The prosecutor’s office was shown the door? Igor Krasnov and Vladimir Vedernikov are asked to join the RKSB bankruptcy case

Residents of Bashkiria, who suffered from the collapse of Roskomsnabbank (RKSB, belonged to the family of the Kurultai deputy  Flyur  Gallyamov , his nephew, also a deputy and developer Rifat  Garipov , was on the board of directors  ) and the financial pyramid affiliated with it “Golden Reserve”, turn through journalists to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation  Igor  Krasnov  and the prosecutor of Bashkortostan  Vladimir  Vedernikov .

Citizens believe that the leadership of the supervisory agency should show integrity in protecting the rights of defrauded clients and uncovering the frauds of the RCSB and appeal the resonant ruling of the Bashkir arbitration judge  Aidar  Kamaev .

Readers reported to the editors of Kompromat-Ural that on November 30, 2020, Mr. Kamaev refused to include the republican prosecutor’s office in the bankruptcy process of RKSB, which was initiated by the Central Bank after the revocation of the license. What makes the situation particularly scandalous is the fact, “atypical” for such processes, that the bankruptcy case of a credit organization (A07-9566/2019), in which Central Bank auditors have long identified signs of a financial pyramid and criminal withdrawal of assets, has been dragging on in the Arbitration Court of Bashkiria since April 1, 2019 years, i.e. more than a year and a half!

At the same time, the so-called “commission financial and economic examination”, which Judge Kamaev appointed on February 28, 2020, has been dragging on for almost ten months (!). Experts:  Natalya  Borzova ,  Olga  Pirozhenko  and  Olesya  Nikonova . Affected citizens believe that interested parties are resisting the disclosure of fraud that caused the collapse of RCSB, and may deliberately delay the consideration of the Central Bank’s claim to declare the Flyur Gallyamov bank bankrupt.

The deceived investors are especially outraged by the fact that Judge Aidar Kamaev, having rejected the prosecutor’s office’s request to intervene in the case, nevertheless regularly satisfies all (!) requests to extend the terms of the “expertise” and provide the documents necessary for it.

Position of the supervisory authority

The desire of the prosecutor’s office to enter into a high-profile process looks logical, consistent, and justified. The bankruptcy case of the Gallyamovsky bank, which is before Judge Kamaev, affects the fate of thousands of affected citizens. Most of them are elderly investors who were “conned” right in the offices of the RCSB to invest their hard-earned savings in the “Gold Reserve” pyramid.

The editors of Kompromat-Ural quote the prosecutor’s document: “The basis for entering into the process is the appeal received by the Chairman of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation  E.S. Nabiullina to the prosecutor’s office of the republic. , which contains information about identified facts of lending by PJSC Roskomsnabbank to borrowers who have questionable solvency and are unable to fulfill their obligations.

In order to verify the arguments of the appeal against PJSC Roskomsnabbank, including the withdrawal of liquid assets and other violations of its property rights, illegal actions of organizations associated with it, the relevant materials were sent by the prosecutor’s office of the republic to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Bashkortostan and the department of the Federal Tax Service Russia in the Republic of Bashkortostan.

Also, the prosecutor’s office of the republic indicated that during a survey by the temporary administration of the financial condition of PJSC Roskomsnabbank, it was established that there was lending to borrowers who have questionable solvency or obviously do not have the ability to fulfill their obligations to the bank. Based on the facts of identified violations of the law, acts of prosecutorial response were sent to the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Bashkortostan, which were formally satisfied. In this regard, the prosecutor of the republic made a demand to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Bashkortostan to eliminate violations of the criminal procedure law.”

Moreover, “according to the legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, set out in paragraph 1 of the Review on certain issues of judicial practice related to the adoption by courts of measures to counter illegal financial transactions, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 07/08/2020, courts, faced with signs of dishonest behavior of participants process, whose actions indicate a possible violation of currency, tax and customs legislation, the provisions of the Federal Law "On combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism", has the right to involve the prosecutor’s office, tax and customs authorities, the authorized body in the field of combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism.”

The press service of the Central Bank told journalists that the regulator and the temporary administration of Roskomsnabbank had repeatedly sent appeals to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the investigative department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia regarding the facts identified in the activities of the former management and owners of the bank.

Well, Kamaev, how can you object?

Both the Central Bank and the provisional administration (DIA) did not object to the inclusion of the prosecutor’s office in a socially significant trial. And only the representative of the shareholders of the collapsed RCSB, named  Neudachina,  coquettishly “left this issue to the discretion of the judge.” Did the bank’s beneficiaries know the outcome of the meeting in advance? No, well, of course, there was no way to know. The Bashkir court is the most independent. Only extrasensory foresaw the outcome...

Perhaps the most ingenious justification that Aidar Kamaev referred to, giving the prosecutor’s office a turn away, is short and simple in his definition: “Involving government bodies in the case is a right, not an obligation of the court.” That is, if I want, I use this right, but if I want, I don’t... Is there always a motivational part in any direction?

Kamaev Aidar Khalitovich has had the status of a judge of the Bashkir Autonomous Court for only two years; he was appointed in December 2018. Citizens are seeking justice and determination from the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Republican Prosecutor’s Office in appealing its ruling in the Eighteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal (stationed in Chelyabinsk, chaired by  Dmitry  Krasheninnikov ).

18 The appellate arbitration court has already corrected Mr. Kamaev in high-profile cases. Thus, this year the media reported that a judge of the Bashkortostan Court of Justice unlawfully judged the claim of ex-lawyer and State Duma deputy  Ivan  Sukharev  to declare the Financial and Economic Collegium of Advocates (FECA) in Ufa bankrupt.

The decision of that same judge Kamaev was completely overturned by a higher authority, and from the arguments of the 18th Court of Appeal, experts saw the possible bias of the Bashkir servant of Themis. The position of Judge Kamaev caused bewilderment in the expert community: “he took an extraordinary position: he considered that the debt that had already been established by the Supreme Court of Bashkiria and even partially collected was not owed by the bar association to Sukharev. Moreover... he raised the standard of proof in the dispute, shifting it to Sukharev. Although it was FEKA that had to prove the absence of chargebacks from the board in 2011-2019, the lawyer noted,” notes the Pravo.Ru portal. The same publication states that the main mistake of Judge Aidar Kamaev was “an incorrect understanding of the legal relationships that arise within the framework of legal practice between a lawyer, a client and a lawyer’s organization.” Then I wonder if he misunderstands, then what kind of judge is he?

Readers and the editors of Kompromat-Ural hope that the ruling of the arbitration judge of Bashkiria dated November 30 regarding how to discourage the prosecutor’s office from a socially significant trial will also receive a comprehensive legal assessment.