"I would call this criminal scheme"

Interview with an expert on corruption of Ilya Shumanov, in which we asked him to explain as simply as possible to what the meaning of the dispute of Katz and the FBK (and which of them is right)

In early October, the politician Maxim Katz accused the Corruption Fund of supposedly helped the former owners of Probeseskankank Sergey Leontyev and Alexander Zheleznyak to avoid responsibility for theft of money belonging to depositors. Moreover, as Katz believes, Leontyev, thanks to the connection with the opposition, received political asylum in the United States. The FBK released his answer in three weeks: the fund published a video in which he tried to refute the accusations of "roofing bankers." In particular, the FBC insists that the “volunteer” Zheleznyak performed “technical work” in the American legal entity of the Fund. On the same day, when the FBK published the answer to Katsu, Zheleznyak announced his departure from the FBK; It was this Katz who publicly demanded from the FBK. Despite the fact that both positions-both Kats and the Fund for the fight against corruption-are represented in great detail, the story of many still seems difficult to understand. At the request of Medusa, the journalist-investigator Julia Starostina asked the head of “Transpenseri International-Russia in Exile” Ilya Shumanova to once again make out the arguments of the parties and explain what issues remain for each of them.

Before you start, remember the brief story of a probe business

To know

Probusinessbank in 1993 was founded by childhood friends, Muscovites Sergey Leontyev and Alexander Zheleznyak. The bankers were able not only to survive the crisis of 1998 (a week before the default, their bank issued a million dollars for the Rolling Stones concert in Luzhniki), but also to expand their banking network into zero. Having bought several banks in the regions, in 2006 the bankers united them along with the head probes-businessbank into the Life group.

By the beginning of the 2010s, the Life group ranked fifth in Russia in terms of the size of the branch network, and Probusinessbank itself, as in the 1990s, closed the fifth dozen Russian banks. But in August 2015, the Central Bank withdrew the license of Probusinessbank, and in October recognized him bankrupt. On the day of recall of the License, the Central Bank estimated the hole in the bank at least 67 billion rubles. Later, the regulator has repeatedly changed its damage assessment.

You can find out a detailed story of Probusinessbank from a recent investigation of The Bell.

- What does Maxim Katz accuse Sergei Leontyev , Alexander Zheleznyak and FBK, if you explain as simple as possible?

- The version of Maxim Katz, if simplified, is as follows: cash ( at least $ 470 million - hereinafter it purifies, - approx. Medusa ) from Probeseskubanka were stolen. He gives the theft scheme, and all his investigation is devoted to her. The funds from Probusinessbank were placed in the accounts of foreign and Russian brokers . Then these money from brokerage organizations fell into offshores that controlled Zheleznyak and Leontiev. But the beneficiary of these offshores (for example, in the case of Vermenda on [British] Virgin Islands), a random woman was indicated, who was paid for this service 100 euros. The funds withdrawn from the accounts of the broker, Zheleznyak and Leontiev were used at their discretion for personal enrichment.

The very fact of the transfer of funds from Probusinessbank to the account of the broker is not a crime or an offense, as Katz says . But the further use of funds, the issuance of loans, which Probusinessbank itself provided (that is, guaranteed their payment), in fact, theft of funds.

In the future, Zheleznyak or Leontiev used these money for personal purposes. They played on the exchange, invested, and the profit through a chain of companies was brought out, for example, to Leontiev’s trust, registered on Cook Islands .

Katsu’s claims to the Corruption Fund are that Leontyev and Zheleznyak from some point financed FBK with donations. Zheleznyak held a position in the international FBK - supposedly in exchange for the fact that the fund should have helped bankers in courts. That is, [Navalny's associates should have been defended, saying that these people are fighting corruption and faced political persecution by the Russian authorities.

This, of course, is a very simplified explanation, the interpretation of the Katz investigation.

- Are the FBK arguments sufficient to refute the charges?

- In general, the depositors of Probusinessbank counted several different schemes for withdrawing funds from the bank. Katz made out only one story, it is really big. This is the use of brokers, including foreign ones, to withdraw funds.

