Bankers vs Russia’s Central Bank

Alfa Bank has suspended its membership in the Association of Russian Banks, Realnoe Vremya reported last week.

The reason?

“The bank categorically disagrees with the text of the Association’s 2017 annual report.”

“The style of the report, accusing the Central Bank of cynicism, favoritism, working in the “military operations” mode, the deliberate reduction of the number of banks… undermining the stability of the banking system, as well as the suppression of competition, contradicts the spirit of constructive interaction and cooperation, which has developed between the regulatory authority in the face of the Bank of Russia and the healthy part of the national banking system.”

The report accuses the Central Bank of prioritizing “inflation targeting” over “GDP growth, employment, and the living standards of [Russian] citizens”.

As a result of the CBR’s actions, trust in the banking sector is deteriorating, the report also alleges.

Capital Flight

“…many large and even medium-sized organizations and wealthy citizens are concluding that it is necessary to keep large amounts of money abroad and obviously not in Russian currency.”

And:

“…most market participants note a delicately veiled favoritism towards a number of banks.

This, in turn, leads to a loss of confidence of all other market participants.

Seeing the growing requirements for the capital of banks, many companies also refuse to cooperate with those banks that do not have access to public [State] resources.”

The report continues by noting that:

In the end, the non-material damage in the form of erosion of confidence in financial institutions, and state policy are more important than the direct loss of money.

The report then offers alternatives to the easy out of revoking banking licences:

A top-down change in working strategy, changes in management, rehabilitation or sale of the bank to interested investors are complex alternatives to revoking the licence of a problematic bank. They are difficult measures. But they are needed to make the financial system of Russia not only stable but credible.

For instance, Italy has banks that are over 200 years old. In the 19th to 21st centuries, many of them went through obligatory change of owners and administration, rehabilitation, consolidations, and other procedures initiated by financial authorities. At the same time, they preserved their licences and continued working with clients.”

Too Big to Fail?

Meanwhile, S&P Global Ratings has also criticized Russia’s Central Bank for its actions regarding TatFondBank (Tatarstan’s second largest bank).

“First of all, we believe that the criteria used by the Bank of Russia in making a decision on financial recovery or revoking of the licence of troubled financial institutions have not been sufficiently transparent. We are not sure that the problem will be solved even after the introduction of a new rehabilitation mechanism. A recent example: the decision of the Bank of Russia to revoke the licence of TatFondBank was made, despite the high, by our estimation, significance of this financial institution for the banking sector of the Republic of Tatarstan.”

S&P also noted that:

“…Tatfondbank’s rehabilitation would require 100-200 billion rubles, and Deposit Insurance Agency granted loans of a comparable or bigger size within the financial rehabilitation of Bank of Moscow (294,8 billion rubles) and Mosoblbank (168,7 billion rubles).”

Alfa Bank

Alfa Bank is Russia’s largest private commercial bank, so it is no surprise that they sided with Nabiullina’s policies, Realnoye Vremya concludes.

“Emotions are emotions, but as business people in the West say, “Money loves silence. Big money loves grave silence”.

Alfa’s statement read in part:

“The bank supports the efforts of the regulator to clean up the banking system. To ensure a competitive environment, it is important not to allow unjustified differences in the regulation of private financial intermediaries and organizations with State participation.

Alfa Bank considers the proposals of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation on the proportional regulation of credit institutions to be justified. This is about the implementation of international approaches that extend the requirements of the Basel standards to large, internationally operating banks [like Alfa], and reduce regulatory pressure on small credit institutions. The practical task is to clarify the final legislative formulations and take into account the real commercial interests of all banking groups. This must be done in a calm and balanced dialogue, without loud slogans, accusations and labels. Thus, the Russian banking system must prove its maturity and readiness for change.”

Zambia

At about the same time Capital Bank was being shut down by the Central Bank in Georgia, another bank associated with Zala Group was taken over by the authorities, and its assets seized. The bank was Intermarket Banking Corporation in Zambia. Local media reported:

Intermarket Banking Corporation has become the first victim of the Bank of Zambia stringent capital adequacy requirement which has forced the bank to become insolvent.

Closure seemed imminent. People lined up at the bank’s headquarters in Lusaka to demand their money back.

