oksana Ermakova and Rinat Yusupov were engaged in the production of forged documents creating the appearance of a real economic activity fictitious borrowers and the presence of collateral. Thus, 706 million rubles were stolen from Doninvest. The last remaining 72 million rubles in this bank. deduced through an imaginary purchase transaction non-residential building in Simferopol, the investigation found.
None of the defendants admitted their guilt. In his testimony to the investigation, Alexander Grigoriev, in particular, reported that at Zapadny he held the position of president, which was only representative and did not give him the right to sign any financial documents. According to Alexander Grigoriev, he was also not involved in the operational management of Doninvest, and decisions on issuing loans were made by the authorized structures of the credit organization.
However, the evidence and testimony presented by the prosecution was found convincing by the court. In particular, Grigory Kulesha, who in 2017 was convicted of embezzlement at Doninvest, testified against the defendants. He made a deal with the investigation, and he was tried in a special manner. As a result, Alexander Grigoriev, Alla Kalitvanskaya, Svetlana Gulenkova and Denis Volchkov were found guilty of fraud and embezzlement (Part 4 of Article 159 and Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The court sentenced the defendant Grigoriev to 9 years, Volchkov - 8 years and 3 months, Kalitvanskaya and Gulenkova - 7 years and 10 months, and the convicted Ermakova and Yusupov - 6 years and 4.5 years, respectively.
Let us note that the court did not find the convicts guilty of creating and participating in an organized criminal community (Article 10 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), qualifying their organization as a “criminal group.”
In this regard, the court sentenced the convicts to a punishment less severe than that required by the state prosecution (from 8 to 19 years).
After the verdict was announced, lawyer Mikhail Tokhmakhov asked his client Grigoriev: “Sasha, are we going to complain?” “Of course,” he replied.
It should be noted that Alexander Grigoriev, according to the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, was a member of another criminal community. We are talking about the organized crime group of the former leader of the ruling Democratic Party in Moldova, Vladimir Plahotniuc (arrested in absentia and declared international search), which withdrew at least $1 billion from Russia. In 2013-2014, criminals, using forged documents, organized the transfer of funds from the accounts of legal entities under their control in Zapadny Bank and the Russian Land Bank to the accounts of non-residents in Moldindconbank under the pretext of selling currency. The funds received were written off from correspondent accounts of Russian banks in Moldindconbank based on fraudulent decisions of the courts of Moldova in favor of individuals and legal entities. Thus, according to estimates of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, more than 37 billion rubles were transferred abroad.
Obviously, charges in this case will be brought against Mr. Grigoriev after the Rostov verdict comes into force.
It seems that the investigation involved in the criminal case of banker Alexander Grigoriev cannot yet find enough evidence of his involvement in the withdrawal of a fantastic sum of $50 billion from Russia. Information about Grigoriev’s organization of a “cash business” was circulated by the press service of the police department in November last year .
A CASE WITHOUT VICTIMS?
In July of the year before last, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, after checking the Rostov bank Doninvest, acquired by Grigoriev several months ago, made its first claims against the bank, prohibiting it from attracting new depositors, and three months later Doninvest’s license was revoked.
In February of the following year, a letter was received from the Central Bank of the Russian Federation to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia with a request to review the materials to determine whether there were signs of deliberate bankruptcy and other facts of abuse in the activities of the bank’s management and owners.
At the beginning of October of the same 2015, ex-chairmen of the board Alla Kalitvanskaya and her deputy Svetlana Gulenkova were arrested. Soon Grigory Kulesha was also “taken” - the same one who, according to the banker’s defense, brought together Alexander Grigoriev and Kalitvanskaya at one time. That is, it turned out to be a kind of pyramid, the peak of which was the detention of Grigoriev himself.
DID YOU STOLEN FROM YOURSELF?
Here's what is known from open sources. Alexander Grigoriev is a native of the Novgorod region, has two higher education(the first in the specialty "law" with a diploma from St. Petersburg State University - former Leningrad State University, the second - "State and Municipal Administration", received at the All-Russian Correspondence University of Finance and Economics).
In business since the early 2000s, when he became one of the founders of the Yakut construction company“SU-888” is, by the way, very successful: according to Kommersant, its revenue for 2014, for example, amounted to 1 billion rubles.
