Bank trust who is the owner. The court declared the former co-owner of the bank "Trust" bankrupt
He managed to prove to the court that his case was politically motivated.
The Magistrates' Court of Westminster on September 28 rejected Russia's request for the extradition from England of the former co-owner of Trust Ilya Yurov. A link to the decision was posted on the court's Twitter page.
Russia accuses Yurov of embezzlement or embezzlement on an especially large scale. After the transfer of "Trust" in December 2014, the banker left for England for reorganization. He was arrested in London on January 19 this year and released on bail, it follows from the court records.
The rehabilitation of Trust has become one of the most expensive - 127 billion rubles were allocated for it. By the spring of 2015, the Deposit Insurance Agency and the Otkritie sanatorium, which took over the bank's affairs, discovered a multibillion-dollar hole in assets. The money was withdrawn through loans from a network of offshore companies associated with the bank and its shareholders. In April 2015, the Ministry of Internal Affairs opened a criminal case. In addition, the new management of the Trust filed a lawsuit with the High Court of London to recover the missing funds - $ 830 million from Yurov and other co-owners of Trust: Nikolai Fetisov, Sergei Belyaev (they also left Russia) and their wives. The High Court of London has seized the assets of the defendants and the case is pending.
In Russia, Yurov is accused in three episodes, according to the decision of the Westminster court. First, Yurov and his partners, being the beneficiaries of the Cypriot companies Erinskaya and Baymor, took advantage of their position in the credit committee of Trust, which approved a loan to these companies for 9 billion rubles. The money was not returned. Secondly, Eurobonds purchased with Trust funds were transferred to the Cypriot company Black Coast, as a result of which the bank lost about 1 billion rubles. Thirdly, 11 million Eurobonds were withdrawn to the Edenbury company registered in Bermuda, also owned by Yurov and partners, again bought with the funds of Trust.
The court refused to extradite him, since it considered that Yurov's extradition would contradict the Extradition Act, explains Georgy Baganov, an advisor at the Slovo and Delo law firm, who, at the request of Vedomosti, studied the text of the decision. The court pointed out two circumstances: extradition is not allowed if it is aimed at punishing for political reasons, and also if the extradition endangers human rights.
Yurov told Vedomosti that he avoided extradition, as the court considered his prosecution "politically motivated" because of his connection with Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the Yukos case. In addition, the English court decided that justice would not be guaranteed to Yurov in Russia, the businessman added. Baganov confirms this. One of the witnesses for the defense, as written in the court's decision, indicated that Russia has a weak legal system that is influenced by politics and allows influence on judicial procedures.
The court did not dispute that “Yurov was the main banker for Yukos in the 1990s,” Baganov said. Since 1994, the businessman has worked for Khodorkovsky's Bank Menatep. Yurov was repeatedly interrogated in the Yukos case, and the court was presented with a document concerning the criminal prosecution of Yurov dated March 29, 2008, Baganov notes. In particular, the document contains the phrase that "Yurov joined a criminal group led by Khodorkovsky and [Platon] Lebedev to participate in the legalization of funds received from the sale of stolen oil." Yurov was a witness in the Khodorkovsky case, while the Russian representative noted that the criminal case against Yurov had not been sent to court. Yurov was among those mentioned in the charges against Khodorkovsky, and this was presented to the court as a possible element of political engagement, Baganov points out.
As for the observance of human rights, the court considered that if Yurov was extradited, a fair trial would not be guaranteed due to the special circumstances of his case, the decision said.
"Vedomosti" on Sunday, September 30, addressed the representative of Khodorkovsky, Maxim Dbar, with a question whether he considers the case against Yurov politically motivated. “We can confirm that the Trust Bank served Yukos,” he replied. - Yurov ran the bank. Everything else - to Yurov. " Dbar pointed out that he could not provide more complete comments due to limited time.
Russia can appeal the decision of the magistrate's court to the High Court, Baganov said. A representative of the Prosecutor General's Office did not respond to a request from Vedomosti sent on Saturday, September 29.-
Examples? You are welcome.
There is such an amazing financial structure called the National Bank "Trust". There is national dignity, national treasure (I'm not talking about Gazprom), but the national bank Trust is, perhaps, completely exclusive. But a very, very strange exclusive. If you have noticed, the face of the National Bank Trust is none other than "die hard" Bruce Willis, who receives millions of dollars from the bank for his participation in an advertising campaign. But this is only a distant hint.
