Let’s look at another concrete example. I don’t want our campaign against illicit enrichment to seem theoretical—as if there were some abstract crooks with abstract unexplained income.
The problem is entirely concrete, and it has recognizable faces.
For example, Tatyana Golikova and Viktor Khristenko.
A well-known married couple of ministers. For many years, Golikova was responsible for healthcare in the government, while Khristenko oversaw industry. Both, meanwhile, were responsible for their family budget.
We all know very well the state of Russian healthcare. We know the state of Russian industry. Now let’s take a look at the family budget of this ministerial couple as well.
We are talking only about indisputable facts.
We could write here about how Minister Golikova got the nickname “Madame Arbidol” (Arbidol is a Russian antiviral drug), about how the couple of state officials enjoy gambling in Monaco casinos and tossing bundles of cash around in a Chanel store, about how Khristenko’s 25-year-old son landed a senior position at the Chelyabinsk Pipe-Rolling Plant, and so on.
But—and this is important—all of that is merely suspicion of corruption. There is no proof (and there is unlikely ever to be any), so we cannot bring criminal charges against Golikova and Khristenko. You can’t even file a proper complaint.
Now let’s see whether these enterprising spouses could be put in the dock under our bill—because that is exactly its point: you do not need to prove the bribes themselves; you need to prove that an official’s assets exceed their declared income.
Let’s start by looking at the biographies of Golikova and Khristenko. We can see that neither of them was involved in business in the past or present; they have spent their entire lives “toiling away” in public service. They have been married since 2002.
Now let’s look at their income on “Declarator” (a Russian database of officials’ asset declarations). Golikova, Khristenko.
We even try to find income data from before 2008. The only thing we can locate is a reprint of a Kommersant article (the original has been removed from the website due to age) that mentions Khristenko’s income for 2005 and 2006.
But since both Golikova and Khristenko were in public service, we understand that they could not have received anything substantial apart from their salaries—and salaries back then were an order of magnitude lower than they are now.
So we record their income since 2005 as: 82,806,853 rubles.
Now let’s look at the official expenses of the Golikova-Khristenko family.
Property — Pestovo
Since 2012, Golikova has listed properties in Pestovo as being in her use. Specifically:
The properties are leased in Khristenko’s name. This is confirmed by records for a 336 sq. m house, a 991 sq. m house, and the land plot.
Realtors estimate the value of the houses and land at $10–15 million. Using an average annual rental rate of 1/20 ofthe property’s value, that gives us $500,000–$750,000 per year.
Want a more precise estimate? Here you go: a house nearby is being offered for rent. It is slightly larger, but much farther from the water, and the land plot is four times smaller. The rent is 1 million rubles per month. So even at this point we can establish a crucial fact: for the past two years, the Golikova-Khristenko couple has effectively been working solely to pay for their country house outside Moscow. Their official income simply does not cover anything else.
They rent the house from IMTEKHNOSERVICE LLC, which is registered to the offshore company Yoshoirro Holdings Limited in the Marshall Islands. One may suppose that Golikova and Khristenko bought this house, put it under an offshore company, and are renting it to themselves at a token rate so that no one asks questions about such wealth. Supporting this version is the fact that the head of this company, Maksim Valeryevich Mukhovikov, also heads AKADEMIYA DZhIAR LLC, located at 12/1 Ostrovnoy Proyezd, Moscow—right next to Golikova and Khristenko’s townhouse. At the same address is the Foundation for the Revival of the Staritsa Holy Dormition Monastery, whose founders include Golikova and Khristenko. For now, we cannot prove this—but the rental amount alone is enough for our purposes.
Property — Ostrov Fantaziy
This townhouse is located in “Ostrov Fantaziy” (“Fantasy Island”), has an area of 218.6 sq. m, and is worth $3 million. The ownership record is here.
The townhouse was purchased in 2007, when Khristenko was serving as minister of industry and energy, and Golikova had just been appointed minister of health and social development.
We find the following estimate for housing prices in the “Ostrov Fantaziy” complex: “According to Penny Lane Realty, in 2006–2007, at the peak of the housing market, apartments in the Ostrov Fantaziy complex were sold for between $4,200 and $16,000 per square meter.”
That means that for a property of this size—especially given its location on the “first line” by the water—Khristenko must have paid at least $2 million.
Khristenko’s own comment: “I purchased real estate in this development on the secondary market in 2007. This property is listed in my declaration, which was, incidentally, published in the media. All rights to it were duly registered in the ordinary manner and within the time limits established by law,” Khristenko said through a representative. From this comment, we conclude that the townhouse must indeed have been bought at market price.
Today, an apartment of slightly larger size (246 sq. m) in a less elite apartment building in the same development costs 205 million rubles, or more than $5.5 million.
Illicit enrichment
Now let’s take a calculator and do a very simple operation: subtract from the value of the property the amount of official income received before that property was acquired.
a) 60 million rubles (purchase of the Ostrov Fantaziy property) — 3.5 million rubles (Khristenko’s income before the purchase) = 56.5 million rubles.
b) 18 million rubles (one year’s rent in Pestovo) — 16.2 million rubles (the couple’s income for 2013) = 1.8 million rubles.
TOTAL: 58.3 million rubles in expenses that cannot be explained by lawful income.
That amount is the sum of illicit enrichment within the meaning of our bill and Article 20 of the UN Convention against Corruption.
Note that this does not include bank accounts, business-class flights, cars, clothing, or anything else of that sort. In other words, this is the minimum amount of illicit enrichment that we can establish from open sources.
Let’s ask ourselves the following questions:
Do we, the citizens of the Russian Federation, have the right to know where this family of minister-officials got this “extra” money?
Do Golikova and Khristenko deserve criminal liability if they cannot explain the origin of this “extra” money?
If your answer to both questions is “Yes,” then this is exactly why we are running our campaign.
If your answer is “Yes,” then let’s achieve this together. To advance our initiative, we urgently need:
In higher resolution here or here (second version).
Join us and help us. Fighting corruption is the work of the people living in a country drowning in corruption.