There are two questions to the explanation of the FBK. The first is to volume [funds]. Even in his response, the FBK did not find all the money that was withdrawn and had to return to Probusinessbank. I [in the reporting of Probusinessbanka] found them even less: out of hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of subordinated loans of those reflected on the balance sheet of the bank, about six million dollars were received. That is, an insignificant part [compared to the amount that was withdrawn]. You can argue [about specific amounts], but it is definitely clear that not all money has returned back. I say that, most likely, a negligible small part returned, and the FBK says that a lot has returned - but not all.

The second question is: how and where [the money brought out of the bank] money returned? The FBK publishes documents in its investigation and shows that [relatively speaking] today the money came to Vermenda offshore , and tomorrow they fall on Vermenda account in Probeskushkank. Let's simplify the most for explanation. Suppose the offender stole funds from the bank, came to the same bank, opened an account - and formally they affected the bank's account. But this does not mean that the bank still owns these cash. This means that Vermenda has placed its money on the bank account. We understand that the withdrawn funds and funds placed by the commercial company on the bank account is not the same thing. Bank's money and money of a commercial company are different stories.

The FBK claims that the funds entered the bank back, but from their explanation it is not obvious to me for one simple reason: funds were received anywhere, [and not only to Probusinessbank]. The accounts of the Life Collection Bureau , which is not formally connected with Probesknishbank, for some other commercial projects that the bank owners controlled, but not to the bank itself. And part of the money was generally dissolved.

I would not argue that offshore companies returned funds to Probusinessbank. At least this does not follow from what FBK showed. The fact that some companies controlled by the top managers of Probusinessbank opened their accounts in the same bank, no matter. It is important that these companies were transferred to Latvian banks, and then along the chain they simply went in an unknown direction.

The FBK response to part of the prosecution, allegedly with the “circumvention” of the reputation of bankers, I do not want to touch. Not because I have no opinion on this subject, but because I believe that commenting on this is untimely. Zheleznyak [after the investigation of Katz] left the position of FBK, and it makes no sense to talk on this topic. The action that Maxim Katz demanded, in fact, has already happened.

What is good in the answer of the FBK is that they recognize the story related to prosecutors. Walking around this topic is already pointless in circles: too much about this story was written by [scientist and journalist] Andrei Zazakin ( by link - his text in The Insider ). We previously knew that Kamo Avagumyan and Avilon were kept in Probesesbanka the prosecutor's common fund, the shadow cash desk of the Prosecutor General’s Office. Obviously, this alone should already be enough for us to talk about Zheleznyak and Leontyev as people who helped to wash money for those in relation to whom Navalny himself made investigations . About the [former deputy prospector of Saak] Karapetyan , [former Prosecutor General Yuri] Chaika and “Avilon”, the FBC published the investigation - and here their money enters the bank related to bankers, which now occupy positions in the FBK.

- Following the results of the FBK response, in which there were excerpts from documents confirming that there were wiring, but the money went to non -bank projects, and taking into account the publication of Andrei Zazakin in The Insider (where Zheleznyak and Leontiev told a lot themselves ), do you think the bankers stole money money?

- Look, such concepts as the “external contour” of the bank, the “off -balance companies” of the bank, which everyone is talking about, does not exist. This is all nothing to do with the bank. When bankers remove assets from the bank, the bank no longer owns them. They are already disposed of the bankers themselves.

When the bankers say that “we twisted, twists, performed some operations, played with blue chips ”, this has nothing to do with banking. The argument “everyone did this” [also does not count]: in fact, not, not everyone did it. And to say this is just an attempt to relieve yourself of responsibility.

When the Central Bank [in 2015] withdrew the license and the temporary administration landed in Probusinessbank, it was no longer possible to return the money from brokerage accounts, because the agreements were drawn up.

- Yes, the agreements were drawn up in such a way that in the event of a recall of a license from Probusinessbank, all securities as a security deposit remained with brokers.

- That's right. This is a disaster for creditors, for depositors. In the bank - a hole. People who were supposed to get their money on the obligations of the bank remain with nothing.