Let's take a look at some mysterious circumstances today, and then remember the days gone by.
So, in December 2013, President Putin announced that Russian companies with foreign jurisdiction would be deprived of state support, including loans from Vnesheconombank. The President demanded that companies registered in offshore companies pay taxes according to Russian schemes. According to him, companies registered abroad should also be denied access to the execution of state contracts and contracts of structures with state participation. “If you want to enjoy benefits, state support and make a profit while working in Russia, register in the Russian jurisdiction,” Putin stressed.
Many oligarchs immediately began moving their structures from their favorite offshore companies to the not very affectionate Russian land. However, some of them, to put it mildly, scored at the president's demand, understanding what they have, with whom and what to hide behind in case of something.
So the National Bank "Trust" everywhere diligently informs that it belongs to three russian bankers - Ilya Yurov, Nikolai Fetisov and Sergei Belyaev. Moreover, he even paints a percentage. We check, and here we find out a piquant detail that the ownership of the Trust Bank to the three above-mentioned characters is somewhat simplified.
In fact, the National Bank Trust is one hundred percent owned (attention!) offshore companies... As they say, a big hello to President Putin. And only then, some of the shares of these companies belong to Yurov, Fetisov and Belyaev.
Do you not believe that a large Russian financial structure, where thousands of Russians keep money, is the property of offshore companies? themselves:
The main shareholder of the bank is currently CJSC UK TRUST (Russia) - 98.27%, 68.65% owned by the Cyprus offshore TIB Holdings Ltd (the main owners of TIB Hodings - Ilya Yurov - 31.71%, Sergei Belyaev and Nikolay Fetisov - 21.14% each).
Another 6.40% of CJSC MC TRUST is owned by Neaspal Investments Limited (Sergey Belyaev belongs 40% UK Neaspal Investments Limited)and Winsala Investments Limited (Nikolay Fetisov belongs 40% UK Winsala Investments Limited).AND 9,60% UK Company « UK » belongs Zaploma Investments Limited (Ilya Yurov belongs 40% UK Zaploma Investments Limited).
Here is a diagram showing who owns 100 percent of the National Bank Trust and how. It is clear enough from it that to Russian Federation The "national" bank has nothing to do with it. Except perhaps that the names of the owners of offshore companies.
And as a nice addition. The most “national” bank “Trust”, it turns out, in 2007 sold 8.92% of itself, beloved, to the American bank “Merrill Lynch”. Investment bank Merrill Lynch is one of the world's leading traders in billions of dollars. The attitude of the Americans from "Merrill Lynch" to Russia can be understood in their opinion in a recent report "Given the developments in Ukraine, the EU may think about diversifying hydrocarbon supplies in order to reduce dependence on Russian gas." These are the partners in the United States of the offshore national bank Trust, positioning itself as a "Russian financial structure".
But that's not all. The National Bank "Trust", as it turned out, is doing very well in Ukraine. And under the new self-proclaimed government, the health of the bank is improving by leaps and bounds.
So, the Ukrainian PJSC Bank Trust is represented in 13 regions of Ukraine. The owners of the bank are the same, but, of course, again through offshore structures.
According to N. Golub, Chairman of the Management Board of PJSC Bank Trust, after the political events in Ukraine, “the bank continues to work as usual - it attracts deposits and builds up its loan portfolio. We finished February with a profit (!!!) ". It is especially interesting that during the seizure of power in Kiev, Trust Bank “suddenly” planned to open eight new branches in different regions of Ukraine, and two of them, in Krivoy Rog and Nikolaev, should start working by the end of this month. It seems that after the victory of the Euromaidan, Trust Bank has really straightened its shoulders in Ukraine.
And now it is becoming partly understood why no sanctions against Russia will ever be applied, say, to the offshore-American-Ukrainian "National Bank Trust".
The current owner of "Trust" Ilya Yurov
with former owner Platon Lebedev
To be continued. And there will be no less interesting Facts from the past years of the bank "Trust". And this office has a very amazing history.
The search for tens of billions lost in the bank is becoming more and more confusing, and its sanators are beginning to sue the runaway owners and managers not only in London, but also in Russia.
