Chubais: "I don't want to pay taxes"

Ex-head of RUSNANO laundered money through Ruben Vardanyan

At the disposal of Rucriminal.info and the telegram channel of the Cheka-OGPU was a new recording of the meeting between Anatoly Chubais and Ilya Suchkov, an entrepreneur who helped build Chubais's palace in the Moscow region.

At this meeting, Anatoly Chubais, due to unwillingness to quote: "... pay a triple tax out of nothing," entrusted the development and implementation of a scheme for laundering money used to build a mansion in the village of Predelkino, Odintsovo district, Moscow region, "ZhK Peredelki" citizen Ruben Vardanyan.



The main task assigned by Anatoly Chubais to Ruben Vardanyan was to carry out "enchanting diplomacy" by Ruben Vardanyan to modernize the scheme in order to reduce taxes. In other words, at the suggestion of Anatoly Chubais, the ZhK Peredelki mansion with an estimated cost in the region of 47,000,000 US dollars and a market value, according to 3 (Three) independent assessments, including a judicial one from 34,000,000 to 36,500,000 US dollars, was to be sold father and son Mints at an extremely low cost of 7,000,000 - 8,000,000 US dollars. In connection with the resulting debt of 39,000,000 - 40,000,000 US dollars, after the implementation of such a scheme, the Swiss company SFO Concept AG JSC had to be deliberately bankrupt.

But let's get back to the construction of "LCD Peredelki" for Anatoly Chubais in 2010-2016. and the legal "lawlessness" of the so-called preliminary investigation and legal proceedings, which lasted almost 7 (seven) years in criminal case No. 123632.

In 2012, the directors of the Swiss company JSC SFO Concept AG, founded on the initiative of Anatoly Chubais, Oliver Nedelaya and Andre Odermatt, on behalf of the same Anatoly Chubais, signed loan agreements with the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (TILSOKA LIMITED) for 22,000,000 US dollars with maturity in 10 years. The ultimate beneficiary of the lender's company is the same old associate and business partner of Anatoly Chubais, Boris Mints. It should be immediately clarified that Boris Mints, according to the media, is suspected of withdrawing funds from Russian pensioners for years and distributing bad loans to his offshore companies in Cyprus. For this purpose, Boris Mints created a group of companies O1 Group, which, among other things, included the company lender O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (TILSOKA LIMITED).

According to the source of Rucriminal.info, until 2016 everything was going great, Anatoly Chubais and his entourage, boundlessly devoted to him, namely, the family office of SFO CONCEPT CONSULTING LLC (Russia), led by General Director Sergey Krychenko, successfully mastered Anatoly Chubais, as it became known now time, extremely doubtful received, the so-called "borrowed" funds in the amount significantly exceeding the income declared by Anatoly Chubais. This is one of the answers to the question why Anatoly Chubais financed the construction of "ZhK Peredelka" through a foreign, created by him Swiss company and, in fact, until May 2013, during the period when the so-called borrowed funds were received, he solely disposed of it.



In January 2016, the construction of the Residential Complex Peredelki was completed, and the property was commissioned by the Swiss company JSC SFO Concept AG, in connection with which the question arose of its purchase, in accordance with previous agreements with Anatoly Chubais, at market value from the Swiss companies. However, the new shareholder of the Swiss company JSC "SFO Concept AG" Ilya Suchkov, having learned about the true intentions of Anatoly Chubais, refused to participate in the process of laundering borrowed money by him and Boris Mints and offered Boris Mints and Anatoly Chubais to buy ZhK Peredelki at a market value, with a possibly valid valid the legislation of the Russian Federation and Switzerland at a discount for 33,000,000 US dollars. After the refusal of Ilya Suchkov, there was a grandiose scandal, during which Anatoly Chubais began to take revenge and showed himself in a "dirty" guise, an unscrupulous and vile position.

In 2016-2017, based on false denunciations by Anatoly Chubais and representatives of Boris Mints, the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district, 2 (Two) criminal cases were initiated against Ilya Suchkov, later merged into one under No. Suchkov to criminal liability for the alleged non-repayment by the Swiss company of loans received in 2012 by Anatoly Chubais, under the guarantees given by him for their repayment in 2023!

Further, in 2017, Anatoly Chubais applied to the same police department with a statement about the alleged theft of property allegedly belonging to him in ZhK Peredelki for an amount not established by the investigation of 20,000,000, or 67,543,905, or more than 70,000,000 rubles.

For reference: according to the documented data available in the case file, ZhK Peredelki and all property and equipment located in it were purchased until 2016 with the funds of the Swiss company SFO Concept AG JSC and, accordingly o by right of ownership until 2019 belonged to a Swiss company. Therefore, Anatoly Chubais actually had nothing to do with the property and equipment allegedly stolen from him. Moreover, according to unconfirmed reports, all the equipment allegedly stolen from Anatoly Chubais has been installed and is currently located in ZhK Peredelki, to which no one is allowed to come close.

The diligence with which the investigators of the SU UMVD of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district Egorova Zh.A. and Mogilevskaya A.G. "cooked" custom-made criminal case No. 123632 is simply shocking. With the written permission of Egorova Zh.A. the object of the crime recognized by the investigation - ZhK Peredelki - during the investigation period was already sold three times to 3 persons.

Material evidence, the location of which is not known, was not attached to criminal case No. 123632. Instead of physical evidence, the defendants in the case were presented with photographs of cardboard boxes with pasted sheets of paper, supposedly with a list of the equipment contained in them. Fantastic! Fake witnesses were involved in the case: Grishin G.G., Grevtsev D.M., Kuzmin O.A. and Sergeev A.V. who do not remember where and what specific equipment they bought for Anatoly Chubais, but only claim that they took it, though they can’t decide on the amount, money from Anatoly Chubais and his adjutant Sergei Krychenko for the purchase of equipment. The heads of Svyatovit-BIT LLC and KUB Company LLC, who, under agreements concluded with them in the interests of the Swiss company, actually installed the equipment, which was determined by the investigation as allegedly stolen from Anatoly Chubais, were not interrogated. Documents indicated in the indictment indisputably confirming the innocence of the accused were not attached to the case file. The criminal case was investigated and continues to be considered in the courts without a statement from the representative of the victim and in the absence of his authority. While Ilya Suchkov was in the hospital, the above-mentioned investigators forged a protocol on allegedly familiarizing him with the case materials. Unfortunately, the list of offenses by the investigation can be continued for a very long time.

Later it became known that the loan agreements concluded by the directors of the Swiss company Oliver Nedela and Andre Odermatt at the direction of Anatoly Chubais were feigned, and the borrowed funds most likely belonged to Anatoly Chubais, and on the accounts of legal offshore companies Boris Mints were only in storage. Why has no one from the competent authorities asked Anatoly Chubais about these circumstances so far?

There are many questions, but one conclusion suggests itself, with a high degree of probability, Anatoly Chubais laundered the money he dubiously received through loans. He received "loans" from the money belonging to him, and not to Boris Mints.

For 2 (Two) years now, criminal case No. 123632, No. 01-0104/2022, No. 01-0012/2023 has been hanging in the courts of Moscow and the Moscow Region. The case was twice returned for further investigation, and now the judges started a “ping pong” to find jurisdiction.

It seems that it is far from accidental that the case was pending before the judge of the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow, Filchenko M.S., for more than a year. During the time the criminal case was in the proceedings of the judge Filchenko M.S. no less gross violations of the rights of the defendants were manifested. Most of the motions filed by the defense of Ilya Suchkov disappeared from the case file, the consideration of which directly establishes his innocence. The reason for their disappearance is, according to the judge, their improper submission, in accordance with the current legislation, through the expedition of the court, and not in the court session. The case does not contain part of the minutes of the court sessions, there is no part of the case materials indicated in the indictment. The judge did not send the criminal case to the court of appeal for 4 months.

Participants of the process sent over 300 complaints about the violation of their rights. Even!

One gets the impression that the Russian Themis has completely gone blind and she simply does not need a bandage. She is unable to perform the functions assigned to her. There is also another opinion, maybe Anatoly Chubais's direct interest here is to achieve the result he needs. In this connection, for some reason, there is no doubt that the lawlessness in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow simply rolls over and not only allegedly due to the improper competence of Judge M.S. Filchenko. In this case, in this situation, it is not at all appropriate to talk about justice, and even with respect for the rights of the accused, if we are talking about the case "ordered" by Anatoly Chubais and his fugitive friend Boris Mints.





PRINT VERSION

(meetings of Anatoly Chubais with Ilya Suchkov)



Anatoly Chubais: come on, tell me the whole picture as it is

Ilya Suchkov: Anatoly Borisovich, look at us 2 (Two) weeks ago, I don’t remember the exact date of the 17th (February 2016), in my opinion, there was a meeting, joint: Sergey (Sergey Krychenko), Dmitry Mints, me and Elena ( Elena Orlova) employee of Ruben Karlenovich (Ruben Vardanyan). At this meeting Dmitry Borisovich (Dmitry Mints) radically changed the whole "scheme" that we agreed on last year

Anatoly Chubais: about which you agreed with him?

Ilya Suchkov: in your presence we agreed

Anatoly Chubais: Did you agree with him (Dmitry Mints)?

Ilya Suchkov: we agreed on everything, we are acting in her logic

Anatoly Chubais: So, what was the essence of the scheme?

Ilya Suchkov: the bottom line was that loans (we are talking about loans issued in 2012 by the offshore company of Boris Mints to the Swiss company SFO Concept AG JSC under the guarantee of their return given by Anatoly Chubais, with his 100% shareholding, in the amount of about 22,000 000 US dollars) “collapse” (are credited) towards the cost of real estate (“LCD Alterations”) plus there with some kind of delta.

Anatoly Chubais: it's clear, yes

Ilya Suchkov: 2 (Two) weeks ago I met with Dmitry (Dmitry Mints) and accordingly he told me that no, we will not work according to the old scheme

Anatoly Chubais: is it at this meeting?

Ilya Suchkov: Yes, at a joint meeting. I (Dmitry Mints) will buy it (ZhK Peredelki real estate) from your company (JSC SFO Concept AG, Switzerland) for 7,000,000 US dollars. I say "No. Why, because here is the conclusion of the lawyers (Swiss lawyers), I also handed over to him (Dmitry Mints) his (the conclusion of the Swiss lawyers), according to which in Switzerland up to 5 (Five) years in prison. I don't need it Anatoly Borisovich (Anatoly Chubais), respectively, neither me nor the general director (JSC SFO Concept AG, Switzerland) is Swiss. To be honest, Anatoly Borisovich (Anatoly Chubais) first trust, then incomprehensible 5 (Five) years, I honestly don’t want to sit for 5 (Five) years neither to the Swiss nor to me

Anatoly Chubais: understandable

Ilya Suchkov: I did not expect this when we agree on everything and agree in the presence of you, but Dima (Dmitry Mints) says no to me. That is, I'm sorry, but we do it this way and nothing else

Anatoly Chubais: let's do this, then, as I understand the picture now. So I understand it in the following way, what we have, we have changes in the "scheme" from Dima (Dmitry Mints) that are not accepted by you. So it is clear that in this case it is necessary to set the task of developing a “scheme” not before Dima (Dmitry Mints) but before Ruben (Ruben Vardanyan), who should “A” hear your proposal, you describe your version of the “scheme”, but again but I am not able to plunge into it and I do not need to plunge. So let's go Ruben (Ruben Vardanyan) returns next week, I tell him that the scheme of Dima (Dmitry Mints) is not accepted. I tell him that you have a proposal for your "scheme". Then he (Ruben Vardanyan) meets with you, listens to you, maybe he won’t accept it, he will give you some third, fourth. Then the next stage is called: the development of a new "scheme", which is acceptable to you and which is acceptable to me. So let's dedicate the next 2 (two) weeks of time to this

Ilya Suchkov: Anatoly Borisovich is in fact not my “scheme”, this is a “scheme” that was agreed with Ruben Karlenovich (Ruben Vardanyan) and Dmitry Borisovich (Dmitry Mints), that is, it has not changed on my part

Anatoly Chubais: that is, Dima (Dmitry Mints) changed the "scheme" that Ruben (Ruben Vardanyan) agreed upon?

