Translated material
“The regime of Bashar al-Assad is a prototype of the future of Russia.” Corruption results of the year with Ilya Shumanov* (“Transparency International Russia”*)
Some 10 years ago, Transparency International Russia experts were members of the public councils of federal departments, and the government introduced anti-corruption measures based on their recommendations. But in April 2015, the organization became one of the first to be added to the list of foreign agents by the Russian Ministry of Justice. After the start of “SVO”, the general director of the organization, Ilya Shumanov, also appeared on this list. We talked with him about why the Russian political regime is so intolerant of anti-corruption practices and what “traditional values” have to do with it.
— Usually, when we talk about the results of the year in the field of corruption and the fight against it, we talk about Russian oligarchs and officials. But in 2024, in my opinion, a topic that is clearly not fully reflected is suspicions of corruption around the Anti-Corruption Fund after an investigation into its cooperation with the thieving leaders of Probusinessbank. How did this even become possible? And what prospects, in your opinion, can there be after this for an organization that has set the fight against corruption as its goal?
— It’s difficult for me to answer, first of all, because at the value level, FBK and I are on the same basis. I don’t know if they consider me their colleague, in my opinion, we do the same things. But this is a special conversation also because FBK is not just an NGO that fights corruption, but also a political organization in opposition to the current regime, recognized by it as extremist and working in exile. An organization whose leader was killed, while other members of the organization are being persecuted and also trying to kill. Therefore, my rhetoric will inevitably be adjusted in some way to this context.
I would not say that we can talk about abuses in the Anti-Corruption Fund. In my opinion, the problem lies in the lack of a properly built ethical infrastructure within the organization, which has led to the unacceptable appearance within this organization of people with a troubled past. It seems to me that any person responsible for compliance within an NPO should have raised the question regarding the background of the people who appeared in the organization. As far as I understand, when Alexei Zheleznyak was introduced to the FBK board of directors, it was 2022 - when the fund was just recognized as an extremist organization in Russia, when the war began, criminal cases appeared against Alexei Navalny’s associates, funding restrictions, etc. Perhaps their resources were not enough to properly build this ethical infrastructure, I mean to screen potential partners.
It was hardly a conscious decision to invite for work communication people with high risks in terms of money laundering, who have corrupt connections with the Prosecutor General’s Office.
This is my perception of this situation, and I separate Zheleznyak’s role in FBK from the role of Zheleznyak and Leontyev in the history of Probusinessbank. Because their actions as bankers were not only unethical, but also against the law. I see no traces of their political persecution in Russia. And it is obvious that the recent revocation of Zheleznyak’s Cypriot passport is clear evidence that the European authorities perceive him as a person with a tarnished reputation. This happened not thanks to the investigation of Maxim Katz, but because Zheleznyak and Leontyev were wanted in Russia for economic crimes long before political repressions in Russia were launched.
— This immediately raises a couple of questions for the future. On the one hand, all Russian third sector organizations are now, by default, at risk and are forced to hide information that is critical for them as much as possible. On the other hand, this forced secrecy creates opacity and grounds for abuse, as we saw in the example of the same FBK. And on the third hand, in the case of organizations financed by Mikhail Khodorkovsky and which most actively criticized FBK, there is no need to talk about any transparency at all - there is generally some kind of black box there. Do you think the time has come to solve this problem systematically? Or is everyone simply not interested in it now and let people do at least something useful, no matter under what conditions?
- Let's now try to get away from another misconception. The Anti-Corruption Fund is not exactly a third sector. This is a political organization that sets as its goal the struggle for power and actively participates in the struggle for power. She has supporters who will donate money to her. And this organization must be accountable and transparent, at least to its supporters. It seems to me that a political group participating in the struggle for power within Russia discloses information about who finances it - this is normal practice. Even in the current conditions, supporters should receive some kind of information. But you and I have already mentioned that the organization is in exile and in Russia you can get a criminal case for financing it. And it seems to me that there are not many such examples in history at all. In modern Russian history, it is certainly impossible to remember anything like this.
Therefore, this is a set of special conditions that you either have to agree with or not.
As for Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky, yes, indeed, he has a whole pool of projects - non-profit organizations, socio-political media, and investigative media. But they position themselves precisely as media and non-profit organizations. They have no political ambitions. At the same time, they do not hide their connection with Khodorkovsky. Here, it seems to me, there are more elements of trust in such activities. Yes, there is a man with money who finances his projects. This is the first point.
Second point. Is Khodorkovsky a politician, does he declare his claim to power? Yes, in my opinion, he is talking about political struggle. But the fact that a politician’s money is spent on non-profit projects and media is a different story. In the first case, the Anti-Corruption Foundation collects money from people to fight corruption and make their own media; in the second case, the person already has money and spends it on his own projects and is involved in politics. Still, different conditions.
At an anti-war forum in Berlin, Khodorkovsky made a statement about the need for transparent financing of non-profit organizations. No matter how we criticize it, including in connection with the Nevzlin scandal, this is a good, worthwhile initiative, it deserves attention.
In my opinion, there is a lack of such in-house initiatives in the third sector and in political organizations in exile. And if they don’t exist, this will lead to numerous scandals that will destroy the reputation of the third sector, opposition organizations, and democratic forces in general.
“Then let’s move on to the usual suspects.” And first of all, to the story of Bashar al-Assad’s escape from Syria, because it is now obvious: the Russian state participated in financing a regime that is probably even more criminal than Putin’s. Have you also studied this issue, what can you say about this?
Subscribe to read in full
Subscribe to Redefine.Media to read Republic
Subscribe [You can pay with a Russian or foreign card. The subscription is renewed automatically. You can unsubscribe at any time.]
Where does the subscribers' money go?