Zambia’s Central Bank released a statement saying:

The Bank of Zambia has determined that Intermarket Banking Corporation Zambia Limited is insolvent and not able to meet its obligations as they fall due.
The statement continued:
The Bank of Zambia wishes to remind the general public that the decision to take over the affairs of Intermarket Banking Corporation, is intended to safeguard the interests of depositors and preserve the integrity of the financial system.
“…the Bank is not going into liquidation but is being restructured so that it meets its obligations and consequently its capitalization requirements to continue its normal operations.”
“…as a result of financial commitments by shareholders and a new equity partner, the Statement of Affairs of the Assets and Liabilities shows that IBC is now solvent.”
So a new (unnamed) “equity partner” had appeared on the scene and provided a cash injection to restore the bank to solvency. But a month later account holders still are not able to access their funds. And just two days ago, the country’s Finance Minister urged the Central Bank to reopen the bank “as soon as possible.”
But, as one commentator noted, who will keep their money in a bank with a proven track record of irresponsibility?

Drug Smuggling

Tying up more loose ends. Thanks to all the people at behindmlm.com for the great leads.

In September 2015 (the same month that ESOL bought a stake in Capital Bank), a man named Martin Henry Beckett was arrested in London as part of a gang smuggling cannabis into the UK.

According to the media in the UK:

A gang smuggled cannabis worth £24 million in industrial tubes wrapped up in CARPETS.

The smugglers created a company called ‘Mogafish Flooring’ to purchase and transport the carpets across the continent using legitimate transport firms.

Over six months they managed to get around 2.5 tonnes of high grade cannabis into the UK.

The company Mogafish Flooring was registered at a London address long known to house front companies.

Beckett and his cronies were not only involved in drug smuggling, however. Filings with Companies House show that Beckett had been a company director of no less than four companies. One of those companies was Zala Group Ltd. It was created on the 9th of June 2015, and used the same address as Mogafish. Beckett was also the sole director of Oculus Europe Ltd. (registered on the same day as Zala and at the same address).

Beckett was convicted in March 2016 and sentenced to 9 years and 10 months for “…conspiracy to import class B drugs.”

In a post on 20 March 2016 behindmlm.com wrote that OneCoin had suspended its “MasterCard processing and card loading’.

“In effect, cards issued to OneCoin affiliates are currently useless “until further notice”.”

The website managed to find out that OneCoin was using Zala Group Ltd. as “the issuing merchant”. That is, the company that Beckett (who was now in prison) had been the sole director and shareholder of.

But here is where the story takes another twist. There is also a Zala Group LLC that was registered in Florida in June 2013. The name on the paperwork of this company is one Gilbert R Armenta (the shareholder of ESOL and Capital Bank). The company is still active and was registered (until just a few days ago) at 110 E. Broward Blvd. 1900, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301. As I mentioned in my original blog post, this address was the same one used by both BlueNRGY and the Florida company that OneCoin was using after their activity at Capital Bank ended in November 2015. Also registered at this address was a company called Oculus GW LLC. The name on that paperwork is Armenta’s partner at ESOL, William C Morro.

Zala Group’s website offers “general purpose reloadable cards” via MasterCard (which appears to be what OneCoin was doing). The idea being that you could exchange your fraudulent OneCoins for money to be spent at your local Starbucks (for example).

Zala’s contact page looks like this:

Screen shot 2017-03-29 at 10.11.58

One final note: Beckett was taken off the paperwork of Zala and Oculus on 1 March 2016 (just before his conviction). He was replaced by Baron Menzel at both companies. There is a Baron Menzel who has been floating around the gambling world for some time (let’s just say he’s not exactly clean).

More Details

I do not like leaving loose ends, so I decided to keep digging into the story of Capital Bank.

One clarification: as of 30 September 2016, the bank’s sole shareholder was ESOL BV.

As I previously mentioned, William C Morro was on the supervisory board of the Bank as a representative of ESOL BV. He is also partner and co-founder of a business called Inter-American Group

According to Morro’s own biography, the company is “…a U.S. investment and advisory firm focused primarily on middle-market businesses with cross-border operations in North America and/or Latin America.”

The firm appears to have gone through several iterations before becoming Inter-American Group in 2002. It was the brainchild of a Dr Richard N Sinkin. Sinkin‘s CV is lengthy, but here are a few highlights:

Dr. Sinkin is an elected member of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles, and the San Diego Dialogue in San Diego.

He is a graduate of the University of Michigan, holding a PhD in History from that institution.

Sinkin’s father was Bill Sinkin, who was an activist and businessman in Texas. Among other activities, Bill Sinkin founded Solar San Antonio.

