Yesterday, Vedomosti published an excellent article, "Viktor Vekselberg’s Company Turns Out to Have Massive Debts": The assets of Gazprom Energoholding, which is supposed to serve as the basis for the merger (TGK-1, Mosenergo, and OGK-2 with OGK-6 folded into it), were valued at 250 billion rubles. KES Holding, whose assets Renova planned to contribute to the joint venture (TGK-5, TGK-6, TGK-7, TGK-9, and a number of retail energy companies), was valued at 120–162 billion rubles. But on its balance sheet (as of the end of 2011), auditors found 130 billion rubles in debt. If you add the holding’s internal debt to Vekselberg’s Renova, then the debt reaches 160 billion rubles, which is comparable to the value of the entire company. True, the holding’s companies do have 35–40 billion rubles on deposit, a source familiar with the deal emphasizes. Very good business: a) acquire energy assets dirt cheap during the “electric power reform” in exchange for promises of massive investment; b) over several years, pull cash out of the company and drive it into debt; c) sell it back to the state (in the form of Gazprom). I’m saying this because many people commented on the "Hungarian case" we are investigating along the lines of, "Why would Vekselberg steal $60 million if he’s a billionaire?" Well, as the article shows, a little extra cash is never unwelcome, and every little bit helps. That was a lyrical digression. I’m actually writing to report on our work on this very same "Hungarian case." Read to the end — there’s an interesting document there: The last post on this topic was http://navalny.livejournal.com/613616.html about how the Investigative Committee does not consider corruption a crime and has no intention of opening a criminal case. Since then: We appealed to the Presnensky District Court of Moscow and to the Moscow city prosecutor regarding: the investigator’s inaction, namely the failure to send Navalny A.A., in violation of Part 4, Article 148 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, a copy of the August 8, 2011 decision refusing to open a criminal case. They did not give us a copy of the ruling in order to make further action more difficult. the August 8, 2011 decision by V.Yu. Veshchikov, investigator for especially important cases in the Second Department for the Investigation of Especially Important Cases of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Russian Investigative Committee in Moscow, refusing to open a criminal case. On point 1: Our complaint about the failure to send us a copy of the decision refusing to open a criminal case was upheld by the Moscow prosecutor’s office, and the Main Investigative Directorate of the Russian Investigative Committee in Moscow was instructed to remedy the violation and hand over a copy of the relevant decision.
An amusing detail: friendly sources in the Investigative Committee told us that after receiving this demand from the prosecutor’s office, Yakovenko, the head of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Russian Investigative Committee in Moscow, personally went to see Bastrykin to ask whether they should actually give us a copy of the decision or not (even though this is a direct requirement of Part 4, Article 148 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code). They’re protecting dear little Vekselberg and the crooks from Mezhregion. From that very decision refusing to open a criminal case, which they hid from us for so long, it followed that during the 30-day inquiry, the investigator did not obtain a statement from a single person other than me. Several requests were also sent out, most of which never received any response. The case materials included copies of two state contracts and three reports assessing the building’s market value — the very documents on the basis of which the money was stolen. There was no real reasoning at all behind the conclusion that there was no criminal offense in Vekselberg’s actions (“sufficient objective data have not currently been obtained”). On point 2: The decision refusing to open a criminal case was appealed to the Presnensky District Court of Moscow under Article 125 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code. Instead of the 5 days required by the Code, our complaint was considered for 4 months. Here again, our Vekselberg-loving friends in the Russian Investigative Committee distinguished themselves by failing to provide the judge, upon request, with the inquiry materials. The hearing was postponed no fewer than 6 times. We even filed a complaint about this with the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation. As a result, on December 22, 2011, our complaint was considered and upheld. The decision refusing to open a criminal case was declared unlawful and unfounded, and the court ordered the head of the investigative department to remedy the violations.
The Presnensky Court’s ruling is here. The judge stated outright that no real inquiry into the complaint had in fact been conducted, since a statement had been obtained only from the complainant. At the same time, the investigator gave no reasoning for the decision refusing to open a criminal case. An interesting point: the prosecutor par***ticipating in the hearing supported the demands in our complaint and insisted that the decision refusing to open a criminal case be declared unlawful. ***In court, we were able to fully review and photograph the inquiry materials. 7 volumes, 1,269 pages, and 90% of the materials consisted of 3 valuation reports. While reviewing them, an interesting loose document fell out of one of the volumes.
As we know for certain, on the very day the decision refusing to open a criminal case was issued — August 8, 2011 — all of the inquiry materials were immediately sent to the Main Directorate for Procedural Oversight of the Russian Investigative Committee, where they remained until the end of December. That is why the Presnensky Court was unable to consider our complaint. So, the document in question is most likely a draft memo prepared by a staffer for senior officials during their review and examination of the materials. From this piece of paper, it follows that in order to resolve the question of the legality of the Moscow Main Investigative Directorate’s decision refusing to open a criminal case, a proposal was submitted to Medvedev and Putin to send information about the deal to the Accounts Chamber (Russia’s state audit body) so it could review the legality of the expenditure of budget funds. A handwritten note then says: the materials were not sent to the Accounts Chamber because the memorandum came back without approval. Translated into plain Russian: Bastrykin reported to Medvedev and Putin that he had some fascinating seven-volume reading material on Vekselberg and certain members of the government, and, in order to decide whether criminal prosecution should follow, proposed that they instruct the Accounts Chamber to investigate the deal. Medvedev and Putin rejected the proposal. Very interesting, isn’t it? Of course, we have no way of proving that this paper is genuine and not fabricated by us — you’ll just have to take our word for it. To somehow prod Bastrykin’s subordinates, who seem deeply concerned with Mr. Vekselberg’s peace of mind, we sent the Moscow Main Investigative Directorate a lengthy motion, based on an analysis of the inquiry materials, laying out point by point what needs to be done first in order to bring those responsible to criminal liability. At present, in compliance with the Presnensky Court’s ruling, the Moscow Main Investigative Directorate is conducting an additional inquiry. Its term has been extended to 30 days and expires on March 3, 2012. Since that is a Saturday, the next procedural decision will be made on Monday, March 5, 2012. A fine day they picked. And now for the most interesting part. Just yesterday, good news arrived from a place we no longer expected it from. Here is the response to a parliamentary inquiry by State Duma deputy Petrov. A surprise for you, dear Viktor Feliksovich!
As you can see, the Interior Ministry is officially stating that it sees signs of fraud in the actions of our subjects. That is an excellent fact. We are beginning to look to the future with cautious optimism. At the very least, it will now be much harder for the Investigative Committee to shield the crooks in this case. We are now waiting for a response from the prosecutor’s office, which we will publish immediately. That’s how things stand.