Ilya Suchkov: yes, individually, which we agreed on together

Anatoly Chubais: Yes, I understand you. For me, Ruben (Ruben Vardanyan) is responsible for the whole “scheme” all the same. Dima (Dmitry Mints) probably also refused that “scheme”, you also need to listen to him why he refused

Ilya Suchkov: he (Dmitry Mints) refused, I explained to you because the father (Boris Mints), relatively speaking, takes (buys) this (“LCD Alterations”) for 30,000,000 US dollars according to the market estimate, then gives it (real estate " ZhK Alterations") Dima (Dmitry Mints)

Anatoly Chubais: you have described this "scheme" here

Ilya Suchkov: we agreed on it all together, it was proposed by Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints), this is not my proposal. I just said that I would not be able to sell below the costs that we (the Swiss company SFO Concept AG JSC) made, and today we have bought plots for 8,000,000 US dollars and 30,000,000 US dollars invested in construction (LCD Alterations”), everything went according to accounts, I can’t fall below this amount Anatoly Borisovich

Anatoly Chubais: Of course, I also don't want to pay a triple tax out of nothing. Come on then, to the end, in fact, you are at risk, Dima (Dmitry Borisovich) is at risk, Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints) is at risk, so of course we will need to somehow harmonize everything, minimize risks to the limit, but maintaining an acceptable level taxation. I set a task for Ruben (Ruben Vardanyan), on Tuesday Wednesday he arrives, I (Anatoly Chubais) meet with him so that he attracts you and set the task for him (Ruben Vardanyan) to carry out such "charming diplomacy", to the old "scheme" means to the old if somehow you manage to modernize it (“scheme”) so that there are fewer taxes, even better. I still hope that we have to complete this year. When did you receive your rating?

Ilya Suchkov: I’ll tell you now on February 12, I think we had a meeting on February 17 (February 2016) when everything turned upside down, everything changed



Anatoly Chubais: Well, I understand, I understand. Well, come on, I don’t have an exact answer to this question, the answer to this question is, what kind of “scheme” is chosen, with the task of the possibility of a non-radical increase in tax consequences. Therefore, ask the same question to Ruben (Ruben Vardanyan), he must understand all the limitations and he must work out a new scheme. I think, I hope that he (Ruben Vardanyan) will meet with you next week, immediately after the conversation with me, the conversation with me will take place somewhere on Tuesday or Wednesday, so your next step is to talk to him, discuss it there already " scheme, order, evaluation, and so on and so forth.

To be continued

Timofey Grishin

Source: www.rucriminal.info

Didn't help Chubais "launder" money? To jail

How the ex-head of RUSNANO legalized income of unknown origin and imprisoned unwanted people



Business partner of Anatoly Chubais, Boris Mints, is directly involved in the fraud of the Otkritie FC bank and the misappropriation of Russian citizens' pension funds by offshore companies (O1 TRUST, O1 Properties, Crizna Holdings LTD, Denian LTD, Rafinha Holdings LTD, etc.) entering or affiliated with the O1 Group financial corporation owned by Boris Mints.



Rucriminal.info has data that the constant financing of the life of Anatoly Chubais in cash and non-cash money went through the offshore companies of his friend, colleague and business partner Boris Mints.

Anatoly Chubais, using the services of offshore companies of Boris Mints, "legalized illegally obtained, undeclared" funds.

In the period from 2010-2012. it was on the initiative of Anatoly Chubais, under the guarantees given by him, that the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (currently TILSOKA LIMITED) - the ultimate beneficiary of which is Boris Mints, the Swiss company JSC "SFO Concept AG" for the construction of an estate for Anatoly Chubais in the village of Peredelki, Odintsovsky District, Moscow Region (hereinafter referred to as “ZhK Peredelki”) loans were provided in the amount of approximately USD 22,000,000.

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.

Further events developed as follows. The new shareholder of the Swiss company SFO Concept AG, Ilya Suchkov, refused to sell ZhK Peredelki to Anatoly Chubais and Boris Mints at an extremely low cost of 7,000,000 - 8,000,000 US dollars, that is, to launder for Anatoly Chubais and Boris Mints, the money spent on the construction of the ZhK Peredelki. After that, Ilya Suchkov instantly in October 2016, on far-fetched grounds, turned out to be a defendant in a completely falsified criminal case, and a little later in a pre-trial detention center.

In this article, Rucriminal.info would like to tell as objectively as possible about the legal lawlessness of the so-called preliminary investigation and legal proceedings in criminal case No. 123632 that has been happening for more than 6.5 years:

It is well known that one of the purposes of criminal proceedings (inquiry, pre-trial proceedings, the activities of the courts) is, among other things, the protection of the individual from illegal and unreasonable accusations, convictions, restriction of rights and freedoms (clause 2, article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

There is also a requirement in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation for a reasonable period of criminal proceedings, there is a requirement for the legality and validity of the activities of courts, bodies of inquiry and preliminary investigation (Article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) and the right of the accused, including to declare: petitions, challenges, gets acquainted with case materials, file complaints, get acquainted with the minutes of court sessions, and also defend themselves in other legal ways (Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

It would seem that with such a legal regulation of the activities of investigators, prosecutors, and judges, lawlessness is out of the question. But, unfortunately, this is only in theory, but in fact, most often everything happens differently. This is especially evident in "custom-made" criminal cases. Moreover, if the "customer" is a high-ranking official or a billionaire, then the rights of the accused should generally be forgotten.

Criminal case No. 123632 on a false denunciation by Anatoly Chubais and the so-called representative of the same offshore company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED, in which the Mintsy and the pension savings of Russian citizens were most likely invested, was initiated on October 16, 2016 against Ilya Suchkov under part 3 of Art. . 30 h. 4 tbsp. 159 SU UMVD of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district of the Moscow region.

And this despite the fact that back in December 2014, with the shareholdership of Ilya Suchkov, the Swiss company JSC "SFO Concept AG" of the offshore company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED for those taken in the period 2010-2012. it was on the initiative of Anatoly Chubais, under the guarantees of their return, loans, with shareholders, and in fact, Ilya Suchkov, part of the loan amount was partially, ahead of schedule, which excludes not only, allegedly, his (Ilya Suchkov) intent to embezzle funds by allegedly deception of the beneficiary of the Cyprus company - Boris Mints, but also the elements of a crime on a far-fetched and completely falsified charge under Art. 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Further, in the case of Art. investigator of the SU UMVD of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district Yegorova Zh.A. false witnesses, imaginary victims were brought in, so-called evidence was rigged, physical evidence was sold, and the defendants were completely deprived of the right to defense.

In June 2017, in order to “strengthen” their illegal actions, Art. investigator of the SU UMVD of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district Yegorova Zh.A. and investigator of the same department and Mogilevskaya A.G., as a supplement against Ilya Suchkov, another criminal case was initiated and combined with the first case under Part 4 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The paradox of a criminal case under Part 4 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation lies in the fact that the false version of the investigation is based on the alleged theft from Anatoly Chubais of property that does not belong to him and causing alleged damage to him. This false statement by the investigation itself was later refuted in full by the documents available in the case file and the accounting expertise of the ECC of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, conducted in 2017 on behalf of the investigator Egorova Zh.A.

According to the documents available in the case file, it was established for certain that the property identified by the investigation as allegedly stolen from Anatoly Chubais was bought and installed in the residential complex "Peredelki" with the funds of the Swiss company JSC "SFO Concept AG" with the shareholdership of Ilya Suchkov. The innocence of Ilya Suchkov has been proven by the materials of the case, but the charge remains.

Thanks to the “falsified” criminal cases, in June 2017, a measure of restraint was chosen against the accused Ilya Suchkov, in the form of detention. Ilya Suchkov served in various pre-trial detention centers in Moscow and the Moscow region for almost a year, where from him, not without the efforts of the investigator Egorova Zh.A. have made the invalid of the II-group.

With the consent of the investigator Egorova Zh.A. during the period of the so-called investigation, material evidence was sold - ZhK Peredelki. These illegal actions of the investigator Yegorova Zh.A. completely deprived the defendants of the right to defense, to conduct a number of expert examinations, including construction, examination of the scene, discovery of allegedly stolen property, etc. According to unverified information, the property allegedly stolen from Anatoly Chubais is still located and mounted in the "ZhK Peredelki" and installed.

In fact, not a single petition of the accused was considered during the preliminary investigation, and all petitions were denied without explanation.

For 4.5 years, the preliminary investigation did not investigate criminal case No. 123632, but adjusted it to a deliberately determined result - to accuse Ilya Suchkov at all costs.

At present, after 6.5 years, the proceedings in this criminal case continue and, judging by the circumstances, the court does not intend to stop. Criminal case twice in 2020 and 2021 was returned for additional investigation by the courts of Moscow and the Moscow Region, and for 2.5 years the case has continued to be in the courts.

We must pay tribute to the "inventiveness" of the judges. Now they started a “baseball game” in which, instead of a ball, criminal case No. 123632. Absolutely on far-fetched grounds, first in April 2021, the criminal case was sent by the Odintsovo City Court of the Moscow Region, allegedly under jurisdiction, to the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow, and now to In February 2023, the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow redirected him to the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow. The judges of these courts of Moscow and the Moscow region cannot in any way determine the place where the crime invented by the investigation was committed. This is natural. Finding a crime scene that wasn't impossible! How long gentlemen of the judge will look for "truth" is not clear? Obviously, until they are stopped by the authorized bodies.

After the return in June 2020 by the Odintsovo City Court of the Moscow Region of criminal case No. 123632 for further investigation, the investigators of the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Odintsovo City District of the Moscow Region Egorova Zh.A. and Mogilevskaya A.G., instead of eliminating the violations committed by them, even more sophisticated frauds were carried out in the present case, namely:

- all this time the investigator Yegorova Zh.A. carried out “investigative actions” with the representative of the injured party on her own initiative, in the absence of a statement. To hide the criminal intent aimed at falsifying criminal case No. 123632, investigator Yegorova Zh.A. based on the same materials, initiates another 3 (Third) criminal case, attaches to it the missing statement of the representative of the victim and combines it with the one initiated in October 2016.