According to the regulator and the new administration, the story of the search for tens of billions missing in the Trust Bank is becoming more and more complicated. The Central Bank announced the reorganization of the bank, which ranked 32nd in terms of assets in the country, on December 22, 2014. According to the regulator, Trust could not cope with the outflow of deposits, the decline in asset quality, in addition, trying to mask the problems with inaccurate reporting.
By the spring of 2015, the Deposit Insurance Agency (DIA) and the sanatorium - financial corporation Otkritie, who took over the bank's affairs, discovered a multibillion-dollar hole in their assets. The money was withdrawn through the issuance of loans to a network of offshore companies associated with the bank and its shareholders. In April 2015, the Ministry of Internal Affairs opened a criminal case into the embezzlement of bank funds. Now it is being heard in the Basmanny Court. The former chief treasurer of the bank Oleg Dikusar and former financial director Yevgeny Romakov are in the dock. The former main owners of "Trust" Ilya Yurov, Nikolai Fetisov and Sergei Belyaev, who, according to the investigation, organized the embezzlement, were put on the international wanted list.
Since 2015, the new administration of "Trust" has been trying to recover most of the missing funds - $ 830 million - in the High Court of London from Yurov, Fetisov, Belyaev and their wives. It turned out in russian court "Trust" as an injured party has filed a civil claim for damages in the framework of a criminal case on embezzlement of bank funds on an especially large scale, organized by a group of persons. The amount of the claim is 22.7 billion rubles, it follows from the document that Vedomosti got acquainted with. The bank asks to recover them in solidarity from the “persons who jointly caused harm” - the former owners, Dikusar, Romakov and “unidentified persons”.
Those accused of embezzling the bank's property do not admit their guilt. Dikusar's lawyer Timofey Gridnev assures that his client complied with all the bank's regulations and checked the documents before signing the contracts. All decisions on lending to offshore companies were made at the credit committee, of which Dikusar was not a member. The documents for the committee were prepared by the Directorate of Credit and Market Risks, Gridnev lists. "How could Dikusar check the content of this array of documents?" - the lawyer complains. In his opinion, the decision of the credit committee and the certified accompanying documents are a sufficient basis for signing credit agreements.
It was not possible to contact Romakov's lawyer.
Offshore Management Center
Who owned the offshore companies that Trust was lending so actively? Yurov assures that the majority belongs to the bank and only a few were controlled by the beneficiaries. According to him, offshores were used to "manage the reporting" of the Trust and did not cause any damage to it. The new administration of "Trust" insists that the former shareholders of the bank were the beneficiaries of almost the entire offshore network, and now they are trying to prove that empty offshores are the property of the bank, and those on which assets remained are their property. For example, in his testimony to a London court, Yurov argued that the shareholders owned Willow River and RCP, which own the premises of Billa supermarkets in Moscow worth $ 100 million.
This whole offshore story began in the 2000s. At the time, Benedict Worsley, a banking executive recruiting specialist, was recruiting in London, “paying particular attention to Russia and the former CIS countries,” as he later explained to the London High Court. It was in this capacity that he met Fetisov, and when he began recruiting personnel for Trust, he was introduced to Yurov and Belyaev.
In 2009, Yurov and Fetisov, at a meeting in Moscow, offered Worsley an important new job. They said that Trust controls a number of offshore companies. The shareholders needed someone to whom they could trust to manage this network. The owners of Trust explained to Worsley that, among other things, it is extremely important for them that neither the shareholders nor the Trust Bank itself are identified as the beneficial owners of such companies.
Despite his lack of skills in the offshore industry, Worsley decided that his 20 years of banking experience and connections would make the matter clear. And he accepted the invitation - however, he worked "on his word of honor", it follows from his testimony to the court. In 2010–2014. Worsley "spent most of his time in Moscow," dealing with the Trust's business. He occupied the largest office in a small mansion on Pyatnitskaya Street, set aside for the office of Columba Management LLC. Firm with authorized capital 10,000 rubles. was founded by the Cyprus-based Lyondale Overseas Limited (99%) and a longtime employee of the Trust, Marat Iskandyrov, according to SPARK-Interfax.
