The source of the telegram channel of the Cheka-OGPU said that Anatoly Chubais, moving around the countries, decided on the end point of his journey - he decided to settle in England. A place to stay has already been chosen. This is one of the most expensive and prestigious private villages of St. George's Hill in Surrey. There, a huge mansion belongs to Boris Mints, who in fact is the holder and custodian of the Chubais family office and assets for gigantic sums. Mintz bought a mansion next door and undertook expensive renovations, telling people it was for his son.
However, it has now become clear that Mintz's neighbor will not be a relative, but Anatoly Chubais, and it is he who is destined for the mansion in St. George's Hill.
As VChK-OGPU reported, initially Chubais planned to settle in Italy, where Oleg Kiselev, another holder of Chubais's assets, Oleg Kiselev (aka Gedalia Vakser), had previously acquired a mansion for him. But after the story of the poisoning in Italy, Chubais decided that it would be safer in England.
Over the past 2 (Two) years, publications about various financial "scams" in relation to or with the participation of Anatoly Chubais have systematically appeared in the Russian media.
Assessing the activities of Anatoly Chubais more carefully, it should be noted that in the vast majority of financial "scams" he continues to remain in the shadows.
"Planting material" are most of his deputies, friends, acquaintances, but not him.
In continuation of the publications on the website rucriminal.info dated August 07, 2022 “It is much tastier than paying a million” and dated August 29, 2022 “We are poor people, don’t give us all the profit”, another audio recording was at the disposal of the source of information revealing the source of the declared profitability and financing of the life of Anatoly Chubais on the territory of the Russian Federation.
The participants of this meeting, already known from previous publications, are:
1. Ilya Gulin - financial director of Mintsev companies;
2. Sergey Krychenko - Founder and General Director of the Russian Family Office of Anatoly Chubais;
3. Olga Butkova - financial director of the Russian family office of Anatoly Chubais,
At this meeting, the participants discussed and resolved the following issues:
- systematic provision of Anatoly Chubais with cash and non-cash funds using documents signed as part of "sham transactions" and ensuring the annual declared profitability;
- determination of the extremely low cost of the "purchase" by Anatoly Chubais of ZhK Peredelki in the region of 8,000,000 US dollars or 520,000,000 rubles.
Recall that the estimated cost of "ZhK Peredelki" amounted to around 47,000,000 US dollars, and the market, according to 3 (three) independent assessments, including the judicial one, amounted to: from 34,000,000 to 36,500,000 US dollars.
It should be assumed that in 2019, Anatoly Chubais purchased the property ZhK Peredelki from the Cypriot company of Boris Mints for the above amount, which was determined by the Chubais team in the annual budget.
Rosreestr does not provide any information on this issue.
- in view of the existing common interest between associate and business partner Boris Mints and Anatoly Chubais, it should be assumed that there is constant, direct financing, with a high degree of probability, illegally obtained, undeclared by Anatoly Chubais of his own funds through the offshore structures of Mints.
From numerous publications in the media in 2018-2022. it follows that Boris Mints is directly involved in the fraud of the Otkritie FC bank and the misappropriation of pension funds from Russian citizens by offshore companies (O1 Trust, O1 Properties, Crizna Holdings LTD, Denian LTD, Rafinha Holdings LTD, etc.) by incoming or affiliated with the financial corporation O1 Group owned by Boris Mints.
Some of the companies mentioned above were at the same time the so-called creditors of Anatoly Chubais.
Therefore, with a high degree of probability, it should be assumed that Anatoly Chubais used his share in the “illegally appropriated” Mintsy as borrowed money.
Under such circumstances, the position of the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow on the criminal case No. 123632 (No. nevertheless continuing to be considered by the judge Filchenko M.C.
Firstly: the criminal case was absolutely unreasonably sent for consideration by the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow, which has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of this court;
Secondly, for almost a year the case has not been considered on its merits, but has been postponed for various reasons;
Thirdly: in the presence of a lot of evidence available in the materials of case No. 123632 of gross violations of the law (UPTo and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), substitution, forgery and falsification of the materials of the case with a distortion of its actual circumstances, solely for the sole purpose of accusing Ilya Suchkov of serious crimes that he did not commit.