Thus it is the investigator Egorova Zh.A. covered up a gross violation of the law, we believe deliberately committed in order to bring an innocent person to criminal liability. She, without the appearance of new evidence in the case, on her own initiative, re-qualified the accusation to a more serious one.

Unfortunately, what has been done for 4.5 years by the investigator Egorova Zh.A. obvious lawlessness can be listed for a long time.

Egregious violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the rights and legitimate interests of the accused were systematic and gross due to impunity.

The defenders of Ilya Suchkov sent more than 300 complaints to the prosecutor's office. Unfortunately, there was no response. In fact, for more than 6.5 years, complete lawlessness has been going on against Ilya Suchkov, it should be assumed that with the tacit consent of the regulatory and supervisory authorities. This situation continued in the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow.

In pro In the course of the consideration of case No. 01-0104/2022, in our opinion, it became clear that Judge Filchenko M.S. 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:

- the court has not familiarized the defendants and their lawyers with the materials of the case for almost a year;

- the court considered criminal case No. 01-0104/2022 in the absence of part of the case materials indicated in the indictment;

- the court completely ignored the consideration of the defendants' petitions and, as it should be assumed, did not even consider it necessary to attach them to the case file;

- the court refused to issue the minutes of the court sessions;

- the court refused to call defense witnesses;

- the court ignored 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 unlawfully considered 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 unlawfully considered criminal case No. 01-0104 / 2022 in the absence of the beneficiaries of the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (TILSOKA LIMITED) Mr. Mintsev, despite the obvious, significant discrepancies in the case file in their testimony, the testimony of Anatoly Chubais and the testimony of the so-called representatives of the victim of the specified above the Cyprus company - Kuksa R.V., Mosina D.V. and the materials of the case;

- the court unlawfully considered 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.

Unfortunately, the gross violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the constitutional rights of the accused in criminal case No. 123632 committed by the investigation and the courts can be continued indefinitely.

It seems that Judge Filchenko M.S. I've been waiting for something to happen for almost a year. On February 21, 2023, during the trial, Judge of the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow Filchenko M.S. on far-fetched grounds, for the next, 2 (Second) time, she again sent, but in fact “threw off”, allegedly according to jurisdiction, criminal case No. 123632 to the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow.

Here it is appropriate to remind the gentlemen of the judges of the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation prohibiting the courts from arguing about the jurisdiction of criminal cases. Nevertheless, the courts in the above-mentioned criminal case for 2 (two) years “cannot decide on its jurisdiction”.

However, such “zeal” of the investigators of the SU UMVD of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district of Egorova Zh.A. and Mogilevskaya A.G., judges of the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow and the prosecutor's office, can hardly be explained by professional inexperience. Here, as one should assume, the interest of Anatoly Chubais, and an obvious one at that. In what it is expressed, I would like to hope that the competent authorities will determine. It would be naive to believe that this interest is not coordinated by the people of Anatoly Chubais. And it is not at all appropriate, it is somehow even shameful to talk about justice, and even with respect for the rights of the accused, if we are talking about a case “ordered” by Anatoly Chubais and his fugitive friend Boris Mints. I would like to wait until gentlemen judges, prosecutors answer one question: How many more years do they intend to "administer criminal" justice not in the interests of the Law, but in the interests of Anatoly Chubais?



To be continued

Timofey Grishin

Source: www.rucriminal.info

“Money is credited to the virtual account of the “boss” (Chubais)”

Money laundering through sham deals for the former head of RUSNANO



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

“At the last meeting with V.V.P., I told him the whole picture”

Wiretapping with Chubais, who "twists" scams, hiding behind Putin

At the disposal of Rucriminal.info and the telegram channel of the Cheka-OGPU was a record of a meeting in June 2016 between Anatoly Chubais and Ilya Suchkov, an entrepreneur who helped build Chubais's palace in the Moscow region ..

At this meeting, Ilya Suchkov turned to Anatoly Chubais in order to reach an agreement on the sale of ZhK Peredelka in accordance with the current legislation of the Russian Federation and Switzerland. The option of purchase and sale of ZhK Peredelka proposed by Ilya Suchkov was based on the estimated and estimated cost of ZhK Peredelka in the amount of 33,000,000 US dollars, and was also dictated by the need to fulfill obligations under the numerous loans taken by Anatoly Chubais in 2010 and 2012 for a Swiss company JSC "SFO Concept AG" from the Cyprus company of his friend, colleague and business partner Boris Mints. At least at that time, Anatoly Chubais declared the above loans in words as real transactions, involving their execution.

As indicated in previous publications, the estimated cost of "ZhK Alterations" was about 47,000,000 US dollars, and the market value was determined according to 3 (Three) independent assessments, including a judicial one in the amount of 34,000,000 to 36,500,000 US dollars.

However, the conversation initiated by Anatoly Chubais took place in a different vein than expected. Anatoly Chubais said that allegedly the ZhK Peredelki real estate object was no longer of interest to him, the Mintsy became interested in it as a collateral object for paying off debts. Therefore, Ilya Suchkov must come to an agreement with the Mintsy. Based on the results of the negotiations, in the event of a favorable outcome, Anatoly Chubais to Ilya Suchkov “maybe” will be compensated for the personal funds invested by the latter in the construction of the Residential Complex Peredelok. It should be assumed that in order to show his complete impunity and the senselessness of opposing him, Anatoly Chubais explained that the President of the Russian Federation was supposedly aware of this situation.



Later it became obvious that Anatoly Chubais thus intended to buy this property for a symbolic price through the offshore company of his associate Boris Mints. We believe that the motive is clear - the concealment of the passage of such large sums through the accounts of the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED in the form of loans and the legalization of own funds dubiously received from Boris Mints. At the same time, while executing this scheme for the purchase of ZhK Peredelok at an extremely low cost, Anatoly Chubais removed all questions from the tax authorities of the Russian Federation.

The above property, after a month of ownership by the Mints, in February 2019, we believe that for 7-8 million US dollars, or maybe free of charge for the debt obligations artificially created between Anatoly Chubais and the offshore company of Boris Mints, was simply re-registered for Anatoly Chubais. Rosreestr does not give any information on the above transaction!

Also, at the above meeting, Ilya Suchkov was unequivocally warned by Anatoly Chubais that in the event of "sudden movements" and no agreement was reached between him and the Mintsy, the latter, this circumstance would be perceived as an ordinary "business case" with the subsequent possible initiation of criminal prosecution in regarding Ilya Suchkov.

The warning of Anatoly Chubais turned out to be prophetic in relation to Ilya Suchkov, in connection with his refusal to participate, together with Anatoly Chubais and the Mintsy, in the events of money laundering and tax evasion, in 2016, on far-fetched grounds, criminal case No. 123632 was initiated.



These criminal cases, as Anatoly Chubais promised to Ilya Suchkov at the meeting, as it should be assumed, were initiated in 2016-2017. on the initiative of Mintsev on the false statements of representatives (Kuksa R.V. and Mosin D.V.) of the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (beneficiary Boris Mints) and the false statement of Anatoly Chubais about the alleged theft of his property with their subsequent merger into one.

Based on the materials of the criminal case No. 123632, its ordered nature is obvious. Over the course of 6 (six) years of the so-called investigation by the investigators of the SU UMVD of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district, Egorova Zh.A. and Mogileyvskaya A.G. in criminal case No. 123632, the law (the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) was grossly violated, substitution, forgery and falsification of the materials of the case were carried out and its actual circumstances were distorted, solely for the sole purpose of accusing Suchkov AND.The. in serious crimes that he did not commit.

Recall that due to the failure of the criminal case No. 123632 itself and the grossest violations of the rights of the accused, the courts of Moscow and the Moscow Region twice in 2020 and in 2021 returned the case for further investigation.

From February 2022 to the present, criminal case No. 123632 (No. 01-0104 / 2022) has been returned for consideration to the Khamovnichesky district for the 3rd (Third) time. th Court of Moscow (Judge Filchenko M.S.).

This period of the trial in the case should be told in more detail.

Without going into details about the fact that criminal case No. 123632 was sent to the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow absolutely on far-fetched grounds, and as it now becomes obvious, it is not by chance that Judge Filchenko M.S. During the consideration of case No. 01-0104/2022, in our opinion, it became clear that this judge was extremely interested in the outcome of the case.



There is every reason for such an assumption, since the Khamovnichesky District Court cynically, grossly violates the current legislation of the Russian Federation, namely:



- the court does not consider it necessary to acquaint the defendants and their lawyers with the materials of the case;

- 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 does not consider the petitions of the defendants;

- the court refuses to issue minutes of court sessions;

- the court refuses to call defense witnesses;

- 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 ignores the absence from 2016 in the case file of a decision to recognize Mosin D.V. the representative of the victim - the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (TILSOKA LIMITED);

- the court illegally continues to consider criminal No. 01-0104/2022 with the amount of alleged damage caused to Chubais A.B. not established by the investigation. and Cyprus Company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (TILSOKA LIMITED);

- 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.

Due to the fact that numerous complaints sent by the defendants' lawyers to the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Moscow City Court about the illegal actions committed by the above-mentioned judge of the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow in criminal case No. 01-0104/2022 are completely ignored, it becomes obvious that the Judicial Collegium completely withdrew itself in terms of judicial control over the court of first instance.



With a high degree of probability, it should be assumed that the lawlessness outlined above is carried out at the “request” of Anatoly Chubais through extremely influential officials in law enforcement agencies in order to stop all extremely dubious events with his participation from a legal point of view.



meetings in 2016



(Anatoly Chubais - Ilya Suchkov)



Anatoly Chubais: our picture has changed radically. The essence of changing the picture. This whole object (meaning "LCD Alterations") was built according to the plan, as you understand for me. The picture has changed completely, he ("ZhK Alterations") turned out to be needed by the Mints themselves. If the Mintsy say that they need this object, this means that I will definitely not argue with them, due to the history of relations, due to the state of today. If so, then so be it. What's there. Well, they have a rental business there, which is not developing very well now, as you know, either as a collateral asset, or otherwise, I don’t even dive into it. I proceed from the fact that if the question is posed in this way, then the picture is unfolded completely. This is how you understand a completely different way of life, a different picture, and so on ... I repeat once again, I don’t even go into details. If they say so, then so be it. For me, this topic is closed for today. I don’t know, maybe when, at some point I will return to it, but unfortunately, for today it is closed for me. What does this mean in terms of consequences? According to the consequences, this means that the object must be returned to the Mints. For this, well, they are business guys. In general, sit down and negotiate with them on an acceptable scheme. Even now I am not ready to dive into them, not before that, “boil” with Melamed. So discuss options, find a solution. No major sudden movements are necessary. Because once again they are business guys.

Ilya Suchkov: I understand.

Anatoly Chubais: accordingly, his own version, their version, a compromise version. So I’ll meet him specifically (meaning Dmitry Mints) in order to be in time, because I’m leaving tomorrow morning. So what does this mean in life, in life it means that I will return to Moscow on the 20th, and of course it would be right if you agreed by the 20th (it means June 2016).