We are now talking only about the scheme with operations with brokers, but, in addition, there were others. The day before the recall of the license from Probusinessbank, when the bank’s accounts were already frozen, 625 million rubles were taken from the cash register and transferred them to another bank Life -Express-Volga. That is, attempts to withdraw funds, to abduct them even at such a level.

Further [among schemes]-issuing loans for technical companies ( laying companies ). Here we are already talking about a complex scheme with brokers. These are just loans to technical companies, "garbage dumps" that controlled the top managers of Probeskankank. The dull scheme that was used to urgently withdraw assets from the bank, already assuming that he will be responded with a license.

There is a combination of indirect evidence that bankers probably knew that Probeseskanka was threatening. Leontiev leaves a few days before the recall of the license - probably assuming that [soon against him] criminal prosecution may begin. A few months earlier, he buys a Cyprus passport, apparently, again insured, assuming that reckoning will follow his actions. A few days before the recall of the DIA license, it came and took away its 600 million rubles, which lay on deposits in Probusinessbank, which was also a red flag [and after which it became clear that there would probably be no rehabilitation].

Well, the last moment: there is a Fitch rating agency, which eight months before the recall of the Central Bank license withdrew a credit rating from Probusinessbank because it could not confirm where its money was placed. Apparently, it was about brokerage accounts ( meaning that by that time the funds had already gone through brokerage accounts ). In fact, [bred] assets were reflected on the bank's balance sheet twice. For the first time - in the form of those deposits on brokerage accounts that were reflected on the balance sheet in Probusinessbank, and in the second - in the form of subordinated loans, which were given to the banks of the company. This means that bankers falsified banking reports.

In fact, people [Leontyev and Zheleznyak] say: "Well, we puffed up the balance, we distorted reports, we tried to make money." But falsification is a criminal offense. That is, [speaking of the reporting of Probusinessbank], it is impossible to get away from the fact of violation of the law. Falsification of reporting led to a hole in the bank, the loss of liquid assets - and the inability to fulfill obligations to creditors.

I will add to this that the hole was not only in Probusinessbank, but also in other banks of the Life group-in Express-Volga, in a university-bank. That is, this is the story of not only one probes business. It’s just that those Central Bank began to sanctify , but Probusinessbank did not become and simply closed.

- Did the Central Bank have entered the Probesesbanka correctly?

- From 2014 to 2016, Elvira Nabiullina at the head of the Central Bank was engaged in clearing the Russian banking sector. And most of the captive banks, where the shareholders transferred money from a bank pocket to their own, the Central Bank closed, calling the licenses. What is the difference from the same banks Probusinessbank? It is no different.

Zheleznyak and Leontyev themselves admit that they used it as a capping bank to finance their own projects and some of these projects were not known to all shareholders of the bank and was agreed with them. Leontyev himself explained that other managers, bank investors did not let the bank with blue chips on the capital of the bank with the formulation of “We Donaff Another Bloodge Hedge Fund” ( “We do not need another trait of the hedge fund” ).

Leontiev closed this direction inside the bank, but created a new [personal] structure, Wonderworks, which continued to engage in these transactions. That is, the shareholders said: "We do not need highly risked transactions, do just banking." And they [the owners of the bank], as I understand it, did anything - they took money from the prosecutors, laundered this money, played on the exchange, financed their own projects, but all this had a very limited attitude to banking.

“The FBK claims that part of the funds brought out from the bank was spent on buying up shares of Apple, Facebook, Google and BP, but the money“ returned to where they were taken, with interest. ” We are talking about the personal structure of Leontyev Wonderworks, which received loans from Probeseskankanka at low interest . FBK claims that "if all loans and interest on them are paid, then it is impossible to say that this is theft." Do you agree with this?

- I will not answer this question, because here I do not have enough information. As I understand it, from the explanations of the bankers, Slezakin follows that Leontyev played on the exchange due to the loan for his personal company, [which Probesusbank issued], contrary to the desire of other shareholders, transferring all the risks to them and to the bank depositors.