The court ignores the need to check, in particular, the nature of the origin of the so-called borrowed money, the “feigned nature” of loan agreements, which should be assumed to be concluded at the direction of Anatoly Chubais; the legitimacy of the evaluation of "ZhK Alterations" and bidding; the amount of the purchase by Anatoly Chubais of ZhK Peredelki and the reasons, the cost of subsequent sales of the above property to third parties.
During the consideration of case No. 01-0104/2022, in our opinion, it became clear that this judge is extremely interested in the outcome of the case, as evidenced by the current legislation of the Russian Federation cynically, grossly violated by the above-mentioned judge, namely:
- for almost a year now, the court has not considered it necessary to acquaint the defendants and their lawyers with the case materials;
- the court continues to consider criminal case No. 01-0104/2022 in the absence of part of the case materials indicated in the indictment;
- the court completely ignores and considers superficially the petitions of the defendants;
- the court refuses to issue refusals to challenge a judge and minutes of court sessions;
- the court refuses to call defense witnesses;
- the court ignores the absence in the case file of a decision recognizing Mosin D.The. the representative of the victim - the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (TILSOKA LIMITED);
- the court illegally admits to participation in court sessions, improper representatives of the injured Cyprus company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (TILSOKA LIMITED) - beneficiary Boris Mints) - Mosina D.V. and lawyer Goryaynov I.Yu.;
- the court illegally continues to consider criminal No. 01-0104/2022 with the amount of alleged damage caused to the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (TILSOKA LIMITED) not established by the investigation;
- the court continues to unlawfully consider criminal case No. 01-0104 / 2022 in the absence of the beneficiaries of the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (TILSOKA LIMITED) Mr. Mintsev arrested in absentia by the Basmanny District Court of Moscow, put on the wanted list and hiding from law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation in London, despite the obvious, significant discrepancies in their testimony, the testimony of Anatoly Chubais, the testimony of the so-called representatives of the victim of the above-mentioned Cyprus company - Kuksa R.V., Mosin D.V. and the materials of the case;
- the court continues to unlawfully consider criminal case No. 01-0104/2022 in the absence of the victim Chubais A.B. despite the obvious, significant discrepancies in the amount allegedly inflicted on Chubais by A.B. damage, i.e. on the circumstances underlying the indictment.
allowed by the judge Filchenko M.C. Numerous violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in the consideration of criminal case No. 01-0104 / 2022 are possible due to the absence of any response from the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Moscow City Court to numerous complaints filed by the defendants' defense, pointing to obvious illegal actions committed by the above-mentioned judge of the Khamovnichesky District Court Moscow.
In this connection, it becomes obvious that the Judicial Board has completely withdrawn itself in terms of judicial control over the court of first instance.
Unfortunately, as one would expect, this whole story of Mintsev and Anatoly Chubais ends more than successfully for them.
After all the "heavy hardships" Anatoly Chubais finally found, thanks to a friend, his haven in London - or rather, the "purse" found his master.
(Ilya Gulina (CFO Mintsev) with Sergey Krychenko (Adjutant Anatoly Chubais) and Olga Butkova (CFO of Anatoly Chubais Russian Family Office headed by Sergey Krychenko)
Sergei Krychenko: We said that you are ready to fulfill 12 (million rubles is meant), and we told you at the last meeting that we can even meet 10 (meaning million rubles). We are talking about this without having received a final verdict from the leader (Anatoly Chubais) who is waiting for me tomorrow
Olga Butkova: well, suddenly something will be added, from what we do not know
Sergey Krychenko: Yes, it is quite possible that the first half of the year will change, in which direction I do not know, hardly less. January (it means 2016) we completely closed, thank God everything is fine with us. And now let's go, get a piece of paper with your questions, we will now make ends meet. Now we have a connection between the requests for “grandmothers” and the ownership structure (meaning “ZhK Peredelki”). Now I am explaining that we are structuring our property (“LCD Alterations”) correctly. We give, we take for debts, we buy, right?