So you said you have your expenses?

Ilya Suchkov: yes.

Anatoly Chubais: so the logic will be as follows. Step number 1: you agreed with them (meaning with the Mints), the Mints said everything is ok, you said everything is ok, closed the issue. Step number 2: we sit down with you, lay out the costs for me, evaluate the costs.

I'll honestly tell you how for two, at the last meeting with V.V. (implied at a meeting with Vladimir Vladimirovich) I told him all the same the whole picture (meaning about the house in Peredelki) there were raids, publications. Listen, we, well, firstly, we already know everything very well, this is the most not to be puzzled, and secondly, we will deal with publications, do not worry. That is, we will definitely analyze this picture and in general it is so truly not disturbing. It means that it is much more important for me that you agree with the Mints, here it is. So, do it before the 20th (it means June 2016). Movement in the opposite direction will mean that the Mints perceive this as a classic business case and let's go. If everything is clear then act!



To be continued

Timofey Grishin

Source: www.rucriminal.info

"Chubais's profit was 1300%"

How Ruben Vardanyan helped to launder money for the ex-head of RUSNANO

In continuation of publications on the site "rucriminal.info" on August 07, 2022 under the title "It's much tastier than paying a million" and on August 29, 2022 under the title "We are poor people, don't give us all the profits" at the disposal of the source was another a recording of a meeting in early 2016 between characters already known from previous numerous publications: Dmitry Mints, Ilya Gulin (financial director of Mintsev companies), Elena Orlova (legal officer of Mintsev companies), Sergey Krychenko (Adjutant Anatoly Chubais) and Olga Butkova (financial director of SFO CONCEPT CONSULTING LLC). This is the team that laundered money for Anatoly Chubais.



At this meeting, the participants discussed the issues of finding ways to provide Anatoly Chubais with ways to launder money through the Closed-End Investment Fund "Perspective Companies".

When Boris Mints (participation 45.2%) and Anatoly Chubais (participation 54.8%) created the Closed-End Investment Fund "Perspective Companies", the latter, being a "poor" person, did not pay for the Fund's PAI.

It is clear that in order to pay for the SHARE (ZPIF) "Perspective Companies" in the amount of 479,000,000 rubles, it was necessary to find a rich person.

As a result of the meeting, the desired rich individual was found, he turned out to be Ruben Vardanyan.

Anatoly Chubais sold his friend, colleague and business partner Boris Mints, land plots located at the address: Tver region, Ostashkovsky district, Pavlikha village, at a price 13 times more expensive than their actual value. From this transaction, the profit received in the form of the declared income of Anatoly Chubais amounted to 1,300%.

Subsequently, the above land plots by Boris Mints were included in the closed-end mutual investment fund (ZPIF) "Perspective Companies" created by him and Anatoly Chubais earlier. This ZPIF was managed first by Otkritie Management Company LLC, and later by Sever Asset Management Management Company LLC (beneficiary Boris Mints).

After the implementation of the scheme discussed in the attached audio recording by "accomplices" to Anatoly Chubais, in 2015 a declared income of more than 1.8 billion rubles was formed and shown. Immediately after being received by Anatoly Chubais, these funds were loaned to Boris Mints!

It should be assumed that a similar scheme to legalize funds and conceal the passage of such large amounts through the accounts of the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED in the form of loans was carried out by Anatoly Chubais, Boris Mints and their team in relation to the suburban residence of the residential complex "Peredelki".

As indicated in previous publications, the estimated cost of the "LCD Alteration" was in the region of 47,000,000 US dollars, and the market value was determined according to 3 (Three) independent assessments, including a judicial one in the amount of: from 34,000,000 to 36,500,000 US dollars .

Ignoring the actual costs incurred by the Swiss company SFO Concept AG JSC for the construction of the ZhK Peredelki and its actual market value. Anatoly Chubais and Messrs. Mintsy established and adjusted the assessment of "LCD Alteration" to their requirements, which is significantly less than the money actually spent on the construction, as well as its actual market value, in the region of 8,000,000 US dollars.



Anatoly Chubais and his team made it a rule to eliminate business partners and subordinates objectionable to him by initiating criminal cases against them and bringing them to criminal responsibility.

This happened this time also with respect to Ilya Suchkov, in connection with his refusal to participate, together with Anatoly Chubais and the Mintsy, in money laundering and tax evasion events.

The initiation of criminal case No. 123632 against Ilya Suchkov on far-fetched grounds was not long in coming.

It was on the initiative of Mintsev in relation to Ilya Suchkov on the false statements of representatives (Kuksa R.V. and Mosin D.V.) of the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (beneficiary Boris Mints) and the false statement of Anatoly Chubais about the alleged theft of his property in 2016- 2017 initiated and merged into one 2 (two) criminal cases under Art. 159 (fraud) and Art. 158 (theft) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

When initiating and investigating criminal case No. 123632, the participants in the so-called pre-trial and trial proceedings were: the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Odintsovo city district, represented by investigators Egorova Zh.A. and Mogilevskaya A.G. and Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow, represented by Judge Filchenko M.C.

Without going into details of the grossest violations of the law (CPC and Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) committed by the investigators of the SU UMVD of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district Egorova Zh.A. and Mogileyvskaya A.G. it should be said that the criminal case No. 123632 is completely falsified.

5 (Five) odd years investigators Egorova Zh.A. and Mogilevskaya A.G. manipulated, forged the materials of the case, interrogated false witnesses who do not remember the essential circumstances of the case, the proxies of Anatoly Chubais, namely his “adjutant" Sergey Krychenko and Olga Butkova, who are the general director and accountant of the Russian family office of Anatoly Chubais, who built his house in the village of Peredelki, Odintsovo district, Moscow region.

The ordered nature of the criminal case No. 123632 is visible to the naked eye from the case materials. Everything is broken, cynically broken. It follows from the materials of the case that for the investigators the words “right”, the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation are offensive.

In connection with the inconsistency of the criminal case No. 123632 itself and the grossest violations

of the rights of the accused, the courts of Moscow and the Moscow Region twice in 2020 and in 2021 returned

case for investigation.

At the moment, criminal case No. 123632 is being considered by the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow (Judge Filchenko M.S.).

This period of the trial in the case should be told in more detail.

According to the circumstances of the prosecution, criminal case No. 123632 was sent to the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow on absolutely far-fetched grounds. Now it becomes clear that the change in jurisdiction was not accidental, case No. 123632 was sent for a new consideration of the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow and entrusted to judge Filchenko M.S. During the consideration of case No. 01-0104/2022, it became clear in our opinion that the judge was extremely interested in the outcome of the case.



There are good reasons for such an assumption, namely:



- the court does not acquaint the defendants and their lawyers with the materials of the case;

- the court continues to consider criminal case No. 01-0104/2022 in the absence of written material evidence in it, indicated in the indictment as stored in the case file;

- the court does not consider the petitions of the defendants;

- the court refuses to issue audio recordings and minutes of court sessions;

- the court refuses to call defense witnesses;

- the court unlawfully admits to participation in court hearings that do not have the authority of representatives of the victims - Mosin D.The. and lawyer Goryaynov I.Yu.;

- the court continues to 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.

The above circumstances, in our opinion, clearly indicate that Anatoly Chubais, from abroad, continues to control the entire course of the trial, in order to stop all extremely dubious events from a legal point of view with his participation.



Rucriminal.info publishes a transcript of the conversation of the team that laundered money for Anatoly Chubais.

(Ilya Gulin (financial director of Mintsev), Elena Orlova (employee of Mintsev's office), Sergey Krychenko (Adjutant Anatoly Chubais) and his financial director Olga Butkova)



Sergey Krychenko: the first thing we do is closed-end mutual funds (closed-end mutual funds “Perspective Companies”), right?

Ilya Gulin: no ZPIFs (“Promising Companies”) are second to us. First of all, we have calculations on shares

Sergei Krychenko: that's what I'm talking about. I mean it

Ilya Gulin: there are historical settlements between 2 (Two) shareholders that allow the client (meaning Anatoly Chubais), one of the shareholders, to save 1 million US dollars on personal income tax. Since these accounts were not closed today, we returned to this topic, I met with Sergey (Krychenko is implied) on Friday, which I think everyone knows about. There is a technical possibility to pull out a running amount from other business processes in order to drive it away in a very short period. There is only one question in this regard. How to get money for a client (Anatoly Chubais)?

Olga Butkova: through a management company?

Ilya Gulin: the management company has nothing to do with it. He (Anatoly Chubais) has a debt as an individual

Olga Butkova: now we just take product 479? (it implies a debt of 479 million rubles from Anatoly Chubais to Boris Mints). Are we talking about this amount now?

Ilya Gulin: yes, of course

Olga Butkova: the calculation of mutual funds (“Promising Companies”) is the first question I wanted to ask. How will income be generated through the management company, transferred to the account or in another way?

Ilya Gulin: Closed-end mutual investment fund (Promising companies) will receive income when the closed-end mutual fund is disbanded. Naturally, the money will go to the closed mutual investment fund, the management company will distribute it

Olga Butkova: and the management company is a tax agent for personal income tax. This is the question that bothered me

Ilya Gulin: yes. Naturally, she is a tax agent and by the time the income is distributed, the shareholders will need to clearly understand how much personal income tax she will have to pay, that is, from the entire sale amount or not. We're meeting here to discuss the possibility of paying less. Accordingly the question. How will the shareholder (Anatoly Chubais) receive money into his account in order to pay it further to the second shareholder (Boris Mints) to pay off the debt? This will reduce your tax base.

Sergey Krychenko: who knows the answer? Let's see who has any thoughts on this. Olka Vladimirovna (implying Olga Butkova) have something to say?

Olga Butkova: I assumed that, having received income, the management company would withhold the entire amount of personal income tax from the accumulated part. Somehow there will be a debt of 479 (479 million rubles is meant) to Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints) in some form returned

Ilya Gulin: we need to pay it off earlier, before closing, in order to pay less taxes

Olga Butkova: No, this is all clear, I just don’t understand very well how we will give the management company data on the payment of closed-end mutual funds, because we will pay and the management company will calculate income. It does not seem to reduce by 60,000,000 (rubles are implied)

Ilya Gulin: will reduce if there is a payment order confirming payment

Olga Butkova: or a receipt? Or do you need a payment order?

Ilya Gulin: I think that it is a payment order, a receipt for such an amount, when it comes to settlements of 500,000,000 (rubles) between such well-known persons (Anatoly Chubais - Boris Mints), it seems to me that a cash settlement of 500,000,000 ( rubles) is somewhat cool!