In 2010, Yurov introduced Iskandyrov to Worsley as the future head of the “family office”, which dealt with the companies of the Trust's beneficiaries. Yurov said that "these functions, which were previously performed by the bank's corporate development directorate, should be withdrawn from the bank to reduce possible tax risks," Iskandyrov told a London court. 25-30 employees of the bank moved from the Trust to the mansion on Pyatnitskaya to deal with office affairs. Iskandyrov has been the CEO of Columba since 2011, but, according to him, Worsley was the real leader. Iskandyrov assures that, on Yurov's instructions, he performed only the functions of an adviser, because Worsley did not have financial education and experience in doing business in Russia. According to Iskandyrov, Worsley directed the work of about 250 companies registered in Cyprus, Seychelles, British Virgin Islands and other jurisdictions. By mid-2013, most of Columbus Management's employees had been fired and their responsibilities were transferred to offices of foreign companies.
Worsley told the court that although he was considered “a person acting on behalf of the bank” until December 2014, many structures were intended for Yurov, Belyaev and Fetisov personally. “Since Yurov, Belyaev, Fetisov owned the Trust bank, I considered these gentlemen and the bank as something single ... Now I understand that at that time some initial losses were incurred by Trust due to the instability of the market russian markets... Mismanagement of the bank by Yurov, Belyaev, Fetisov to the detriment of Trust's creditors led to an increase in losses, and I cooperate with the new management of Trust Bank in order to reduce at least part of them, ”Worsley noted in his testimony.
Now Worsley "regrets not getting an independent legal advice"Regarding the activities of the former owners of" Trust ". “I saw that funds were mainly transferred from the bank to companies within the vast 'Trust Bank family of companies, ultimately owned by Messrs Yurov, Belyaev, Fetisov, and back to the bank to maintain Trust's balance sheet,' Worsley said. “At that point, I saw no sign of the fraud they are accused of now,” he continued.
Yurov does not admit his guilt and claims that most of the offshore companies - including those mentioned in the Russian criminal case - were controlled by the bank and worked in its interests.
According to the testimony of Worsley, Yurov and Fetisov left Russia in 2014 to settle in London, Belyaev moved to the United States. Worsley himself lives in the UAE, he was not interrogated as part of the criminal case, a source close to the investigation claims.
Iskandyrov works at Trust, and is a witness in a criminal case.
In the indictment of the criminal case, only three episodes of lending to four offshore companies appear, a source close to the investigation said. These are loans issued in 2012–2014. for Cyprus-based Erinskay Investment Limited and Baymore Investments Limited, and Eurobonds for Black Coast Property Development and Management Limited (in September 2013) and Edenbury Trading Limited (in March 2014). According to the investigation, all offshore companies were fictitious and controlled by the ex-shareholders of Trust.
According to a representative of "Trust", all loans were unsecured, total amount debts of four offshore companies - 23.8 billion rubles. Of these, only 800 million were recovered, and the debtors have no more money. According to the investigation, all the companies were in fact fictitious. The companies did not conduct real activities, they had nominal owners and directors, employees and offices were absent both in Russia and at the place of registration or in any other places, a representative of the Trust said. These companies bought bonds, immediately made repo deals with them, and the money received was withdrawn to their accounts in Cypriot banks, he added, noting that corporate governance was carried out in the interests of the former shareholders of the bank from one center, the funds were also sent according to their instructions and to their interests.
Meanwhile, Erinskay and Baymore from December 2013 to February 2015 had a credit rating at level A - "high level of creditworthiness" - from Expert RA. The rating is needed in order to minimize reserves when lending to the company and to classify outstanding loans as a higher category, explains Valery Tutykhin, a partner at the law firm John Tyner & Partners, which searches for and returns offshore assets ordered by Russian lenders. “If we close our eyes to the real circumstances of the emergence of the company and its business, then even a technical or fictitious company can be given a good rating - purely on formal grounds,” he notes. "This rating cannot be considered fair, but it is a common practice." Ranking offshores is a little easier and cheaper, because the cost of artificially creating profit on a Russian company is at least equal to the amount of taxes that will have to be paid from it, Tutykhin argues. The stable profitability of the company is one of the conditions for a high rating, offshore companies do not pay taxes, in addition, their activities can be judged only by securities, and you can look at the business of a Russian company live for verification, reminds Tutykhin. Expert RA did not respond to Vedomosti's request.