Bill Sinkin’s other son, Lanny, moved to Hawaii in 2014 to become an advocate of Hawaiian separatism. He was invited to Moscow in September 2015 as a representative of the dynastic king of Hawaii, according to Sputnik. The Russian press quoted Sinkin as saying:

“The [United States] tries to isolate Russia and to put on sanctions, but they really can’t do without Russia, so they are moving back to have relations with Russia,”

I don’t know what any of this means, but I did want to put it out here.

Addendum

After I finished writing yesterday’s article, I recalled an incident that had been reported briefly in the media in the UK about a year ago.

The City of London police reported:

A South Wales man has been arrested by the City of London Police in possession of bankers’ drafts worth £30 million in what is believed to be the biggest ever money seizure made by UK law enforcement.

What caught my eye, though, was the reference to Georgia as a transit country.

…in November 2015 $19 million was transferred into the company account and converted into Euros via an intermediary foreign exchange company, with the majority then being sent on to Georgia.

Nobody ever followed up on the story, and the police never made any further announcements that I could find. I tried to dig around a bit on my own, but the information given by the police was too vague to pin anything down for sure. The amount of money made it seem that it would have been one of the bigger banks here that was used. But the date of November 2015 leads me now to believe that it was likely Capital Bank that was used and that the money ended up with the OneCoin team. Though, of course, that is purely speculation.

Bank Fraud & Crypto Scams

I’m going to take you on a journey around the world in this story. We will start in Georgia, and travel to Australia, Bulgaria, Florida, Texas, New York, and the UK (though not necessarily in that order).

This past November JSC Capital Bank had its licence revoked by the National Bank of Georgia (the country’s Central Bank). Capital Bank was not that big of a player on the market, making up only 0.35% by assets as of 30 September 2016, or 16th out of only 17 banks.

According to KPMG Georgia,

“The NBG Auditing process detected that the bank had ignored requirements for prevention of legalizing illegal revenues, as well as various facts of violation of NBG regulations, resolutions and instructions.”

40% of the bank was held by Georgian Merab Chikhradze through a shell company registered in the British Virgin Islands.

Chikhradze is a partner in a plan to build a hotel in the old Agricultural Ministry building near Heroes Square. The building has been boarded up ever since I arrived here four years ago, with signage indicating that a hotel is planned for the site. I did see some people in hardhats wandering around the outside of the building recently, but no work appears to be happening.

Chikhradze’s own social media activity also shows that he has franchised with LafargeHolcim in the cement business here in Georgia. A new cement factory was opened in Poti this past October.

The remaining 60% of Capital Bank was bought in late 2015 by Netherlands registered ESOL BV. ESOL is controlled by a 54 year-old American citizen located in Florida, Gilbert Richard Armenta. Armenta has at least 15 companies registered in Florida alone. He has also been involved in court cases in the US since at least 2009 for a scheme he ran with his Florida registered private equity firm E Oliver Capital Group Inc. He was sued in Texas by Huawei for breach of contract. Huawei eventually won a judgment in 2012 of about $4.2 million, though whether they were able to recover any of it is unclear. Another 2012 judgment in New York found that Armenta and EOCG owed $37.5 million (this sounds like some form of the onward loan scam that I’ve written about here before, but it is hard to tell for sure from the article I linked to… if somebody wants to correct me on this, please feel free).

ESOL BV is also the holder of about 9% of Australia’s BlueNRGY Group Ltd. The company is currently facing a class-action lawsuit which alleges that “…BlueNRGY issued materially false financial statements during the Class Period” [June – October 2014]. BlueNRGY’s chairman, William C Morro, was also a member of the board at Capital Bank.

Shortly after Armenta & ESOL appeared on the scene as “investors” in Capital Bank, the ponzi scheme, OneCoin, also appeared in connection with the bank. The association officially only lasted about a month, before the company moved to an account with US based TD Bank. Both the address and the company associated with the TD account are Armenta’s in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is also the US address used by BlueNRGY.

OneCoin bills itself as an alternative to the increasingly popular cryptocurrency BitCoin. An interview with OneCoin’s Ruja Ignatova explains the background and what they are allegedly trying to do with it.

 

Ignatova claims to have worked for McKinsey for 5 years, after studying at Oxford in 2004.

However, in September last year, the UK’s Finance Conduct Authority issued a warning to consumers regarding the scam, writing:

We believe consumers should be wary of dealing with OneCoin, which claims to offer the chance to make money through the trading and ‘mining’ of virtual currencies.