Sergey Krychenko: revives the interest of the public











Olga Butkova: I do not agree because in the tax office, something is confirmed within the framework of all its checks. According to the certificate, he (Anatoly Chubais) has no creditors, he only has a debt to Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints)

Ilya Gulin: there is only one way. It is clear that this is the substitution of one loan for another. Question. Who will give? It seems to me that we need to communicate with respected colleagues (Elena Orlova is meant) on the subject of mediation in this process. We somehow expose money to you, and you put it on Anatoly Borisovich (Anatoly Chubais) so that he pays off Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints). Let's discuss a possible scheme, a possible

Elena Orlova: come on, but I don't understand the sentence

Ilya Gulin: the proposal is very simple

Elena Orlova: we have a very limited number of individuals from whom Anatoly Borisovich (Anatoly Chubais) can accept money

Ilya Gulin: I understand. We cannot give him because he owes us anyway, he (Anatoly Chubais) owes Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints), respectively, the company of Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints) if he gives him (Anatoly Chubais) a loan so that he (Anatoly Chubais) repays Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints) is somewhat strange. It is obvious that some external physicist is needed. We won't do it. We believe that this is not correct. It seems to me that it is enough that we can divert this amount of money (assuming a debt of 479 million rubles) from other processes, our own

Elena Orlova: when you say the company of Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints). What companies do you mean in general or are they banks?

Ilya Gulin: we don't have banks

Elena Orlova: Well, he (it means OTKRITIE Bank) is not friendly?

Ilya Gulin: well, he is friendly, well, he is not ours. There is such an attitude that there should not be a direct relationship either with the "OPENING" or with us. Therefore, I would suggest discussing exactly the scenario that we will somehow do this through you.

Elena Orlova: what? We do not have Russian companies that can pay that kind of money

Ilya Gulin: let's think somehow I don't know

Sergey Krychenko: how much money can be diverted?

Ilya Gulin: two, three days. This is a purely run-through story, so you need to clearly say everything. Where to? How? When? etc. It does not have to be a linear movement, ideally, of course, it should be done in a gap. We put at point "A" he (Anatoly Chubais) received from point "B", it is clear that this implies the presence of a similar amount at point "B" so as not to drive linearly. This gives, in principle, a beautiful story, such a non-linear

That is, we have the opportunity to divert money and drive away. We have this week.

Sergey Krychenko: what do you say? What thoughts?

Elena Orlova: Sergey, it seems to me that we are looking for everything together. We do not have a structure that can issue such a loan, but at the level of a physicist, we have exhausted investing in the closure of other issues

Sergey Krychenko: Well, if we've exhausted it, we've exhausted it

Elena Orlova: these resources are also not endless. Let's discuss where the physicist gets money from. Where will he get the money?

Ilya Gulin: in debt, the company that has them, most likely a non-resident

Elena Orlova: that is, we need a physicist who is ready to borrow from a non-resident? Sergey (Sergey Krychenko) can be such a physicist?

Ilya Gulin: It seems to me that an ordinary physicist is not suitable. We have a client (Anatoly Chubais) who cannot borrow from just anyone. You (Elena Orlova) are also called to help. We just give money to pay off the debt. We are now discussing the possibility of saving 1 million US dollars. We say what we can do in this situation. In general, we were the initiators in this situation. This is what we're talking about

Sergey Krychenko: that is, we need a physicist, a rich physicist, right?


Ilya Gulin: Well, by and large, yes. which we finance

Elena Orlova: how will you finance it? some foreign company?

Ilya Gulin: Well, most likely yes. Should I say the name?

Elena Orlova: name and jurisdiction

Ilya Gulin: I can’t name non-Russian now

Elena Orlova: some kind of offshore?

Ilya Gulin: yes Cypriot maybe

Elena Orlova: well, that is some kind of offshore incomprehensible. belonging to someone

Ilya Gulin: well, she belongs to the group anyway

Elena Orlova: will it really belong to the O1 Group?

Ilya Gulin: maybe so and so. This is discussed if there is feedback.

Elena Orlova: Well, I'm asking you questions to discuss

Ilya Gulin: maybe so and so. I answer them

Elena Orlova: specially you can choose a beautiful offshore company. What does beautiful offshore mean? That is, Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints) will be her real shareholder?

Ilya Gulin: I think yes, we can discuss it. Everything will be one way or another a structure that is officially included in the perimeter of the O1 Group

Elena Orlova: issuing a loan?

Ilya Gulin: yes

Elena Orlova: to an individual?

Ilya Gulin: Well, here again we need to discuss, but we want to do it beautifully. Ideally, of course, I would like to break it so that there is no direct, such a frontal story. Hypothetically, it could be done through 2 (Two) individuals, that is, one received, withdrew, the other contributed and transferred like non-cash. It's like a break. You can do it all within one day

Sergei Krychenko: somehow not very nice, right? Company physicist, physicist in debt boss (Anatoly Chubais) extinguishes the debt (Boris Mints). Somehow not very pretty.

Ilya Gulin: ideally, of course, yes, so that there is some kind of gap, well, that is, one physicist received this money, withdrew it roughly in cash, the other deposited it into his account on the same day. How to formally conclude a loan agreement with each other and it will be there at the level of bank accounts

A solid, well-known person with a reputation can do much more than a simple physicist. Therefore, a simple physicist as a person giving a loan to Anatoly Borisovich (Chubais), this seems to me an unaffordable luxury. There should be a solid weighty character, well, it seems to me.

Elena Orlova: in our country, the loan issued to Anatoly Borisovich (Chubais) will be repaid very quickly, it will not be included in the declaration. I don’t understand, the loan will go through the accounts anyway

Sergey Krychenko: exactly what is on the bills

Elena Orlova: well, then why run the accounts

Ilya Gulin, Sergey Krychenko, Olga Butkova: so that the tax office has no questions

Elena Orlova: we refused to consider the receipt in principle

Olga Butkova: no. We are considering a receipt, but we say that there are risks that the tax authorities may find fault with this. We talked about the receipt when this money came to us

Elena Orlova: I want to protect this story from you, because this story is extremely important for you

Olga Butkova: but now I'm not quite sure. We will not be given 35,000,000 (rubles), but why? Ilya, my question is this, these 479 (479 million rubles are meant) they will all go to Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints) will they not come back to us in any way?

Ilya Gulin: this is the running sum. Of course. It must pass before the closing of ZPIF ("Perspective Companies")

Olga Butkova: she is like a running sum, but then she will not return to us

Ilya Gulin: now wait, she's just a runaway

Elena Orlova: let's think logically. We consider a loan from some foreign company to be normal, but do we consider settlements between physicists on a receipt not normal?











Ilya Gulin: well, the tax office definitely thinks

Elena Orlova: we must have a receipt received before the closing of the ZPIF (“Promising Companies”), for this receipt we will only have the question of where the money came from, that is, you must somehow get it in loans

Olga Butkova: yes

Elena Orlova: usually if we have a receipt, then this is a guaranteed problem with the tax, right?

Olga Butkova: well, considering that I have been submitting declarations for the 5th year, there is a general problem with all documents, everything is checked. I'm not saying that the probability of something like that is direct, but given the large amount. Cashless somehow, more guaranteed

Sergei Krychenko: OK, but if we do that, let's say we ask some rich physicist for a loan under a loan agreement. Can we do that?

Elena Orlova: Sergey, let's discuss the scheme again

Sergey Krychenko: Well, now I'm trying to formulate it somehow. They borrowed money from a good, wealthy physicist under a cash loan agreement. We can take it, it is not necessary to drive them from account to account?

Ilya Gulin: in my understanding, it is highly desirable

Sergei Krychenko: highly desirable. Assuming there is no such possibility. Well, they took cash

Elena Orlova: then who gives you loans is obliged to explain the origin of this money

Sergey Krychenko: if he has this money in his account, well, let's assume there

Elena Orlova: if he has them on his account, there is no point in cashing out. And the question is, if they are not on the account, then their origin? We need a physicist who gives and cashes

Sergey Krychenko: to whom, what the hell is it how I want to take a loan? In what form to transfer to the account or take cash?

Ilya Gulin: we have a chain. Anatoly Borisovich (Chubais) will be asked where he got it? He will say here. To the second, where did you get it?

Sergey Krychenko: withdrew mine from the account and gave them. Well ask me the questions that will be asked, no seriously, that the competent authorities can ask

Olga Butkova: where did you get the money?

Sergey Krychenko: earned honest, overwork. I have this money declared. Next, what's the question? Why did I decide to withdraw cash and give it away like that, and not overtake it from the account? Because it was convenient for me

Ilya Gulin: well, then there should be confirmation of the fact that he withdrew this money from the account

Elena Orlova: OK, but if we have such a fact of withdrawal from the account. He withdrew the entire 2014 and 2012 from the accounts, because I do not trust the banking system, which is logical

Sergei Krychenko: Yes, quite, but I only take them off to fold them up and then lend them to my dear Anatoly Borisovich (Chubais). Correctly? Holy business. So there must be documents confirming the fact of withdrawing money for this at least the amount. Correctly?

Elena Orlova: yes

Ilya Gulin: Elena, but returning to the topic, it just sounded that there is a limit on white income, and if it's just borrowed funds

Elena Orlova: who has borrowed? Why borrowed? I borrowed to give here

Ilya Gulin: It's just one thing if you take from your own company, from your own bank, etc., from your own business. Why not. If this is an understandable person (it means the desired individual who meets the criteria voiced), then he does not have to have income, he does not give, he can also borrow them somewhere. There is nothing shameful in this. It is important that the contractors of the main (Anatoly Chubais) have understandable people and there are no incomprehensible

Elena Orlova: well, let's provide an understandable lender













Ilya Gulin: I think you just need to go the other way. Who will be the main contractor (Anatoly Chubais)?

Sergey Kryenko: Can Anatoly Borisovich (Chubais) take a loan from someone to return the money to Boris Iosifovich (Mints)?

Elena Orlova: he can even take a loan from Boris Iosifovich (Mints) to pay off the old contract. It's just interest-bearing. They so agreed. In general, there is nothing crazy and terrible about this at all. Just much less turmoil than we start to wind up some circles. Let's think about that too.

Sergey Krychenko: let's go. What are the cons here?

Elena Orlova: who can show us what? There is an old debt, it needs to be closed, there is a tax reflection, this is already for criminal prosecution, if it happens, but the tax simply has a paid debt and the tax does not check the origin of the money in the account, all sorts of financial monitoring check the origin of the money in the account

Ilya Gulin: in my understanding there are a lot of signs of pretense in this whole story. The more Boris Iosifovich (Mints) finances Anatoly Borisovich (Chubais) “with his own money”, the less I like all this. Because this is how he (Boris Mints) initially bought it himself, he gave them (PAI ZPIF "Perspective Companies"), waited 4 (Four) years, did not receive payment, did not receive interest, then he himself gave money, so that's all repay yourself. Here's how to tell you...

Olga Butkova: By the way, the tax authorities told me that 4 (Four) years the obligations are not fulfilled, additional interest can be charged

Ilya Gulin: yes. That's why

Sergey Krychenko: good. Suppose we find some other physicist, a completely different physicist, not Boris Iosifovich (Mints)

Elena Orlova: You want to set up some respected physicist, any respected physicist will tell you who the counterparty is

Ilya Gulin: we will tell him. We can give west-west to your structure, we can give you directly, depending on what the structure will be, you need to go to the specifics

Elena Orlova: how can you give directly to this person?