Iskandyrov, other former employees of the Trust and even Romakov testified that Yurov, Belyaev and Fetisov were the real beneficiaries of Erinskay and Baymore, whose lending formed the basis of the criminal case.
Yurov calls the case fabricated and accuses Otkritie of this. He insists that he has already told in a "detailed way" how the offshore network "Trust" worked, under oath to a London court. According to Yurov, Romakov received "information about the alleged beneficiaries" of the offshore in 2016 from the employees of Otkrytie, and Iskandyrov from Worsley. Yurov accuses the latter of distorting information. The agreement concluded by Worsley on cooperation with the sanatorium "Trust" Yurov considers a "bribe" for the necessary testimony.
“I proceed from what I read in the documents and hear from witnesses,” says Gridnev. - Witnesses say that before they did not seem to know that the offshore companies acted in the interests of the owners of Trust, but when the reorganization began and Otkritie Bank began to understand, raise documents, conduct inspections, in which most of the witnesses participated as former managers, the story with Columbus Management was revealed, everything fell into place. "
The materials of the criminal case contain schemes from statement of claim "Trust" in a London court, from which it follows that the offshore companies were indirectly associated with the ex-owners of the bank, says a source close to the investigation (see one example of a connection in the diagram). So what was the Russian investigation found illegal in the actions of offshore companies?
Mysterious Eurobonds
In September 2013, "Trust" acquired 61.5 million Eurobonds "Russia 2030", after which Dikusar, according to the investigation, sold them through the conclusion of a trust agreement with "specially mined" Bank Winter & Co "from Vienna," whose employees are not were aware of the criminal intent of the members of the organized group. " An Austrian bank on September 13, 2013 provided these Eurobonds worth more than $ 54.7 million (or 1.438 billion rubles at the Central Bank's exchange rate) as a loan to the Cypriot Black Coast Property Development and Management Limited, thereby depriving the Trust of the opportunity to dispose of them at its discretion, indicated in the indictment presented to the court. Thus, Dikusar stole property - Eurobonds "Russia 2030", the investigation concludes.
Black Coast, together with Trust, owned the Stivilon company, which is building real estate in Gelendzhik. In total, Trust provided loans to Stivilon for 3 billion rubles, of which, according to the new administration of the bank, only 1 billion rubles were invested in the construction project.
The main agreement on the deal between Trust and Black Coast was about a loan in the form of securities for $ 61.5 million. - was signed without Dikusar, he signed only a technical addition, which resolved issues of remuneration and liability of the trustee who carried out the transaction, says the lawyer of Dikusar. That is, Dikusar did not instruct Bank Winter to transfer securities to the account, Gridnev notes.
Negotiations on the trust agreement were conducted with the participation of top managers of Trust and Worsley - the beneficiary and director of Black Coast, a representative of Bank Winter told Vedomosti. According to him, Russia 2030 Eurobonds were transferred on September 13, 2013, on the day of the signing of the trust agreement, from the Trust account to the Black Coast account, and on September 24 they returned back - from the Black Coast to the Trust account. This is reliably known, since the transfer of securities was carried out in the Bank Winter depository, respectively, "no one, except for the Trust itself, could dispose of the securities or get profit from them," said a representative of the Vienna bank.
A Trust spokesman called the statement that the Black Coast loan in the form of Russian Eurobonds was repaid in the same month "an obvious lie" that "contradicts the actions of Winter Bank itself." The Trust has several letters from Bank Winter at its disposal, from which it follows that the loan is valid, he says. In addition, he adds, in the spring of 2014, the Viennese bank provided the Trust auditor with an extract from which it follows that by the end of 2013 Russian bonds worth $ 61.5 million were in the Bank Winter account.
The parties are trying to defend their position in court (see cut). The loan is similar to a typical scheme, for participation in which a co-contractor is selected in the person of a Western bank, usually Swiss, Austrian, Luxembourgish or Baltic, Tutykhin said. The bottom line is that a Western bank gives the Russian an extract indicating the presence of securities in its ownership, but the bank does not take into account the collateral in its reports, the lawyer explains.