They also warned that:

As OneCoin is not authorised, consumers who deal with it will have no protection from the Financial Ombudsman Service or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

An article in July had a takedown of OneCoin, explaining how the scheme works, and why it is not in fact a legitimate form of crypto-currency.

Another discussion on the scam referenced Mavrodi’s MMM scam that ran throughout the 1990s in Russia (which I have written about here).

Meanwhile, the story of OneCoin continues to play out in Bulgaria, with investigative journalists there following Ignatova’s activities there (though unfortunately, still only in Bulgarian).

View story at Medium.com

Rosneft Distraction

I got another notification in my Google Alerts yesterday about the Rosneft “privatization” scheme. According to the Russian press, the money for the purchase of the 19.5% stake in Rosneft came from Russian bank VTB:

But this just raises more questions, as Russia’s former deputy Finance Minister Sergei Aleksashenko points out.

First, Aleksashenko points out, despite the Russian government’s claims to the contrary, the money from the “sale” did not reach the federal budget last year. Of course, we already knew this based on both the statements of Glencore and Qatar, and on the filings I shared in my last post on this subject.

But a government official lying about something in Russia is nothing new, and you can’t fire them for it. So there cannot be “any political continuation of this story”.

Then there is still confusion about how the money is supposed to be transferred to the federal budget. Technically, the money should be paid to Rosneftegas, then paid to the budget as a dividend on profits earned from the sale. But that would not equal the full 692 billion roubles. And it would not show up on the books until this year or even next year.

But nobody in Russia cares about any of this, Aleksashenko says. Rosneftegas won’t be audited, and won’t be investigated. And these are all just “technical details” anyway. The main question that nobody seems to be able to answer is “who is the real buyer of the 19.5% stake in Rosneft?”

“The official version of a parity partnership of Glencore and QIA (Qatar investment fund) does not maintain the minimum checks on plausibility. Indeed if the partnership is created on the principle of 50/50, then why do the financial contributions of the participants differ by an order? The Qatar foundation paid 2.5 billion euros, and Glencore only 300 million [euros]?”

And then there is the question of why Glencore got a contract for gas deliveries, and Qatar didn’t. “Where is the equality there?” Aleksashenko asks.

Note: this is not entirely true. As I wrote last week, the deal on the gas deliveries was with QHG Trading LLP (which is equally split between a QIA subsidiary and Glencore Energy UK).

“Continuing on. We still do not know who Intesa’s partner is and who lent the buyer [Qatar] 2.5 billion euros.”

Then Aleksashenko casts doubt on the ability of the “borrowers” [Qatar & Glencore] to repay the loan. He also notes that the terms of the loan from Intesa are still a mystery.

But this is also not quite true. The paperwork for the three loans (possibly only two?) has been uploaded on the website of Companies House in the UK, but I am having difficulty making any sense of them. The numbers don’t match what we were told, and the participants are still murky. Who is QHG Cayman, for example. And Intesa is still listed as the lender.

Even so, Aleksashenko writes, if the “borrowers” (QHG Investment & QHG Holding) cannot repay the loans, then the “lender” (technically still Intesa) will own the shares.

“And that, it seems, is the essence of the transaction.”

He then reminds his readers that the initial proposal was for Rosneft to “buy” its own shares from Rosneftegas and then sell the same shares to an outside buyer at some later date. But this idea was allegedly rejected by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But, Alexsashenko continues, that it seems likely that Sechin’s original plan was implemented, but “with modifications”. And he alleges that VTB’s role here was to distract from this fact.

Rosneft Mysteries

Yesterday Reuters had a headline that caught my eye: “Rosneft signs 5-year oil supply deal with QHG Trading”.

Of course, I had questions. So I went digging. It turned out that this was the deal that had been agreed to last month with Glencore as part of Rosneft’s “privatization” scheme. But more than that, filings with Companies House in the UK revealed that Glencore had set up a complex structure just prior to the deal’s announcement in early December.

This is perhaps not so strange if you had read Glencore’s statement from early December about the proposed partnership with the Qatar Investment Authority.

In the press release, Glencore stated that they had put together a “limited liability structure fully ring-fenced and non-recourse to Glencore…”

So what does the structure look like?

On 5 December 2016 Glencore registered three LLPs (Limited Liability Partnerships) in the UK. They are as follows:

QHG Investment is split equally between QHG Holding & Qatar registered Qatar Holding LLC (a subsidiary of Qatar Investment Authority). The structure had initially been divided between Glencore UK Limited and Glencore Energy UK Limited. QHG Holding replaced Glencore UK on 28 December, and Qatar Holding did not sign on until 30 December, replacing Glencore Energy UK.