Ilya Gulin: I already said, a loan from a non-resident company. If this physicist has a free infrastructure and possible financial resources to break the chain, it will be even better and it will probably still be possible to pay something extra for this. You just need to go from a physicist, from a concrete one, what for to theorize. We say that A.B. (Anatoly Chubais) there must be a clear counterparty

Elena Orlova: Good. Then we have now determined that you need a physicist who has a structure that can provide him (Anatoly Chubais) with money in his account

Ilya Gulin: ideally yes

Elena Orlova: here we answered the question of who we need to find

Ilya Gulin: I honestly expected that we would do all this using a simpler scheme, that we would meet and understand that the reserves were exhausted

Elena Orlova: but you don’t even answer the question of whether your structure can provide us with quality financing

Ilya Gulin: I answered

Elena Orlova: for these purposes, I don’t like the story most of all, that I also need a structure capable of doing all this

Ilya Gulin: Don't you think it would be better?

Elena Orlova: I don't know.

Ilya Gulin: But it seems to me that it would be interesting, right, beautiful for the main thing (Anatoly Chubais) to break apart, first of all. It's obvious to me



Elena Orlova: We have now identified the problem, we need to solve it. When is it planned to repay closed mutual funds (“Promising companies”)?

Ilya Gulin: We need to solve all this at the moment because, roughly speaking, we also have this run-through money, roughly speaking, this week we have.



To be continued

Timofey Grishin

Source: www.rucriminal.info

"It's much tastier than paying a million"

Chubais team discusses money laundering and tax evasion




The telegram channel of the Cheka-OGPU obtained an audio recording of the so-called working meeting in the spring of 2016 of the team of Anatoly Chubais, who was engaged in money laundering for their boss, tax evasion, etc. Ilya Suchkov, who helped build Chubais' cottage, was also invited to this meeting.

At this meeting, in addition to Ilya Suchkov, there were characters known from previous numerous publications: Dmitry Mints, Ilya Gulin (financial director of Mintsev companies), Elena Orlova (legal officer of Mintsev companies), Sergey Krychenko (Adjutant Anatoly Chubais) and Olga Butkova ( Financial Director of SFO CONCEPT CONSULTING LLC).

Recall that by this time the "LC Peredelki" Odintsovo district, Moscow region was built and handed over on January 1, 2016 to the customer who financed the construction of the "RC Peredelki" - the Swiss company JSC "SFO Concept AG". As indicated in previous publications, the estimated cost of "LCD Alterations" was in the region of 47,000,000 US dollars, and the market value was determined according to 3 (Three) independent assessments, including a judicial one in the amount of: from 34,000,000 to 36,500,000 US dollars .

At the meeting, essentially one issue was discussed - the establishment of an optimal mechanism for the sale of ZhK Peredelka to Anatoly Chubais at the lowest possible price.

Dmitry Mints Ilya Suchkov, if I may say so, was “offered”, and in fact imposed on a peremptory basis, the option to transfer ZhK Alterations, owned by the Swiss company JSC SFO Concept AG, to a person identified by them - Boris Mints at a symbolic cost with for the purpose of the subsequent sale of ZhK Peredelki at the same symbolic cost to Anatoly Chubais.



According to Dmitry Mints, after the implementation of the scheme “proposed” by him to liquidate the large debt formed by Anatoly Chubais, the Swiss company should have been deliberately bankrupted, and the remaining difference in the amount of about 17,000,000 US dollars of debt obligations recovered from the shareholder and the general director A Swiss company, that is, from entrepreneur Ilya Suchkov and Andre Odermatt, respectively.

Considering that earlier Anatoly Chubais "recommended" Ilya Suchkov to agree on the mechanism for the sale of ZhK Peredelka with Dmitry Mints, Dmitry Mints' "proposal" sounded like an instruction agreed with Anatoly Chubais.

Ignoring the actual costs incurred by the Swiss company JSC "SFO Concept AG" for the construction of the "ZhK Alterations" and its actual market value, to establish an estimate of the ZhK Alterations, adjusted to the desired, necessary and meeting the wishes of Anatoly Chubais and Mr. Mintsev, is significantly less than actually spent on construction of funds, as well as its actual market value, in the region of 8,000,000 US dollars.



Rucriminal.info recalls that, as we indicated in previous publications, such an underestimated cost of "LCD Alterations" in the region of 7,000,000 - 8,000,000 US dollars met the wishes of Anatoly Chubais and Mr. Mintsev. This fact is confirmed by the statements of Dmitry Mints at the meeting, since this would allow Anatoly Chubais, Boris and Dmitry Mints to hide the passage of such large amounts through the accounts of the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED in the form of loans.

In addition, this, such an underestimate, was necessary due to the lack of declared income from Anatoly Chubais, which would allow him to purchase ZhK Peredelki at market value.

An associate of Anatoly Chubais, including Sergey Krychenko and the financial director of the Anatoly Chubais family office headed by him (Sergey Krychenko) in the Russian Federation, Olga Butkova, at the meeting it was reported that the amount of the budget laid by them for the purchase by Anatoly Chubais of ZhK Peredelki should not have been exceed 8,000,000 US dollars or 520,000,000 rubles.

Thus, it should be assumed that the scheme “proposed” by Dmitry Mints for the purchase of ZhK Peredelka was planned by Anatoly Chubais and the company in advance and was not disclosed to Ilya Suchkov until the last moment by him (Anatoly Chubais) and the company.

Moreover, according to the statements of Dmitry Mints at this meeting, the scheme proposed by him to Ilya Suchkov was completely feigned and, if Ilya Suchkov agreed, would consist, in violation of the current legislation, solely in the transfer of funds between the above participants in the contractual relationship.

Ultimately, Anatoly Chubais would have solved the task he set back in 2016, but due to the refusal of Ilya Suchkov to participate in his (Anatoly Chubais), Boris and Dmitry Mintsev illegal scheme, expressed in the alleged money laundering, he did it only after 3 (Three) years in February 2019!



In connection with the unforeseen circumstances that have arisen, we believe that it was Anatoly Chubais or his associates in his and initiative had to perform a number of illegal actions related to the legally dubious purchase of ZhK Alterations, namely:



- to initiate, on far-fetched grounds, the initiation of criminal case No. 123632 against the intractable businessman Ilya Suchkov. The basis of which is the senior investigator of the SU UMVD of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district Egorova Zh.A. was put, made by Mr. Mintsev or on their behalf, adjusted to the desired by Mr. Mintsev and Anatoly Chubais, an assessment of the "friendly" company KnightFrank, as well as false testimony, we believe dummy, acting by proxy, the so-called, having nothing to do with the Cyprus company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED, representatives of the injured party - Rim Kuks and Dmitry Mosin. This circumstance is confirmed by the materials of the case and the audio recording of the so-called working meeting;

- to initiate, on far-fetched grounds, by artificially changing jurisdiction, the consideration of a civil dispute between foreign legal entities by the Cypriot company KRIZNA HOLDINGS LTD, affiliated with Boris Mints and the Swiss company SFO Concept AG JSC, not in the London International Arbitration Court, but in the Arbitration Court of the Bryansk Region, according to the reason, as we believe, is his pliability and obtaining the decision necessary for Anatoly Chubais.

Recall that the artificial change of jurisdiction became possible due to the fact that the Russian family office of Anatoly Chubais turned out to be the second defendant before the Cyprus company KRIZNA HOLDINGS LTD according to the surety agreement of June 2015, in violation of the current legislation, without notifying the debtor - the Swiss company - SFO CONCEPT CONSULTING LLC, with an authorized capital of 100,000 rubles.

- initiate with the participation of the investigator Egorova Zh.A. organization and holding of auctions for the sale of ZhK Peredelka, which is under arrest and is material evidence in criminal case No. 123632 for 600,000,000 million rubles, that is, for the amount originally planned by the "accomplices" associates of Anatoly Chubais, as part of the so-called working meeting in the spring 2016;

(This scheme of the “raider capture of the ZhK Peredelka” is described in more detail in a publication on the website: rucriminal.info dated April 25, 2022 - “Chubais’s giant “pod” was found”)

- to initiate in June 2017 the illegal arrest of Ilya Suchkov;

- contribute to the systematic violation of the law by the investigator Egorova Zh.A. and the investigator of the same department Mogilevskaya A.G. and as a result of bringing Ilya Suchkov to disability.



We believe that the criminal case No. 123632 is certainly custom-made and we recall that it was initiated by the investigator Egorova Zh.A. October 16, 2016 contrary to the actual circumstances:



- loans were taken for the purpose of replenishing the working capital of the Swiss company SFO Concept AG JSC, owned at that time by 100% shareholder Anatoly Chubais, on his behalf by the Managing Director of the Swiss company Andre Odermatt. Loans were taken for a long period, at an insignificant percentage, without any security, under the guarantee of Anatoly Chubais of their return to his friend, colleague and business partner Boris Mints, and were spent by Anatoly Chubais during his 100% shareholding of the Swiss company, that is, until May 2013 of the year;

- the paradox of the prosecution in this criminal case lies in the fact that it was initiated 6 (six) years before the right to claim under loan agreements by the concluded managers of the Swiss company SFO Concept AG JSC - Andre Odermatt on behalf of Anatoly Chubais;

- in December 2014, Ilya Suchkov, under the loan agreements concluded earlier by Anatoly Chubais, from the profit of the Swiss company, in fact from his own money, partially repaid the obligations to the Cyprus Company of Boris Mints for Anatoly Chubais ahead of schedule. In the hope that, based on an earlier agreement with Anatoly Chubais, these amounts will be compensated to them after the purchase of the Peredelki residential complex at the market value;

- Ilya Suchkov, after the so-called working meeting, in the summer of 2016, repeatedly offered the Cypriot company of Boris Mints and Anatoly Chubais, in accordance with the current legislation of the Russian Federation and Switzerland, to buy "ZhK Peredelki" at the actual market value, according to 3 (Three) independent assessments, including 1 (One) litigation, with a possible discount for 33,000,000 US dollars allowed by the current legislation. It is especially worth noting that this circumstance in itself excluded any intent on the part of Ilya Suchkov for fraud;

- The property (AITI - equipment) that Ilya Suchkov is charged with as allegedly stolen from Anatoly Chubais is still installed and located in the ZhK Peredelki and as of 2017-2018 did not belong to Anatoly Chubais, which is confirmed by the case materials.

Despite the fact that all the above arguments are indisputably documented by the materials of criminal case No. 123632, investigator YegOrova Zh.A. and the investigator of the same department, Mogilevskaya A.G., were completely ignored, and instead of bringing the above investigators to justice for their illegal actions during the entire 6 (Six) years of the so-called investigation, they were retired and fired voluntarily accordingly. Phenomenal, isn't it?!

For almost 3 (Three) years now, criminal case No. 123632 has been in various courts in Moscow and the Moscow Region, twice returned to the prosecutor for additional investigation.

In turn, Anatoly Chubais' henchmen are extremely active, trying at all costs to drag the insolvent criminal case No. 123632 through the court.