Missing billions
It is not clear why Dikusar is being held in custody, Gridnev is indignant. He signed documents approved by the credit committee by proxy: “Dozens, if not hundreds, of powers of attorney are issued in the bank. All leaders regional offices work by proxy, they can tell anyone: sign. If all the documents are available - what does he have to do with it? He performs technical function! " So Gridnev comments on the accusation of his client in the next episode of the criminal case. The investigation indicates that the fictitious companies Erinskay and Baymore lost more than RUB 10 billion received in the form of 14 loans from Trust in 2012–2014. Dikusar signed ten loan agreements, under which the principal debt of more than 8.3 billion rubles was not repaid, and Romakov signed the rest.
Romakov explained in his testimony: all committee meetings in 2014 were in absentia, they brought him a signed questionnaire (an analogue of a protocol for absentee voting) for signature, he endorsed it when he saw the signatures of bank owners or senior management.
A similar story happened with the offshore Edenbury Trading Limited (BVI), however, the securities missing there are twice as expensive. According to the investigation, in March 2014, Dikusar entered into a depository accounting agreement on behalf of the Trust, according to which Eurobonds (of the Russian Federation and Sberbank) for $ 89.6 million were transferred to depository accounting at Edenbury. The papers were not returned to the bank, and Dikusar was accused of embezzlement.
Edenbury is a company owned by TIB Holdings and linked to Trust, that is, the bank whose credit committee approved the conclusion of the agreement, Gridnev said. Signing an approved agreement "does not mean theft" valuable papers... In his opinion, the investigation did not want to figure it out either: “I signed it, it means I stole it”.
“Stories like this show that top managers of banks underestimate the consequences and trust their owners too much. But the situation has worsened, and if earlier some things were going on, then when the banks began to pour in because of the crisis, it immediately became clear that people did not really think about what they were doing, and now they will have to answer for it, "one of the financial advisors.
“The regulation on the Trust's credit committee says that its decision is binding on all managers and departments of the bank,” says Dikusar’s lawyer. "If he hadn't signed, another would have sat down." “If Dikusar and Romakov are imprisoned for embezzlement, then all banking activities in Russia to provide loans will become illegal,” Yurov is indignant.
Svetlana Petrova
Bank Trust, which is currently undergoing the reorganization procedure, on September 1, 2017 acquired 14.6657% of the voting shares of PJSC IC Rosgosstrakh. This follows from the information disclosed by the insurer on September 20. These data were confirmed by FC Otkritie Bank, which currently owns Trust.
Criminal cases have been opened against the former owners of the Trust Bank in connection with the withdrawal of depositors' funds to the personal accounts of the bank owners using various schemes, including Cypriot offshores. In February of this year, Trust Bank filed a lawsuit with the High Court of London to cancel the transfers of funds of the former owners of the bank Ilya Yurov, Nikolai Fetisov and Sergei Belyaev to the accounts of their wives and to use the property acquired with this money in order to reimburse the bank for damage.
According to the information provided by the bank FC Otkritie, as of September 8, 93.97% of the voting shares of Rosgosstrakh and 99.99% of the shares of Trust Bank were at its direct and indirect disposal.
Bank FC Otkritie and Otkritie Holding were selected as investors to reorganize Trust Bank, which applied to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation for financial support at the end of 2014. At that time, Trust was ranked 32nd in country in terms of assets among banks and had private deposits in excess of 144 billion rubles. Soon, after a three-day high-speed audit, the regulator reported the "inaccurate reporting" of "Trust". Discovered shortage money significantly exceeded the initial estimate of 30 billion rubles, which the Central Bank planned to allocate for the rehabilitation of the credit institution. As a result of a comprehensive due diligence conducted by DIA, Otkritie and EY in Q1 2015, the estimate of the size of the hole in the bank's capital increased to RUB 114 billion, or about 45% of Trust's assets as of December 2014 157 billion rubles were allocated for rehabilitation. (of which RUB 30 billion was returned).
Over the past two years, the situation at Trust has not radically changed. As of September 1, 2017, the negative capital of Trust exceeded RUB 99 billion. In the meantime, problems began already in the bank "FC Otkritie", and on August 29, 2017, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation decided to reorganize this credit organization using a new mechanism - through entering capital with the help of the Banking Sector Consolidation Fund. The perimeter of the rehabilitation plan included the Trust Bank, IC Rosgosstrakh, Rosgosstrakh Bank and more than 25 legal entities... (At the same time, Dmitry Tulin, Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, expressed the opinion that the purchase of Rosgosstrakh was the reason for the financial collapse of FC Otkritie.)