Ilya Gulin: yes
Sergey Krychenko: and all this should be accompanied by even some financial transactions, there is some connection here, so we want to establish this connection and understand at what point what we, with as much as needed.
Olga Butkova: now I turn on. In fact, before we talked, the cost of these Alterations (“LCD Alterations”) was estimated at around 8,000,000 US dollars, now this is a different rate, I considered the budget to be 520,000,000 rubles, respectively, we have “non-cash” money until they are gone. It is supposed that this will be “non-cash” money that you will return as part of the loan and then the same money will be returned somehow in cash, I don’t understand how it is. Dima (Dmitry Mints) will receive 520 (520,000,000 rubles under the contract for the sale of ZhK Peredelki concluded between him and Anatoly Chubais).
Ilya Gulin: what do I assume by default. The amount of money is returned to the “non-cash” account (by Anatoly Chubais) for the loan, of this money the part that you evaluate (assuming the assessment of ZhK Peredelok) goes to Dima (Dmitry Mints), at this moment we default to that this money is credited to a certain virtual account of the "boss" (Anatoly Chubais), that is, they return to him (Anatoly Chubais) in a non-cash form
Olga Butkova: but in non-cash, not in cash? This is important.
Ilya Gulin: we believe that a certain account with the “main” (Anatoly Chubais) with us (Mintsev) has increased by this amount, then from where the money is debited every time you need something. Then look, for example, you say we need to get this money, in fact, the money that originally belonged to him, his “white” money, “ok”, then we confirm this there and give it away in some range, because in any case, the equipment there will need to be discussed.
Olga Butkova: why am I asking this question, because when we discussed it with him (Anatoly Chubais), he says I don’t care about this topic because this is a technical amount (it means an amount of 520,000,000 rubles). I explain to him (Anatoly Chubais) that this technical amount should go from your personal account and, accordingly, this amount will be less on a non-cash account
Ilya Gulin: Yes, this is true, and we need to agree on what to do with this (meaning this money) as a reserve for personal future plans. This is the subject of some discussion. This is his (Anatoly Chubais) part of the "white" money transformed into income.
Sergey Krychenko: fix the question for tomorrow, what to do with these “grandmothers” (assumed with 520,000,000 rubles)
Olga Butkova: I have another question about non-cash money
Sergey Krychenko: on loan repayment?
Olga Butkova: yes. I don’t even have how much to repay the loan to Boris Iosifovich (Mints) how much to repay the loan to Ruben Karlenovich (Vardanyan), the balance remained there
Sergey Krychenko: well, let's go through these loans now
Ilya Gulin: what is the rest?
Olga Butkova: well, 210 (assuming million rubles) You gave us at the end of the year (meaning 2015), and we took 480 (meaning million rubles)
Ilya Gulin: oh, I don’t know about that
Olga Butkova: how do you not know? You know perfectly well that we paid for the PAI (meaning the PAI of the Closed-End Mutual Fund "Perspective Companies"), but we took a loan
Ilya Gulin: I returned the money to them (implied to Ruben Vardanyan)
Olga Butkova: You give them yes, but we do that? You returned the money to them, of course, definitely
Ilya Gulin: that is, you don’t actually owe them, you owe them only according to documents
Olga Butkova: according to the documents, this money should still be debited from a non-cash account, here
Sergey Krychenko: should I ask Ruben (Vardanyan) about the request of the client (Anatoly Chubais)?
Olga Butkova: why am I using “non-cash” money, because the term for repaying the loan to him (Ruben Vardanyan) is July (it means 2016)
Sergey Krychenko: when we removed the issue of returning the loan that we gave to Boris Iosifovich (Mints)
Ilya Gulin: when all this was happening, the most important ones told me that they agreed, Mints agreed with AB (Anatoly Borisovich Chubais) that it would be 3-4 months, I tell you directly verbatim. I now live in this logic
Olga Butkova: well, yes, we did the loan agreement until October 01 (assuming 2016)
Sergey Krychenko: You said 3-4 months is excellent, you don't have any technical failures or indications, do we live by the same logic?
