December 10, 2019, 14:55 / Finance

Avetisyan was unable to protect his business reputation

Value judgments, even negative ones, are not a reason to hold the media accountable, the court found Ekaterina Litova Artem Avetisyan / Maxim Grigoriev / TASS

The Moscow Arbitration Court refused to satisfy the claim of the main owner of Vostochny Bank, Artem Avetisyan, against the publication Argumenty Nedeli. Avetisyan asked the court to recognize the March article “Who ordered Calvi? “About the special relationship between Artem Avetisyan and Andrei Belousov,” says the reasoning part of the court’s decision. The article reports that the initiation of a criminal case against the founder of the Baring Vostok investment fund, Michael Calvey, was organized by Avetisyan thanks to his acquaintances with high-ranking officials. It also reports that Avetisyan made fictitious transactions to withdraw money from Uniastrum Bank before its merger in 2017 with Vostochny.

Avetisyan included “illegal influence on the investigation during the initiation of a criminal case against Calvey and his arrest through his partner Sherzod Yusupov” as information discrediting his business reputation (based on his application to the FSB, a criminal case was opened), the court decision says. Avetisyan also considered the information about his acquaintance with presidential assistant Andrei Belousov and other influential persons discreditable. As an example of information discrediting his reputation, he cited the following fragments of the article: “According to the investor himself, Vostochny Bank shareholder Artem Avetisyan was interested in his arrest,” “...a macroeconomist like Belousov ultimately did not come out in support of Michael Calvey . It turns out that this can indirectly be considered as complete agreement with Avetisyan’s actions and, given their strong friendship, even possible help? Then the question arises: did Belousov himself know about the true reasons for Calvey’s arrest, or did he simply trust Avetisyan?”

Avetisyan considered the reference in the article to the alleged withdrawal of money from Uniastrum Bank to be unreliable.

Calvey revealed new details of the deal that the security forces did not like

According to the American businessman, the deal scheme was invented by Sherzod Yusupov, who later wrote a statement to the intelligence service

The article, according to Avetisyan, is a report of unreliable and defamatory information about a businessman about the initiation of a criminal case as a result of illegal pressure on investigative authorities using personal relationships with government officials. He demanded that Arguments of the Week publish a refutation.

Both the fragments disputed by Avetisyan and the entire article as a whole contain the following links: “Michael Calvey himself claims...”, “According to Calvey,” “There is a version circulating in telegram channels...”, “Some observers remind... ", "As the media write...", the court indicated. At the same time, as the defendant explained, Calvey made his statements during the court hearing on the day of his arrest - February 15, which was immediately reported in their articles by a number of leading news agencies and media outlets. In addition, the disputed fragments contain reflections and reasoning of the author of the article, caused by media reports about the very short deadlines for conducting a pre-investigation check and initiating a criminal case against Calvey.

The phrases contested by Avetisyan do not contain information about any fact, but represent a series of value judgments in the form of comparison, criticism, subjective analysis and assumptions, the judge concluded. The article also contains the author’s personal judgments about the current situation, which is a subjective opinion, or quotes and summarizes information previously published in the media.

Previously on the topic: Vostochny demands 10 billion rubles from Calvey and the Baring Vostok structure

At the same time, the judge continues, the statements themselves, even if they are perceived negatively by the plaintiff, are not subject to refutation in court and cannot serve as a basis for holding the media liable: the style and manner of presentation of the disputed information are only a form of expression of the defendant’s opinion. The defendant’s disputed phrases are evaluative in nature and express the defendant’s critical subjective opinion about the plaintiff’s activities.

Vedomosti sent a request to Artem Avetisyan.