“Ricochet” (November 11, 2019). An investigation by FBK into the hidden real estate of Moscow’s prosecutor

Good evening! You told it all very well, very accurately, except for the word “may.” Because it’s not “may”—that’s exactly how it is. We proved it quite clearly with references to official state registries in Montenegro and Spain.

Well, we’re about to sort all that out now. Before we get into the details, I’ll launch a poll. In your view—and I’m addressing our listeners—will there be at least an internal review prompted by this investigation into the case of the Moscow prosecutor? If yes, call 495 101 20 11. Or will there be a new wave of pressure on ACF, which exposed what I’ll again call the possible pleasures of life enjoyed by Denis Popov’s family? Your number is 495 101 20 22. I’m starting the poll. It’s live. Alexei, tell us, how did your investigation begin, and how did you manage to find yourselves inside walls apparently belonging to the family of the head of Moscow’s supervisory authority? – “Sorry, the connection was lost.”

Oh, well, we’ll try to restore the connection with Alexei Anatolyevich now. Meanwhile, in the investigation itself, Denis Popov is described in the preamble as one of the initiators of the so-called “Moscow Case” (the criminal prosecutions following the 2019 Moscow protest rallies). In any case, as someone at whose prompting, or under whose signature, indictments are repeatedly launched and submitted to the courts in cases that have already, in fact, led to real prison sentences for a number of those detained at the July 27 and August 3 rallies, and in cases followed by administrative proceedings with massive fines—fines in the thousands and in the hundreds of thousands. Alexei Anatolyevich, we’ve restored the connection. So where did the investigation begin? Tell us how you managed it.

Well, actually, some time ago people from prosecutor’s offices were simply writing to us and saying: “You know, there’s this thing—Moscow has just been assigned a new prosecutor. Putin appointed him. He’s the former prosecutor of Dagestan. Before that, he worked in Moscow.” And basically everyone knows that he owns property in Montenegro. We were fairly skeptical about it, because people write to us about all sorts of individuals. But then we started checking and indeed discovered that he and his wife had set up a company there. And at that time, in 2009–2010, he had nowhere near the income—well, even now he has nowhere near the income—to buy real estate worth millions of euros... We first uncovered Montenegro, then Spain, then a huge house on Rublyovka (an elite suburban area outside Moscow), then a fishing lodge in Astrakhan. And of course it made an impression on us. And what also made an impression was the sheer brazenness of it. People are simultaneously labeling everyone here foreign agents and investing money in Spain and Montenegro.

How can what you’re saying be verified? Because the video shows clips from Instagram, photographs—that’s all wonderful. But what is the documentary basis here?

The documentary basis is that we obtained official extracts from the registries of Spain and Montenegro stating that these companies were founded by prosecutor Popov’s wife. And at that moment they were married. This is officially joint marital property. So on the one hand, we have the declarations Popov filed. On the other, we have official data from the registries of Montenegro and Spain showing that his family was acquiring property at that time. And he failed to declare at least this for two years. So here we see, in principle, two violations. The main one is the question of where he got the money for all of this. And we maintain and believe that there is no explanation other than corruption. But there is also a less important, though formally more significant, issue: he did not declare it. On those grounds alone, he should of course be dismissed immediately.

A certain offshore company and its connection to prosecutor Denis Popov are mentioned there. Were you able to trace that in a way that is unambiguous and one hundred percent certain?

His wife—she’s there one hundred percent. The wife alone gives us grounds to demand Popov’s dismissal, because a spouse’s assets must also be listed in the declaration. But we believe that yes, he hid his own stake, directly tied to the name Denis Popov, behind an offshore structure that is much harder to trace—the British Virgin Islands. But even that is enough for us. From there, all of this should be handled by the FSB, the Interior Ministry, a proper prosecutor’s office, and all those people President Putin appealed to today when he complained about such terrible corruption. Specifically, he said everything had been stolen at the Vostochny Cosmodrome. Well, that raises the question: if it was all stolen, then maybe it was stolen because you created law enforcement bodies like this.

Well, they should be dealing with it, yes, but from your side, will you be taking any official steps—requests, statements, and so on? Or are you counting on them to step in on their own and decide to look into the affairs of the newly appointed prosecutor?

Well, even over the phone I can hear you smirking at the words “look into it on their own.”

No, not at all.

Of course, absolutely—since we have found ironclad grounds for Popov’s dismissal, we will write to Putin, to Chaika, to the FSB, and to the Interior Ministry, official letters everywhere so that they begin investigating the origin of the money. And of course we demand from Putin and Chaika that Popov be dismissed. We will provide all the documents, and it will be very clear: here is his company in Spain, here is his company in Montenegro, and here he is having declared nothing. So it will be fairly difficult for them to wriggle out of it. I assume that, as usual, they will simply ignore it. Well, then our job is to spread this information. And they may ignore it. They’ll probably pay for it with yet another drop in their ratings.

So, strictly speaking, there are two major, weighty grounds here: illicit enrichment and undeclared foreign real estate. Am I understanding you correctly?

Exactly right. And while in the case of illicit enrichment they can, well, simply... There’s no such article in the Criminal Code. It’s more of a political issue. They can somehow avoid discussing it. But when it comes to failure to declare, there is simply nowhere to hide. And there is no lawful way out of this situation other than removing the prosecutor from office.

And the fact that your YouTube video reached nearly half a million views in just a few hours—does that give you confidence, or at least foster the expectation, that there will be a reaction and that it will reach not one but several million, as happened with the investigation “He Is Not Dimon to You” (Navalny’s 2017 investigation into Dmitry Medvedev)?

Well, of course, I don’t even dream of beating the result of “He Is Not Dimon to You,” which has now been watched by 35 million people. But I do expect that many people will not only watch it but help spread this investigation, which is very important. And it seems to me that many are simply outraged by the fact that right now this very prosecutor and his people are putting people behind bars in the so-called “Moscow Case.” All these insane sentences they are demanding—4 years, 5 years, 3 years—simply for taking part in pickets or peaceful rallies—this is being done by the same man who is hiding his foreign real estate from us.

Alexei Navalny was with us. We were discussing the investigation released today, “The Secret Life of a Foreign Agent.” I launched a poll asking: “In your view, will there be at least an internal review prompted by this investigation into the case of the Moscow prosecutor?” And only 4% of those who voted believe that is really possible. The rest expect reprisals or pressure against ACF itself. This was Stanislav Kryuchkov and “Ricochet.” All the best to you!