And in 2012, Alexander Grigoriev decided, as his friends and partners say, to expand his commercial horizons and plunged into the banking sector.
Alexander Yuryevich has always been a very active and purposeful businessman: he achieved success in one field and immediately moved on to something new, says the businessman’s colleague in the banking department, a former head of a number of large financial structures in the Rostov region Alexander Narovilov. - Sometimes - at your own peril and risk, trying to figure everything out as you go. In some ways he can even be called gullible - if such an expression is applicable to a large entrepreneur. And as it turns out now, he didn’t always succeed. But his eyes were burning, he wanted dynamics all the time. So I went to banking business, which, I must admit, I didn’t particularly understand. That is probably why he made certain mistakes that led to disastrous results. To be honest, as a specialist, I don’t see anything in his case that could indicate intentional damage to the same Doninvest: the bank had to be saved, it was sinking, the task was not easy, but Grigoriev decided to take on it.
According to Alexander Grigoriev, he fully paid for the authorized capital of Doninvest, representing the group in his person individuals, says the businessman’s lawyer Sergei Akhundzyanov. - At the time of the acquisition of the bank (the first ten days of July 2014), operations to attract deposits from individuals were suspended (instruction of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation for the Southern Federal District dated February 2014), so the institution needed an investor and replenishment of its correspondent account to continue making current payments and excluding default to residents of the region. Grigoriev’s achievement is his agreement with representatives of the previous owner in the form of a moratorium on the withdrawal of funds invested by the businessman, as well as their assistance in repaying previously overdue payments from structures affiliated with the previous owner.
It is for this reason, the lawyer notes, that the entire top management of Doninvest, who was under its previous owner, was not fired and retained their jobs in the bank, which is socially significant for the region. And an analysis of its financial and economic activities showed that the bank began to fulfill previously overdue obligations that had previously hung on it like a dead weight and for this reason were classified as “problem” debt, but were required to “freeze” it. own funds for the formation of reserves up to 100 percent of issued loans.
With the arrival of Grigoriev, all this began to change for the better, new clients of the bank appeared, turnover increased, a plan for the rehabilitation of the Bank and its replenishment was presented to the Central Bank authorized capital another 170 million rubles. to the 350 million previously paid by the businessman,” the lawyer continues. - But the regulator tightened its requirements exactly three weeks after the new owner arrived at the bank (instruction dated July 24, 2014), adding additional reserves for partially repaid loans and extending the ban on attracting funds from individuals to the Bank’s deposits. Already on October 9, the credit institution’s license was revoked and a temporary administration was appointed. In fact, it turns out that after three months of Grigoriev’s attempts to save the bank with his own funds and the efforts of the old management, it was not possible to agree on a plan with the Central Bank financial recovery, but he was also accused of involvement in the bank’s loss of its liquidity as a result of operations carried out by management - in other words, of theft and embezzlement of its own funds in its own (!) financial structure.
TO THE ROSTOV COURT - WITH A BAG ON THE HEAD, TO MOSCOW - IN THE “STOLYPINSKY” CAR
On the day of his arrest, Alexander Grigoriev was taken from Moscow to Rostov-on-Don, where the Leninsky District Court decided to arrest him - despite the fact that he offered to pay bail in the amount of damage caused.
They took him to court with a bag over his head, he was handcuffed for a day (even during interrogation), he was not even allowed to rest, and in addition, he was refused to take the medications my client needed, taking into account his state of health and the presence of a number of chronic diseases “, notes another defender, Valery Sadych. - I consider all this a violation of not only Russian, but also international legislation, in particular the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. The corresponding complaint was sent to the prosecutor of the Rostov region.
However, the subsequent transfer back to Moscow turned out to be, perhaps, no better than detention in a pre-trial detention center in Rostov, the lawyer continues.
According to information received from Grigoriev, they were transported for more than nine days in a carriage, popularly called a “Stolypin” carriage. Grigoriev was placed in a compartment cell along with fifteen other escorts - despite the fact that such a cell is designed for a maximum of six people (for a stage lasting more than four hours), says Valery Sadych.
