Translated material
"Incomprehensible claims"
The Ministry of Finance is perplexed about the arrest of Sergei Storchak
Representatives of the Ministry of Finance yesterday announced their version of the events that led to the arrest of the deputy head of this department, Sergei Storchak, who was detained last week on suspicion of fraud. According to them, we are talking about settling Algeria’s debt to Russia, which, due to his duties, among other things, Mr. Storchak was involved in. However, the Ministry of Finance is perplexed as to why investigators could suddenly see signs of fraud in that story, and note that all the details of that story were agreed upon and approved by a number of departments and the government.As already reported, Sergei Storchak, who acted as Russia's main negotiator with foreign partners on issues of external debt, was detained by FSB officers last Thursday. Along with him, the head of the Interregional Investment Bank (IIB) Vadim Volkov (formerly also Deputy Minister of Finance) and the general director of the capital's Sodexim CJSC Viktor Zakharov were also detained. According to the investigation, officially announced by the Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor's Office (SKP), they created a criminal group with the aim of stealing 43.4 million dollars from the federal budget under the pretext of covering the costs incurred by Sodexim. True, the UPC did not give any explanations as to what the fraud actually consisted of.
The Ministry of Finance itself initially commented sparingly on the deputy minister’s arrest. And the head of the department, Alexei Kudrin, who was on a business trip to South Africa, did not comment on the accusations themselves, but gave his subordinate unequivocally positive characteristics, thereby expressing his support for the deputy minister. Immediately after Mr. Kudrin’s return, the press service of the Ministry of Finance issued substantive explanations.
The department's statement says that the official's arrest is related to the Algerian debt. “Algeria owes Russia for loans previously provided by the former USSR,” the Ministry of Finance said. — In the 90s, within the framework of Russian-Algerian agreements, the debt had to be repaid with commodity supplies. The Sodexim company was chosen to implement these agreements. The debt repayment scheme was simple: the company must sell goods received from the Algerian side and transfer the proceeds to the budget minus its interest on sales. But in order for the budget to be guaranteed for such payments, the company first had to transfer the money to the treasury, and only then receive the goods.” According to the Ministry of Finance, in 1996 Sodexim transferred $26 million to the budget. “The payment was made to the Ministry of Finance’s account at Vnesheconombank (VEB), this is confirmed by relevant documents,” the ministry said. - In turn, Sodexim was given the right to receive goods from the Algerian side for an agreed amount with their further sale in both the Russian and foreign markets. According to such a plan, after the goods are sold, the corresponding amount of Algeria’s debt to Russia would be written off.” However, Algeria refused supplies without compensating Sodexim, after which the company unsuccessfully tried to get its money back.
At the beginning of 2006, an intergovernmental agreement was signed and ratified between Russia and Algeria to settle Algerian debt and write off $4.7 billion. In exchange for this, contracts for the supply of Russian weapons to Algeria worth $7.5 billion were confirmed. The same agreement stipulates that all financial claims of Russian legal entities related to trade between countries in the previous period will be settled by the governments of the two countries independently, the Ministry of Finance noted. - Thus, Russia took upon itself the obligation to settle settlements with the Sodexim company, which, in turn, lost all grounds to further demand reimbursement of expenses incurred from the Algerian side. In 2006, the company turned to our government with a request to compensate for the costs. This issue was considered by the government and agreed with the Ministry of Economic Development. Ultimately, the government approved this approach. It is unclear what the law enforcement agencies’ claims are against Mr. Storchak.”
As the Ministry of Finance explained, $43.4 million, the attempted theft of which the investigation is trying to incriminate Mr. Storchak, is calculated precisely from the amount that Sodexim once transferred to the budget - this is $26 million and accrued interest for the period from 1996 until the date of repayment of the obligation. “In this regard, all documents on the debt were studied,” the ministry explained. — Both the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, the Ministry of Finance, and VEB came to the conclusion that such a debt is justified. On behalf of the government, the Ministry of Finance prepared amendments to the 2007 budget law, according to which the government has the right to settle the debt to Sodexim.”
At the same time, the Ministry of Finance emphasized that the department has not yet given a final conclusion. “There is only the ministry’s assessment of possible options, and the amount of compensation is the subject of negotiations. The decision had to be made after numerous examinations - by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, the Ministry of Finance, VEB, the Ministry of Justice, and then the legal department of the government at the end of November this year. It’s strange to say that someone has already caused or is going to cause damage to the budget. We don’t see any dubiousness about the debt, there is no dispute, all the circumstances are quite clear and transparent.” As noted in the Ministry of Finance, this week the department will provide all the documents necessary for the investigation confirming the innocence of the deputy minister and other arrested people.
Mr. Storchak’s lawyer, Igor Pastukhov, did not comment yesterday on the progress of the criminal case, noting only that there are “many ambiguities and vagueness” in the case, and he does not understand what exactly his client is suspected of. The defender also noted that no investigative actions have yet been carried out with any of the suspects.