I really want to, I hope that according to the obvious facts of falsification, distortion and manipulation of materials that do not require, in our opinion, lasting 6 (Six) years, we believe that the custom-made criminal case No. grade.



PRINT VERSION

meetings in 2016



(Ilya Suchkova with Dmitry Mints, Ilya Gulin (Mintsev's CFO), Elena Orlova (Mintsev's office employee), Sergey Krychenko (Adjutant Anatoly Chubais) and his CFO Olga Butkova)



Sergey Krychenko: How much do you owe? Let's start with this (meaning how much is the amount of debt received in 2010-2012 by Anatoly Chubais for the Swiss company JSC "SFO Concept AG" "loans" from the Cyprus company of his friend, colleague and business partner Boris Mints - O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED is now reorganized as TILSOKA LIMITED).

Ilya Suchkov: 24, well, 23 with a penny (assuming millions of US dollars)

Dmitry Mints: bankrupt a Swiss company and that's it

Elena Orlova: as planned (implied by Chubais's confidants)

Sergei Krychenko: to bankrupt a Swiss company?

Dmitry Mints: he (meaning Anatoly Chubais) will buy it (meaning the residential complex "Alterations"), I don't know how much for 7 (meaning 7,000,000 US dollars)

Sergey Krychenko: for 8 (implies USD 8,000,000), for 9 (implies USD 9,000,000)

Dmitry Mints: he (Boris Mints) will have to buy debts for 7 (implies 7,000,000 US dollars), O1 T (implies O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED) will remain with debt, there for how much 24 (implies 24,000,000 US dollars) minus 7 (implies 7,000,000 US dollars), for 7 (implies 7,000,000 US dollars) he (Boris Mints) will take this house (“LCD Alterations”), then O1 T (implies O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED) will go bankrupt, well, wait for bankruptcy slowly Swiss company

Elena Orlova: well, is bankruptcy in 7 (assuming 7,000,000 US dollars)? There, your director (meaning the director of the Swiss company Andre Odermatt) will not suffer on this subject?

Ilya Suchkov: will

Elena Orlova: there the director (it means the director of the Swiss company Andre Odermatt) is already so twitchy and ...

Ilya Suchkov: but there he is not only twitchy

Dmitry Mints: why is he twitchy, got up, left, it's surprising why there is no director who can survive the bankruptcy of the company?

Elena Orlova: Why don’t we just want to buy and sell a house without bankruptcy

Dmitry Mints: well, you have a deal for 24 and give it back for 24 (it means millions of US dollars)?

Elena Orlova: anyway, at the level of companies and debt collectors, the situation will be better or through the bankruptcy of some company there

Dmitry Mints: so that no one would say that in fact it costs 24 (it means the cost of the residential complex "Peredelki" 24 million US dollars) and it was necessary to take away the house (RC "Peredelki") for 24 (million US dollars), so that later someone then I didn’t start to figure it out, it turns out there was a debt of 24 million (it means US dollars)

Elena Orlova: someone will still figure it out, if someone wants to figure it out, there will be bankruptcy of the company and publications, a house, and so on, it’s better to do it all quietly (phone call - alo)

Sergei Krychenko: so, what?

Dmitry Mints: and here it’s not because of the bankruptcy of the company that there were so many assets, but there was so much debt, well, what can you do. They took it for so much, well, plus or minus there, with a plus there, they sold 100 rubles. Forgive the debt, take 8 (it means 8,000,000 US dollars) and look for the rest of the debt from Suchkov

Elena Orlova: how will they find and whose assets they will look for, a shareholder?

Ilya Suchkov: me

Dmitry Mints: why a shareholder?

Elena Orlova: No, well, then what are we going to look for, what assets?

Dmitry Mints: no, we will not look for anything, we will close the topic in such a way that we took something that was 24 and sold it to a comrade in chief (Anatoly Chubais is implied) for 8 (8,000,000 US dollars are implied)

Elena Orlova: well, that's exactly what they didn't sell

Dmitry Mints: in the end they sold it! finally sold it!

Elena Orlova: do you have an estimate of what you took

Dmitry Mints: there is a correct assessment of what I took

Elena Orlova: they took everything that was

Dmitry Mints: a gave it for 24 (it means 24,000,000 US dollars), I’ll say you took it first for 24 (it means 24,000,000 US dollars) and then estimated it somehow and then gave it to Chubais for 8 (it means 8,000,000 US dollars) of which then here...

Elena Orlova: well, the one who will tell you, if suddenly there is such a person, will tell you this in any situation, with or without bankruptcy

Dmitry Mints: why did I buy back debts from O1 T (O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED) for 8 (8,000,000 US dollars are implied), came to the company. Do you want a company to pay you a debt for 8? You have a house for 8. I forgave the debt for 8. The remaining debt remained on O1 T (O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED), O1 T came and went to sue there. At the level of physicists, he paid 8 (assuming Boris Mints), received 8, gave me a gift, I sold it, earned money if someone warms their ears there

Elena Orlova: about the fact that you came and took away everything that was the rest, they bankrupted the same

Dmitry Mints: why not? O1 T (O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED) is a completely different story, it’s not the same, I don’t feel any difference

Elena Orlova: I don't know this difference, how do you feel, I'm not ready

Dmitry Mints: well, not ready, and then I'm not ready

Elena Orlova: how can I feel the difference without knowing your situation

Dmitry Mints: what is our situation?

Elena Orlova: I don’t even know what it is about O1 T (O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED)

Dmitry Mints: I am not worried about the fate of O1 T (O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED) in this case. I am infuriated by the situation with two physicists (meaning Anatoly Chubais and Boris Mints)

Elena Orlova: To what extent is it possible?

Dmitry Mints: You don’t want to tell me that…

Elena Orlova: I don't want to say anything now. We're just talking about a path that will be minimally public and troublesome.

Dmitry Mints: this is not troublesome (the above illegal scheme proposed by Mints is implied) and there is no publicity in this, a million companies are going bankrupt in the country, I think the Swiss also have more than one or two, they decided to give away the house

Elena Orlova: well, bankruptcy usually goes through the court

Ilya Suchkov: of course

Sergey Krychenko: well, through the court, through the court, the bankruptcy went through the court. Give me at least approximately the point at which at least Dmitry will be the owner (Dmitry Mints is implied)

Dmitry Mints: this deal with the house (meaning the residential complex "Alterations") does not delay at all

Elena Orlova: it is possible that even a deal with a house (LCD "Peredelki") will speed up. The bankruptcy process does not depend on this topic. Do you want to make an assignment of this debt exactly for the amount of buying a house (LCD "Peredelki")? No delta, no nothing

Dmitry Mints: well, yeah, there ... some kind of delta

Elena Orlova: some kind of delta, no matter what, not fundamental. Part of the debt is assigned to an individual (implies to Boris Mints), an individual comes to the company (implies SFO Concept AG JSC Switzerland) says, make a purchase and sale transaction as part of the offset of the right of claim, and after some time a company appears ... (implies O1 T (O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED))

Ilya Gulin: well, she appears or does not appear

Elena Orlova: no, she appears (meaning O1 T (O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED)) because our task is to liquidate this company (meaning SFO Concept AG JSC Switzerland) to hell with Swiss, so she (meaning O1 T (O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED) should appear and go bankrupt and find out that some physicist has already taken everything

Dmitry Mints: no, well, you just need to make an option there, you just need to apparently meet a certain deadline, so observe half a year ...

Ilya Gulin: so that it was impossible to return

Dmitry Mints: and six months later, O1 T (O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED) comes and demands a debt. You have appointed the one who liquidates

Elena Orlova: in general, you need to find out how the bankruptcy procedure takes place in Switzerland

Olga Butkova: our client (Anatoly Chubais) plans to move in on June 01 (2016 is assumed) and already live there (LC "Peredelki")

Elena Orlova: don’t wait Ol, everyone has already understood that we have already made a deal for the sale of physicists and the physicist is already further disposing of his thing (LC "Peredelki")

Dmitry Mints: not then, at least among the physicists (Boris Mints and Anatoly Chubais), there is Boris Iosifovich. Phone call. The physicist comes there, says that's why I bought a house, well, I bought a house, I sold it with a profit, he says my son gave it, instead of 7 (it means 7,000,000 US dollars), well, I sold it, plus or minus, well, it kind of beats there. Our biggest problem is that Mintz sold something conditionally to Chubais there for 3 (Three) kopecks.

Elena Orlova: and if he buys debts, all debts for 8 million (US dollars are implied), let's assume, just so that we don't go bankrupt, but just close

Dmitry Mints: that is, with a discount, I know this, they can formally contact the boss (meaning Anatoly Chubais) "fuck" the investigators for how much he paid (meaning Anatoly Chubais), he exchanged a debt of 24 million (meaning US dollars) for house (LCD "Alterations") there which costs, how much is there 8 (it means 8,000,000 US dollars) in this is the topic on which he (Anatoly Chubais) decided, well, to do so, and then this house (LCD "Alterations") which nominally costs 24 million

Olga Butkova: we have 24 million investments in construction

Ilya Suchkov: 30! (implies US dollars, investment in construction at that time in the residential complex "Alterations")

Elena Orlova: Dim, well, in this design, it’s just docking a house for 8 (it means millions of US dollars), drive away the money, and then go into bankruptcy and generally don’t get involved with debts, then no investigators will have any questions, but as soon as you get hooked through debt, and then some kind of incomprehensible story with debts, well, if you follow this logic, then it should be completely broken.

Dmitry Mints: yes, maybe it makes more sense

Elena Orlova: because as soon as you hook even a part of the debt in general, you will screw up the whole story

Ilya Gulin: in this logic, even if we are chasing money for a part, for 8 (US dollars are implied)

Elena Orlova: no, as soon as you talk about investigators, you must break these 2 (Two) stories (assuming loans issued with the purchase of the residential complex "Alterations")

Dmitry Mints: not for 8 no

Elena Orlova: as soon as you talk about investigators, you should break these 2 (Two) stories

Dmitry Mints: we give Boris Iochifrvich 8 million (US dollars) he buys this house (RC "Peredelki")

Ilya Gulin: I’m saying everything correctly and these 8 (million US dollars) remain there in partial payment of the debt of O1 T (O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED) and remain there 24 minus 8 (million US dollars) roughly speaking, that is, the company (meaning JSC SFO Concept AG (Switzerland) remains in debt

Elena Orlova: and then the company (JSC SFO Concept AG, Switzerland) is already resolving the issue either going into bankruptcy or signing an amicable debt forgiveness and fixing this profit against losses when selling the house, as we actually originally planned and there is no need for any bankruptcy and hemorrhoids with this house

Dmitry Mints: no, it seems cleaner to me

Elena Orlova: if you want to break his story with someone, it's just a sale and then no one will pull you up

Dmitry Mints: no, no, no, there’s no bargaining, at least, here they are, they live in formal categories very much

Sergei Krychenko: Do ​​you mean the investigators?

Dmitry Mints: Yes, investigators.