“During the transfer, an operational development of a provocative nature was carried out,” said Sergei Loginov (editor’s note, lawyer). “Grigory Kulesha was transported in a special car at the same time as Grigoryev and another accused, Denis Volchkov.” This, the lawyer believes, was done deliberately with the aim of organizing a “chance meeting” of the accused at the stage. The businessman’s defender suggests that this operation had very specific goals... The reaction of the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the transport prosecutor’s office to these complaints and statements about this moment not yet known, but judicial practice There are precedents in Russia when the conditions for transporting prisoners in our country were actually officially recognized as torture,” writes the Kommersant newspaper.
“DESTRUCTION OF THE BUSINESS CLIMATE”
And yet, personally, it is completely unclear to me why it was necessary to take Grigoriev to Moscow at all, if all the episodes relate to Doninvest and the investigation should be carried out at the place where the crime was committed - the businessman’s defender is surprised. “During more than four months of his detention, essentially nothing happened. Today no one remembers the very “$50 billion” that was so pathetically announced after the arrest of the entrepreneur. And the man sits - contrary to the position of the leadership of our state that “according to economic compositions the detention facility should be used as last resort, and apply bail, recognizance not to leave, house arrest.”
This, the lawyer explained, is about the speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin with his annual message to the Federal Assembly, in which he emphasized the following:
“In 2014, investigative authorities initiated almost 200 thousand criminal cases on so-called economic charges. 46 thousand out of 200 thousand reached the court, another 15 thousand cases fell apart in court. It turns out that if you consider that only 15 percent of cases ended in a verdict. At the same time, the absolute majority, about 80 percent, 83 percent of entrepreneurs against whom criminal cases were filed, lost their business completely or partially. That is, they were put under pressure, robbed and released. And this, of course, is not what we need in terms of the business climate. This is a direct destruction of the business climate. I ask the investigative authorities and the prosecutor's office to pay attention to this Special attention" But probably not everyone has paid attention to this yet.
During the investigation, Alexander Grigoriev’s defense sent about two hundred complaints and statements to various authorities regarding violations of the law, says lawyer Sergei Akhundzyanov. “But sometimes completely incomprehensible things happen with these requests - as if the authorities no longer know what to do with them and how to respond to them. Thus, in response to a complaint in the interests of Grigoriev from my colleague, lawyer Sergei Loginov, the prosecutor of the department for consideration of citizens’ appeals of the prosecutor’s office of the Rostov region replied that “the appeal was sent to the prosecutor’s office of the city of Shakhty, Rostov region,” to which neither our client nor Doninvest had anything to do has at all. And two weeks later, the deputy prosecutor of the city of Shakhty sent the appeal back to the prosecutor's office of the Rostov region. We are still waiting for a response from the regional prosecutor. These are the miracles.
According to the entrepreneur’s defense, Alexander Grigoriev simply crossed someone’s path and they are trying to bring him to justice for “other people’s sins.”
If we draw analogies with the case of another large bank“The situation is diametrically opposite,” says lawyer Sergei Akhundzyanov. - The owner sold the bank, and a few months later his license was revoked. However, he was not arrested new owner bank, how law enforcement agencies dealt with Grigoriev, and the previous one. In the DonInvest case - it is not clear for what reason - the blame is placed on the new owner. The investigation does not notice the “exploits” of the previous owners at all, identifying the new owner Grigoriev as guilty of stealing money. I hope that further investigation will understand all the banking and financial intricacies of this regional bank, which lined up with credit organizations who fell under the “bank sweep,” the lawyer summarizes.
The purpose of criminal proceedings is to protect the rights and legitimate interests of individuals and organizations that have suffered from crimes, which, first of all, includes compensation for the harm caused. According to investigators, entrepreneur Grigoriev is charged with theft of 107.6 million rubles. His defense has repeatedly proposed, both to the investigation and in the courts of the first, appellate and cassation instances, to apply bail to Grigoriev in the specified amount, which would fully cover the harm allegedly caused by him. However, it seems that law enforcement authorities are concerned about the issue of compensation for harm in in full For some reason I'm not interested yet.
In Rostov-on-Don, a court sentenced members of a criminal group that stole about 2.1 billion rubles. in Zapadny and Doninvest banks. The group was led by the actual owner of these banks, Alexander Grigoriev, who was acquitted of charges of organizing an organized crime group, but was sentenced to a 9-year sentence. At the same time, Mr. Grigoriev, whom the Ministry of Internal Affairs considers one of the organizers of the scheme to transfer billions of rubles to Moldova, faces at least one more trial.