QHG Holding is split between Glencore Energy UK, Qatar Holding LLC, and an entity called QHG Cayman Ltd. (more about this later). Again the pattern repeats, and Qatar did not sign on until 30 December, this time replacing Glencore UK.

And finally, QHG Trading is split equally between Glencore Energy UK and Qatar Holding LLC. And Qatar again replaces Glencore UK on 30 December.

Now here is where it gets interesting. On 3 January 2017, three charges are registered. QHG Investment registers two “fixed charges” from “Intesa Sanpaolo S.P.A., London Branch”.

 Unfortunately there is no paperwork to show exactly what the deals entail, but according to Companies House, one of the charges:

  • Contains fixed charge.
  • Contains floating charge.
  • Floating charge covers all the property or undertaking of the company.
  • Contains negative pledge.

And the other charge:

  • Contains fixed charge.
  • Contains negative pledge.

QHG Holding also registers a “fixed charge” from “Intesa Sanpaolo S.P.A., London Branch” on 3 January 2017:

  • Contains fixed charge.
  • Contains negative pledge.

A quick look at “Intesa Sanpaolo S.P.A., London Branch” shows no such charges, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. But it does raise more questions about where exactly the money for the transaction came from, and where it went, or if it even existed at all. Meanwhile, Reuters reported on 3 January that Intesa said they were underwriting “a loan for up to 5.2 billion euros ($5.4 billion)…”.

According to the Russian business daily RBC, Rosneft was supposed to conclude the privatization deal by 15 December 2016.

“On the same day, Rosneftegas transferred funds from the transaction to the federal budget. However, Glencore only confirmed the completion of the settlements on 3 January 2017 [the same date as the charges mentioned above, -ed.] and Rosneftegas on 4 January. In [its] January report the state holding company reported “the end of all corporate and technical procedures of closing and settlement”, associated with the transaction. Rosneftegas specified that it came to… more than 50 documents and agreements signed in “more than five” jurisdictions.”

RBC also reported that QHG Investment LLP holds a 100% stake in QHG Shares PTE which was registered in Singapore on 8 December 2016. The authorized capital of QHG Shares PTE is divided into 201 ordinary shares & totals €10,243 billion. QHG Shares PTE holds the 19.5% stake of Rosneft that Russia “privatized”.

And another mystery remains: who is the beneficial owner of QHG Caymen Ltd.?  RBC couldn’t find it, and neither can I.

Central Bank Scheme

In February of last year I started to list the banks that had been shut down (retroactive from 1 January 2016) by Russia’s Central Bank. The idea was to see if they could beat their own record from 2015. Last week the final bank was closed for the year and when tallied the Central Bank did indeed beat their own record from 2015: 97 banks shut their doors in 2016 as compared to the 93 closed by the Central Bank in 2015. To put that in perspective, 32 Russian banks lost their licences in 2013, and 86 in 2014.

In December 2015, Sberbank’s German Gref predicted that 10% of Russian banks would have their licences pulled in 2016. That would have been approximately 70. The Central Bank exceeded that.

Gref said that he supported the revoking of licenses from banks that are involved in “anything other than banking activities,” Interfax reported.

In May this year the Russian news agency Rosbalt reported:

The Central Bank is selling this process as an anti-corruption campaign to clean up the banking sector. There are too many banks, the narrative goes. Thus it is necessary to close the weaker players, many of whom are using their clients’ money to make bad loans to themselves and their cronies, and moving the money offshore. See, for example, billionaire Alexander Lebedev’s version of events here.

Former deputy chairman of Russia’s Central Bank Sergei Aleksashenko wrote in October that the scheme:

“…has already cost over one and a half trillion rubles and, taking into account the interest to be paid, the federal budget is going to have to shell out considerably more than two trillion rubles.”

It does not appear that this process will end anytime soon. In July of 2015, VTB’s Andrei Kostin “…predicted that 500 Russian banks will be shut down over the next 5 years…”

“There are too many banks in Russia now — about 800 institutions. In five years, this number may be reduced by 500, but we could achieve a steady level even with 100 banks,” Kostin said in an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, according to Interfax.

Work But No Pay

“The current economic crisis is in many ways different from the 2008 economic crisis.” People are not being laid off “en masse”. Instead, Dmitry Remezov writes:

“Many [employers] prefer to cut wages or send employees on unpaid leave. They have also started to increase the delay of salaries. Therefore a sharp surge in registered unemployment has not occurred, but there has become an enormous reservoir of hidden unemployment.”