Sergey Krychenko: the devil knows

Elena Orlova: in formal categories, just buying and selling

Dmitry Mints: no, listen, if I buy a house there for 8, sold for 8,100 (million US dollars), valuation 8,100 or 8, there is 7,500 (million US dollars) Here you go

Ilya Gulin: well, in the end, the main question that remains is left to the SFO (meaning JSC SFO Concept AG Switzerland) with debts of 17 (meaning millions of US dollars), what will be the timing procedure for liquidating this company (meaning JSC SFO Concept AG" Switzerland)

Dmitry Mints: going bankrupt is always cleaner than forgiving a debt there

Ilya Gulin: I agree, let's find out the details then

Elena Orlova: no, well, in order to make a decision on bankruptcy, we really need to find out the details and the exact process, because if so, some independent dude should appear

Ilya Gulin: well, then, by the end of the week, let's have a detailed scenario of what we all want, so good

Elena Orlova: we are talking about debt, but actually about the transfer of ownership of the house

Dmitry Mints: so what will the documents be for the sale

Elena Orlova: that is, a contract of sale for money?

Dmitry Mints: Well, yes. Have you determined this number?

Elena Orlova: we must have a fresh assessment

Ilya Suchkov: we initially had a figure for debts, now it is again offered in the red

Elena Orlova: How much did you budget?

Olga Butkova: I pawned...

Sergey Krychenko: to buy?

Ilya Suchkov: 7 (million US dollars), in my opinion, you pawned

Sergey Krychenko: 8 (US$ million)

Olga Butkova: 520,000,000 (rubles implied)

Ilya Suchkov: 8 or 7 (million US dollars)?

Sergey Krychenko: 8 (Eight), 8 (Eight) (US$ million)

Olga Butkova: I budgeted 520,000,000 rubles

Sergei Krychenko: in rubles?

Olga Butkova: yes

Elena Orlova: no, well, it’s not really the less the better, because from all this amount he (meaning Anatoly Chubais) will then pay tax

Sergey Krychenko: we will buy it from your account

Elena Orlova: because you are according to the old plan, maybe something has changed, will you buy or will you be given as a gift?

Sergey Krychenko: we will eventually buy

Dmitry Mints: question. Old plan, do you need an old plan?

Elena Orlova: the old plan is bad, because if they ate this donation, then this is a tax on the entire amount of the transaction

Dmitry Mints: no, but just tell me a simple question. And if he (Boris Mints is implied) bought and sold, why am I in this scheme then? Boris Iosifovich bought, sold to Chubais, no difference to a resident / non-resident, if the difference there is not big, no difference

Elena Orlova: but he (Boris Mints is implied) will pay 30% of this difference, no, no, we will discussed what he (Boris Mints) would take for debts, since the price is incomprehensible and we will not have a sale and purchase, as we have just discussed, he can only have a donation further, if we have a sale and purchase there, then in principle ...

Ilya Gulin: if there is an incoming one, he (Boris Mints is meant) does not sell much cheaper than he (Boris Mints) bought

Elena Orlova: that's why they wanted it, there was a donation, that's right Ilya (Ilya Gulin is implied) says that's why they wanted to give

Dmitry Mints: then we may have to pay 100, 200 thousand dollars

Ilya Gulin: without donation

Elena Orlova: but it's much tastier, because to pay a million (implying US dollars) for nothing

Dmitry Mints: there is another limitation, the amount, he has no official cash on his account

Elena Orlova: who?

Dmitry Mints: at Chubais

Elena Orlova: of course

Dmitry Mints: therefore, you don’t need much, and so there is not much there (assuming declared profitability)

Elena Orlova: absolutely because of this there will be additional experiences

Ilya Guli: that is, we remove the link then

Elena Orlova: if we have a purchase and sale of it (it means ZhK Peredelki) from that company (it means JSC SFO Concept AG Switzerland), then we remove the link and, in principle, we can already start this story after the assessment is ready. The evaluation can then be done at a minimum

Sergey Krychenko: will the seller be in this case?

Elena Orlova: Boris Iosifovich. We have now gone into the design when Boris Iosifovich buys then we don’t need Dmitry (Dmitry Mints is meant) in general. Excellent Dmitry

Sergey Krychenko: just the very fact of the sale of the object by Boris Iosifovich to Anatoly Borisovich

Dmitry Mints: so what

Sergey Krychenko: what’s in the forehead, what’s spelled, right?

Dmitry Mints: yes

Elena Orlova: even less than any pretense

Ilya Gulin: a more direct story

Sergey Krychenko: we ourselves admit, it turns out like this

Elena Orlova: in what? We didn't do anything

Dmitry Mints: no, why Boris Iosifovich, as a real estate figure, took a house there (meaning "LCD Alterations"), looked there to sell not to sell, well, he found someone to sell

Elena Orlova: earned

Sergey Krychenko: Do ​​you know what's the matter? Unfortunately, everyone who needs to assume they know the history of the AG company (meaning SFO Concept AG) and know that at one time he (meaning Anatoly Chubais) was its shareholder. Is there any relationship here?

Dmitry Mints: who?

Sergey Krychenko: Anatoly Borisovovich

Elena Orlova: everyone who needs to know everything is why our conspiracy

Sergey Krychenko: you want to say no to the need

Elena Orlova: our task is to meet the limit

Ilya Gulin: there is a need, it’s just that this link (meaning Dmitry Mints) has no added value in the current design that was discussed today, it doesn’t give anything, it raises more questions, it seems to me

Elena Orlova: and yet I think we need to do without bankruptcy, that's why too

Dmitry Mints - Ilya Gulin: on the contrary, everything is real, everything is fine

Ilya Gulin: there are debts, the company is interested in returning its debts

Elena Orlova: we don’t have any connection between the real estate buyer (Boris Mints) and this company (JSC SFO Concept AG Switzerland), and our director is not afraid that he sold it cheaply and then they came to him to sue him for bankruptcy, that’s where I’m just I saw the letters of this director (Andre Odermatt is implied) I think he will have a tantrum.

Dmitry Mints: appoint another director well

Elena Orlova: They won't survive another director

Sergey Krychenko: you know it's not so easy

Elena Orlova: well, there's just a story

Dmitry Mints: everything has a story

Elena Orlova: everything has different stories, but they have such a story here

Dmitry Mints: I don’t know, it seems to me that going bankrupt is cleaner

Elena Orlova: for whom?

Dmitry Mints, Ilya Gulin: for everyone

Elena Orlova: You don't care in principle

Dmitry Mints: probably, well, for us, for everyone, it seems strange to me to take and forgive a debt, I think that this is generally a very strange topic when you take and simply forgive a debt

Elena Orlova: why don't you spend money on lawyers

Ilya Gulin: if it's worth it

Dmitry Mints: yes

Elena Orlova: well, it's worth it if it's worth it, and if you still don't get anything, then it's not clear what it's worth

Dmitry Mints: I’m telling you again, go to any bank and tell me what you are going bankrupt if there are no assets, they will bankrupt everyone anyway because the procedure is correct

Elena Orlova: well, right, because they have a procedure, but we are not dealing with a bank now

Dmitry Mints: no, but what if someone comes to us and says what did you do

Elena Orlova: who will come to you? Tell us who will come to you so that we are ready

Ilya Gulin: wait, the director who is appointed there to perform certain functions may not agree

Dmitry Mints: what is his way out?

Elena Orlova: we say that we have a procedure, he has a way out ...

Ilya Suchkov: always there

Dmitry Mints: no, well, he can just as well not ask anyone to file for bankruptcy, well, he’s not going anywhere

Dmitry Mints: ok yes

enter 5 or 4 (millions of US dollars are implied) it is absolutely negligible less than 1,000 dollars per meter, and less than 1,000 dollars per meter is certainly strange

Sergey Krychenko: this is quite strange

Elena Orlova: well, after all

Sergey Krychenko: please tell us, do we have people who can come and estimate the real cost of this object (implying the residential complex "Alterations")?

Ilya Gulin: any appraisers will tell you that in the market it costs so much yes, to do it the way you want, you need to carry out such and such manipulations at the expense of this, that, that

Dmitry Mints: on the market now it can cost as much as you want

Ilya Gulin: there is no such market

Elena Orlova: there is no market for such objects, in principle, it is possible to estimate approximately the land, it is impossible to estimate the footage of a house in this size

Ilya Gulin: there will definitely not be similar proposals

Dmitry Mints: no, well, something will happen of course

Elena Orlova: will not. We have explored this area. Well, after all, in the absence of female logic, let's somehow move on. What price are we valuing? I understand that appraisers don't care at all. We had a late 2014 estimate of 5,000,000 (US Dollars implied), after which a large investment of 20 million (US Dollars) was made. The question is what assessment should we have now?

Ilya Gulin: but at the same time there was a crisis

Elena Orlova: but the crisis happened in 2014 already, it won't help

Ilya Gulin: I don’t know 7 (meaning millions of US dollars), this is above the psychological bar per meter, above the cadastral value, below 8 (meaning US dollars) which has always been heard but close to it, therefore 7 (millions of dollars USA) would be adequate

Elena Orlova: how many meters did we count? 5 with something (thousand M2 is implied). Very correct, well, because all of our below and below they are very abstract and are discussed

Ilya Gulin: I agree

Olga Butkova: I agree

Elena Orlova: and roughly speaking, it turns out that anyway it is very cheap and can be provided at any time, with anyone. Skuratov will be offended and blurt out something in an interview

Dmitry Mints: I think that he should be like this, like him, whoever, the builder of St. Basil's Cathedral.

Elena Orlova: well then we make an estimate in the region of 7 (millions of US dollars is implied), this is the first

Ilya Gulin: so there are two draft contracts, bankruptcy before the end of the week, scheme, terms and details three

Elena Orlova: and we have a run of money

Sergei Krychenko: at least give some guidance, based on all of the above, when the head (implying Anatoly Chubais) will be the owner? Well, at least to say

Dmitry Mints: in April (assuming 2016)

Sergey Krychenko: in April, yes. Just in April, he (meaning Anatoly Chubais) should have money to buy, right?

Olga Butkova: Well, after repaying the loan (implied by Boris Mints) by bank transfer, he (implying Anatoly Chubais) first gave him cash to Boris Iosifovich, so we should have a non-cash

Dmitry Mints: firstly, about the loan, as we talked in September until September, it was still reconfirmed on Thursday. Well, here is also a run, this is also a vicious circle

Olga Butkova: no, no, no, in order to have a run, the money must be returned to him (implying Anatoly Chubais)

Sergey Krychenko: that's why we touch on this topic

Dmitry Mints: wait, well, in this part

Olga Butkova: naturally in this part

Dmitry Mints: no, this is a run

Olga Butkova: loans from him (meaning Anatoly Chubais) until September (meaning 2016)

Sergey Krychenko: well, until September, until September. Please tell me how we will pay from his (meaning Anatoly Chubais) account, with what money, what will we use to buy a house (meaning the Predelki residential complex)?

Olga Butkova: we just said this, Boris Iosifovich (meaning Mints) will return 500,000,000 rubles to us, which we will give back for ...

Sergey Krychenko: part of the loan will be returned exactly in order to ensure in this way ... I heard everything.



To be continued

Timofey Grishin

Source: www.rucriminal.info