Alexander Grigoriev was accused of embezzling funds from the Moscow bank Zapadny and the Rostov bank Doninvest. Top managers of Doninvest Alla Kalitvanskaya, Svetlana Gulenkova, Denis Volchkov, as well as lawyers Oksana Ermakova and Rinat Yusupov were tried for embezzlement only in a Rostov bank.
According to the prosecution, Alexander Grigoriev established control over Zapadny in the fall of 2013. After this, the banker, together with St. Petersburg entrepreneurs Anton Tarasov and Oleg Vasiliev (who are on the international wanted list), organized the issuance of obviously non-repayable loans to companies registered in the names of dummies.
According to investigators, about 1.4 billion rubles were withdrawn from Zapadnoye in this way.
In April 2014, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation stopped the activities of this bank, revoking its license.
Two months later, Alexander Grigoriev bought Doninvest Bank. To avoid attention from the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the banker arranged the purchase in the name of his friends, assigning a share of up to 10% to each. Among the nominal owners of Doninvest were his friend Oksana Ermakova and relative Denis Volchkov, who was later appointed vice president of the bank. According to investigators, the thefts at Doninvest were committed according to the same scheme as at Zapadnoye. Alexander Grigoriev involved the chairman of the board of Doninvest, Alla Kalitvanskaya, and her deputy, Svetlana Gulenkova, in this illegal activity, who, using their official position, signed loan agreements with front companies through which funds were withdrawn. Moscow lawyers Oksana Ermakova and Rinat Yusupov were involved in preparing forged documents that created the appearance of real economic activities of fictitious borrowers and the presence of collateral. Thus, 706 million rubles were stolen from Doninvest. The last remaining 72 million rubles in this bank. was deduced through an imaginary transaction for the purchase of a non-residential building in Simferopol, the investigation established.
None of the defendants admitted their guilt. In his testimony to the investigation, Alexander Grigoriev, in particular, reported that at Zapadny he held the position of president, which was only representative and did not give him the right to sign any financial documents. According to Alexander Grigoriev, he was also not involved in the operational management of Doninvest, and decisions on issuing loans were made by the authorized structures of the credit organization.
However, the evidence and testimony presented by the prosecution was found convincing by the court. In particular, Grigory Kulesha, who in 2017 was convicted of embezzlement at Doninvest, testified against the defendants. He made a deal with the investigation, and he was tried in a special manner. As a result, Alexander Grigoriev, Alla Kalitvanskaya, Svetlana Gulenkova and Denis Volchkov were found guilty of fraud and embezzlement (Part 4 of Article 159 and Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The court sentenced the defendant Grigoriev to 9 years, Volchkov - 8 years and 3 months, Kalitvanskaya and Gulenkova - 7 years and 10 months, and the convicted Ermakova and Yusupova - 6 years and 4.5 years, respectively.
Let us note that the court did not find the convicts guilty of creating and participating in an organized criminal community (Article 10 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), qualifying their organization as a “criminal group.”
In this regard, the court sentenced the convicts to a punishment less severe than that required by the state prosecution (from 8 to 19 years).
After the verdict was announced, lawyer Mikhail Tokhmakhov asked his client Grigoriev: “Sasha, are we going to complain?” “Of course,” he answered.
It should be noted that Alexander Grigoriev, according to the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, was a member of another criminal community. We are talking about the organized crime group of the former leader of the Democratic Party that ruled in Moldova, Vladimir Plahotniuc (arrested in absentia and put on the international wanted list), which withdrew at least $1 billion from Russia. In 2013–2014, criminals, using forged documents, organized transfers from the accounts of legal entities under their control in the Zapadny Bank and the Russian Land Bank, funds were transferred to the accounts of non-residents in Moldindconbank under the pretext of selling currency. The funds received were written off from correspondent accounts of Russian banks in Moldindconbank based on fraudulent decisions of the courts of Moldova in favor of individuals and legal entities. Thus, according to estimates of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, more than 37 billion rubles were transferred abroad.
Obviously, charges in this case will be brought against Mr. Grigoriev after the Rostov verdict comes into force.
Vadim Vodolazov, Rostov-on-Don; Nikolay Sergeev