Ilya Gulin: I haven't had any other information yet
Sergey Krychenko: wonderful, for three, four months we report January, February, March, well, the end of April, the beginning of May.
Ilya Gulin: Well, apparently yes
Sergey Krychenko: that means the end of April, the beginning of May, the forecast, while we think so. Now they are there "boss" (Anatoly Chubais) will think
Ilya Gulin: for me, too, so that you understand, this will be a certain point of departure on which I do not influence in any way, as soon as it happens, so that not only I have a headache on this topic. I'm just going to provide further equipment here, who, as it looms on the horizon
Sergey Krychenko: Dima (Dmitry Mints) correctly heard that the figure we mentioned was 12-10 (meaning million rubles), how we fit because of the exchange rate, this is just our figure, this is not his (Anatoly Chubais) figure, but he (Dmitry Mints ) jumped right at me Ilya Gulin: Dima (Dmitry Mints) attacked me in the same way, I told him that it was you who originally voiced it. Sergei (Sergey Krychenko) made his own calculations and said that so far, according to their calculations, this is so much, but with a reservation for a possible change in the amount. That's exactly what I said
Sergey Krychenko: I didn’t insure my “liver” with this very reservation, but it actually was because when we last discussed the budget for the year, drew approximately the expenses that await us, then he (Anatoly Chubais) already there I sketched a correction of such not weak ones from where we got it and appeared in February at 356 (thousands of US dollars are meant). Yes?
Olga Butkova: it's not February, it's April
Sergei Krychenko: 356
Olga Butkova: what 356?
Sergey Krychenko: Dollars, thousand
Olga Butkova: What are you talking about now?
Sergey Krychenko: about February "cash"
Olga Butkova: What are you talking about now?
Sergey Krychenko: about "cash"
Olga Butkova: “cash” is in general for us February of these 30 and March 60 (thousands of US dollars are implied). We do not have such amounts in crazy dollars
Sergey Krychenko: we don't have such a huge amount in February, do we?
Olga Butkova: No, we don't have a huge amount. Why do you think so?
Ilya Gulin: the task is to understand the budget and say, comment on what we can in this regard. The number has two parts. I'm just summarizing. The first part, you and I there, plus, minus "shot down" found an understanding, sort of like your vision with our capabilities, sort of. There is a second part that we do not know, respectively, as soon as it is clear, we will think of something about it. Therefore, as of today, we have a consensus.
Olga Butkova: and, accordingly, there is a "non-cash" part that we also understand that while we are in this ..., and also that we do not understand
Ilya Gulin: in continuation of the dialogue on numbers, please, in the near future, it’s not clear today, formulate a request for February so that I also clear the “cache”
Olga Butkova: I have formulated it, I can just tell you the amount for today
Ilya Gulin: let's
Olga Butkova: I have 26 million
Ilya Gulin: rubles?
Olga Butkova: yes
Ilya Gulin: is it somehow split up within a month?
Sergey Krychenko: as you prefer
Olga Butkova: whatever is more convenient for you, we will adjust. We will distribute when we receive
Ilya Gulin: if you do not have a binding, I will think
Sergey Krychenko: we try so that all our expenses, namely ours that we plan, “suck”, think over, vary in the range between the 25th and 30th of each month. There is a force majeure, an SMS message with an order to give tomorrow
Ilya Gulin: force majeure is understandable. Another clarifying question, since we are now interacting with you only on this part, here is the conditional budget that was previously there, those amounts that we are now talking about, they are also part of this budget
Sergey Krychenko: Yes, of course. We are only talking about "nanal" and this
Ilya Gulin: and this is it. This is relatively speaking the February need
Sergey Krychenko: yes
Olga Butkova: yes. The whole common part and this is the budget, I share it non-cash / cash
Sergey Krychenko: it means that now, in order to simply understand the logic in which we live, we minimize those expenses (non-cash expenses are implied), so the load on the “cash” part has increased greatly and significantly, very much in order to save money ... This is the logic simply
Ilya Gulin: this is clear
To be continued
Timofey Grishin
Source: www.rucrimianl.info