That is, in theory, these loans should not have been issued. The controlled company Leontiev was not supposed to receive loans at 3-5% per year. In the reporting of Probusinessbank, there was no information on the issuance of a loan to one of the shareholders. Accordingly, this is again falsification of reporting - at least.

From the point of view of [reasoning about that], money was stolen or not stolen ... Yes, apparently, Leontiev traded well and earned on this. The amounts are called different . Where did he put this money? He put the money in his pocket. That is, using the money of the bank, he earned the money that he took.

If this is how they [bankers] say the “external contour of the bank”, then Leontyev simply returned the money that he took from him to the bank. But where is the bank profit in the reporting? I have no answer. This scheme itself is definitely illegal. I would call this criminal scheme.

Moreover, when it came to the testimony - after all, a criminal case was instituted in Russia against Leontiev - [investigators] began to interview other bank managers, those whom Zheleznyak and Leontyev left in Russia. And they told a very terrible story. The hole in Probusinessbank appeared much earlier [August 2015, when the Central Bank revoked a license]-in 2009, when Leontiev allegedly withdrew from the bank’s assets under a billion rubles. And all the remaining time, until 2015, the bank’s management was engaged in masked this hole.

That is, bank managers say that a parallel system of dozens of different companies was created. They were headed by bank employees, receiving an additional salary for this - in order to falsify reports and withdraw money from the bank, issue loans and involve these money in other projects of the bank's shareholders. The bank had a whole management that was engaged in such illegal operations! It was called "Valkyrie" , about this the Bell writes in detail.

It is clear that the managers of Probusinessbank testified, being in a pre -trial detention center under criminal prosecution, [that is, they could have their own motives, they could also be under pressure]. But they described the scheme in detail. And part of the comments about the individual management and employees who received salaries [for covering the conclusions of assets] are beating that the bankers themselves told Andrei Zazakin.

-In 2017, Vladimir Ashurkov , who at that time, in 2017, was the Executive Director of the FBK, wrote the statement “For the court to provide Leontyev asylum in the United States” (I quote FBK). Is it correct to consider this statement by political protection by the FBK - for a banker who is persecuted in Russia on criminal charges of embezzlement?

- Listen, well, Ashurkov Banker himself. FBK insists that he acted not as a person representing the FBK, but as an individual. That he personally knew Leontiev and Zheleznyak and personally communicated with them, without the participation of the FBK ...

Если мы говорим про то, что эти люди [Леонтьев и Железняк] связаны с представителями Генпрокуратуры, которые держали у них в банке деньги, а ФБК расследовал коррупцию в Генпрокуратуре, то, конечно, здесь есть этическая дилемма.

— Какие вопросы после всего этого остаются к ФБК?

— Пускай ФБК не считает, что Леонтьев и Железняк украли деньги. [При этом фонд признает, что] они связаны с общаком Генпрокуратуры. В Пробизнесбанке шло отмывание денег прокурорского общака. Вся эта история была известна, уже были суды , вся информация была. Какого черта они допустили такого человека к каким-то управленческим функциям внутри Фонда борьбы с коррупцией?

Для меня история с Пробизнесбанком очевидна. Я согласен, что [в расследовании] у Каца было очень много допущений и передергиваний. Он раскрыл не всю информацию, он ничего не говорил про то, что выведенные деньги шли обратно в Пробизнесбанк, — а это на самом деле важно, пусть мы их объем и считаем по-разному.

Но очевидно, что у ФБК могли возникнуть подозрения относительно Железняка и Леонтьева еще на старте их взаимодействия. Просто процедура проверки не была проведена должным образом. Почему этого не было сделано — остается, наверное, самым главным вопросом.

В самом ФБК признают наличие, как они называют, «неэтичных операций в Пробизнесбанке». Хотя для меня они выглядят как фальсификация отчетности и мошеннические действия. Вкладчиками банка были граждане России, среди них есть малый и средний бизнес! Неужели это неважно? Мне кажется, это важно — критически важно! — для любой политической структуры.

Беседовала Юлия Старостина