For your information
Since June 24, 2013, when Elvira Nabiullina became the head of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, about a third of all banks in the country have lost their licenses. In 2016 alone, 96 banks lost the right to engage in banking activities. But if, according to the reports submitted to the regulator, at the time of the revocation of the license, the total assets of the banks-"deprived" exceeded their liabilities, then in fact the sanators discovered a huge hole in the amount of about 1.4 trillion rubles. As of the end of 2016, the regulator does not disclose the amount of insurance coverage paid by the DIA for private deposits. According to calculations by the Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting (CMASP), 65% of banks that have lost their licenses have capital holes of 2.1% of GDP, while banks that remain afloat may hide 5 holes in their balance sheets. , 6% of GDP. One reorganization of FC Otkritie will require injections of up to 400 billion rubles, the Central Bank said.
The fees of IC Rosgosstrakh for the six months of this year according to IFRS decreased by 15 billion rubles, to 52.4 billion rubles. (against 67.8 billion rubles in the same period in 2016), payments amounted to 50.8 billion rubles. (against 55.7 billion rubles. a year earlier). The total loss of the insurer under IFRS for the first half of the year increased to 23.5 billion rubles. (against 9.2 billion rubles in 2016), follows from the statements of the insurance organization. However, against the background of the situation in the banking sector, the problems of insurers seem almost frivolous.
In the early 10s, he owned a recruiting firm and had no experience in finance. However, it was he who was entrusted by the ex-owners of Trust Bank (before the reorganization of 2014, it was one of the largest private banks in Russia) to lead a network of offshore structures to service bad debts. credit institution... Mr. Worsley even helped the ex-owners of "Trust" Ilya Yurov, Nikolai Fetisov and Sergei Belyaev get over to the UK, however, according to The Bel l, with the beginning of an investigation against his employers, he began to testify against them.
Ideal mediator
Like many other banks, during the 2008-2009 crisis, Trust tried to hide its bad debts , for this he developed a whole circuit. The bank provided loans to a Cypriot offshore company, which then, according to an intricate scheme, spent these funds through various structures and returned them to the Trust to service the debt. This allowed the bank to stay afloat for several more years - its reorganization was announced only in December 2014.
An important condition the work of the offshore network was to create a distance between it and the bank. To do this, the co-owners of "Trust" Ilya Yurov, Nikolai Fetisov and Sergei Belyaev needed an intermediary to help manage the offshore structures. This person was not supposed to be Russian - European lawyers, sensing Russian money, increased the cost of their services for them.
Yurov decided that Worsley, with whom the head of the Trust was familiar, was suitable for this role - the bank hired Worsley's recruiting firm Central Search to find managers. Yurov believed that Worsley had many connections with the business community and "breathed from him a pleasant spirit of the world aristocracy." The fact that Worsley knew nothing about offshore companies and did not speak Russian did not bother the bankers. In the fall of 2009, Yurov invited Worsley to Moscow to personally discuss the "secret case". The Briton willingly agreed to the bankers' proposal, especially since his company in London was then losing revenue.
Offshore network
To Worsley's surprise, it was easy enough to enter the world of offshore finance. In November 2013, he joined his new company, Teos Corporate Services. Worsley hired a dozen employees and took out loans for 250 companies. The Russians have long used Cyprus as a "back door to the European financial system”, Says WSJ, so the emergence of another offshore company did not raise any suspicion.
The main task of the company was to hide from clients, regulators and auditors bad debts "Trust". Every time the bank needed to service a large debt, the bankers instructed Worsley to create new companies to do so. The bank gave them a loan, the proceeds from this transaction were passed into debt to other companies from Cyprus or the British Virgin Islands, and then the money was returned to the Trust to service the original debt.
It took about $ 4 million a year to maintain this entire scheme. Many firms offered their services to offshore companies. By tax issues Worsley was advised by Deloitte specialists, one of his companies was audited by KPMG, and the Cyprus branch of a Greek bank Piraeus Bank served accounts for dozens of companies from this network.