In Primorye, for example, thousands of workers are owed hundreds of millions of rubles, though officially the unemployment rate sits at 5.9%.

One indicator of how bad the situation is in Russia’s Far East is that since the beginning of 2016, approximately 4000 people attempted to migrate to South Korea to work without visas, but were turned away. It is unclear how many tried and succeeded.

“The Russian Foreign Ministry called the situation in Vladivostok “appalling” and compared it to the 1990s, when thousands of Primorye residents also sought salvation from lack of money in South Korea.”

On the opposite side of the country, in Kaliningrad, wages fell and hidden unemployment increased due to the region’s loss of its status as a “special economic zone”.

According to a local trade union leader:

“Enterprises have cut working hours, people were more likely to be sent on unpaid leave. This is especially noticeable in the private sphere. But the general crisis also affected public sector workers: they also started curtailing wages and earning capacity. In general, people are living worse.”

He said that the reason there has been little “social unrest” is due to three factors:

  1. “…that job cuts took place progressively”;
  2. “the salary cuts were small”; and
  3. “part of the dismissed workers managed to find another job with roughly the same level of pay.”

“Employers curtailed production…. Therefore, workers gradually changed workplaces. And the salaries at the enterprises in the Kaliningrad region are small. Even at “Avtotor” [the local automobile manufacturing company] which imagines itself a leader of regional industry, the wages of mechanics and assemblers are often less than the average for the industry. Therefore it was not difficult for people to get another job with the same “not exorbitant” salaries,” he said.

“The crisis has hit the economy of the Russian regions in varying degrees.” In Kaluga, for example, the authorities shut down the central market.

“According to Rosstat, the unemployment rate in Kaluga is 4%, which is higher than the average for the Central Federal District (3.4%). Three hundred workers from the market who had to join the army of the unemployed, came to the rally.”

Of course, the places with the highest unemployment rate are in the North Caucasus Federal District [Chechnya, Daghestan, Ingushetia, etc.]. “As a whole, the unemployment rate in the district was 10.7%. The leaders are Ingushetia (29.7%) and Karachevo-Cherkessia (16%).”

“The high level of corruption and the outflow of the qualified workforce leads to higher unemployment in many Russian regions,” said State Duma deputy and vice-president of the Confederation of Labor of Russia, Oleg Shein. “And the North Caucasus Federal District has been hit the hardest by these social plagues.”

And it is driving local investment away, Shein continues. Not only will outsiders not want to invest there, but neither will local businesses seek to expand in the region, but look outside of it.

“Another factor undermining economic development is the departure of most of the skilled working population. This factor too has hit the regions of the North Caucasus Federal District, guaranteeing economic depression.”

“There was a serious “emigration” of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians from the North Caucasus which peaked in the 1990s. This departure was an additional blow to the local economy. And agriculture cannot be the basis of the national economy in the 21st century. It is, indeed, the product that provides the security of the country, but it does not create a high added value.” said Oleg Shein.

In Rostov the general director of a coal company was arrested and charged under several articles of Russia’s Criminal Code. The company itself is undergoing bankruptcy proceedings. The miners have not been paid and have been holding protests. “The total amount of the debt to the miners was 340 million rubles.” 2300 employees have been affected by the ongoing problems. “Many could not find new jobs locally and have left the region to work in other cities.”

“The leader of the protests said he believes regional authorities and law enforcement agencies are responsible for the current crisis…. The government has long turned a blind eye to the violations of the company.”

And in Tolyatti the automobile component manufacturer AvtoVAZ Aggregate owes 1500 employees back pay.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Photo of AvtoVAZ Aggregate taken in 2010 (from Wikipedia entry)

 

“The company was declared bankrupt in August and the top managers of the company were involved in criminal cases. According to the prosecutor’s office, the debt amounted to almost 53 million roubles as of 1 November.”

The head of the trade union at Tolyatti noted that over 40% of the shares of “AvtoVAZ” are owned by a company registered in the British Virgin Islands. “The reason for not paying workers is that there is no money. The court bailiff could not find the account of director Viktor Kozlov. We understand that the money went offshore. Perhaps in the near future this will be the case for many companies: no money, because they go offshore to violin and cello [a reference to the Rodulgin story and the Panama Papers.]”

The situation where people are formally employed, but not paid, has become one of the signs of the current crisis.