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

"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