In order to disguise the beneficiaries of the entire structure, Worsley opened special trusts for bankers on the Isle of Man, through which they could manage their companies absolutely anonymously. It was not difficult to carry out all these operations - bankers, auditors and lawyers were familiar with such structures and did not ask unnecessary questions.
More than an intermediary
Worsley not only created offshore fly-by-night for the Trust shareholders. He also came up with various entertainments for them - he took them to Stonehenge, organized a boxing match for Yurov. In 2011, he helped Yurov apply for a visa and move his family to the UK, receiving $ 50,000 for this.
From the very beginning of their interaction, Yurov and Worsley created the impression close friends - they spent a lot of time together, traveled, introduced each other to their parents and families. Worsley even converted to Orthodoxy (and Yurov stood next to him and translated the ceremony into Russian).
Despite all this, Worsley himself considered himself Yurov's "paid friend". The non-drinker Worsley had a hard time having fun with the Russians, writes WSJ. Inconvenient situations arose, among other things, due to the language barrier.
Bank and relationship collapse
Despite the fact that his offshore structures no longer served the Trust, Worsley demanded more money from his shareholders to support it. He personally asked Yurov to transfer the funds when he flew with his son to Cyprus. This aroused suspicion in the banker and asked to provide him with reports. Looking through the accounts, Yurov discovered that about $ 300 thousand had been transferred to Worsley's account in the UAE, and another $ 45 thousand was transferred to the reconstruction of the house bought by Worsley in the south of France. The Briton denied stealing money. Worsley made a similar request to all shareholders. “Now I am one of the leading specialists in offshore companies in Europe,” he wrote to former shareholders of the bank, while demanding compensation of $ 750,000 for the shutdown of the network.
Yurov still needed Worsley, but already in his trials. Russian investigators believed that the offshore structure was created to withdraw money from the bank. Worsley's papers would have helped Yurov prove that he used the structure to keep the bank afloat. But Worsley did not want to get involved in a legal conflict between the banker and the holding.
In 2015, Otkrytie's lawyers came to Worsley and offered cooperation. The Briton was asked to help uncover the offshore structure of the ex-owners of Trust, transfer the assets of the bank to Otkritie and provide information about its former partners. Worsley had a difficult decision. But when he found out that Yurov was going to sue Otkrytie, the Briton decided to change sides. He agreed with Otkritie on payments of $ 32 thousand per month during the year, as well as on the transfer of up to 4% of assets to him, which he will be able to receive from the offshore structure. Worsley also promised that no charges would be brought against him.
Yurov was shocked by Worsley's betrayal. This year it became known that the former owner of "Trust" filed a lawsuit against him in the High Court of London, demanding to stop using confidential information about his assets, to pay the damage caused by the disclosure of this information and the amount of "bribe" (which, according to him, "Otkrytie" bribed Worsley).
Accusations and exile
"Opening" requires from Yurov, Fetisov and Belyaev to compensate for $ 830 million, according to the plaintiffs withdrawn from the bank. Russian authorities opened a criminal case against them, accusing them of embezzlement on an especially large scale using their official position. Yurov and his former partners claim to be victims of a conspiracy. According to them, “Otkritie” exaggerated losses in “Trust” in order to pay its own debts with the help of the proceeds.
The former owners of "Trust" left Russia at the beginning of the investigation: Yurov first went to Cyprus, then to Great Britain, Fetisov also in Great Britain, and Belyaev to the USA. The Yurov family owns several properties in London, their own wine collection, and a $ 55,000 Turkish carpet.
Worsley moved to France. He was afraid of revenge from Yurov and even asked Otkrytie to increase security in his house. He also worried that the holding would not deliver on its promises and stop paying him money. He now admits that the entire offshore system collapsed due to the banking crisis. “I found myself in the middle of a confrontation between two Russian players,” he wrote in his testimony. No charges were brought against Worsley himself.
After Otkritie itself underwent sanitation in the summer of 2017, Worsley wrote a letter to his former partners inviting them to mediate a reconciliation with Otkritie in exchange for their help.
As reported by the agency Ruspres In 2015, the Central Bank spent a record amount at that time - 127 billion rubles - on the rehabilitation of Trust. Experts explained the generosity of the regulator by the special relationship that arose between the owner of the sanatorium bank Vadim Belyaev and the head of the Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina.