Source: Rucrimina

An investigation is underway about the abuse of authority by the former first deputy chairman of the board of the Federal Grid Company (FGC), Valery Goncharov. The head of FGC UES, Andrey Murov, is still at large

Valery Goncharov was detained by FSB operatives in August 2016 in one of the capital's airports. Goncharov never managed to get to Miami, where in his American home, a top-manager was waiting for a civil wife with a child. With respect to Valery Goncharov, a criminal case was initially instituted on the abuse of powers, which entailed grave consequences. But in the end, the FSB investigators charged the 53-year-old deputy chairman of FGC UES in a softer form - simply abuse of power (Part 1, Article 201 of the Criminal Code). And although the essence of the claims and the amount of damage remained virtually unchanged from the moment of arrest, Goncharov now faces four, not ten years of the colony. According to, Goncharov fully acknowledged the guilt and actively cooperates with the investigation. And Goncharov can tell a lot.

It is hard to believe that such large-scale machinations became possible without the tacit (or active) consent of the head of the country's main network company, Andrei Murov. Another of the first inspections of abuses during the construction of the Crimean energy bridge revealed quite "expressive" abuse for one of the regional units was acquired ... a yacht. At the same time, the remuneration for members of the management board grew steadily. In 2013 The income of Andrei Murov was 68 million, and in 2015, Already 81 million rubles. Of these, 52 million rubles. - Prizes. That is, encouragement for effective work. Which, apparently, and provided by Valery Goncharov.

 According to the investigation, Goncharov was involved in embezzlement during the construction of the Crimean energy bridge and lobbying the interests of Soyuz-Sistemi JSC, specializing in the design and construction of power grid facilities. According to the investigators, the tender documentation allegedly was formed just for this company, in addition, FGC UES overpaid the contractor for more than 414 million rubles for imported equipment of questionable quality. Goncharov himself fully admitted the blame, and the lawyers, referring to the state of health and the fact that the crime now does not qualify as serious, were asked to release him. But the medical examination showed that there are no serious health problems. In addition, the court clearly considered that the detention occurred when Goncharov tried to leave the country.

Electrotechnical equipment, about the frauds in the purchase of which is in question, was purchased for one of Russia's most ambitious energy projects - the 500 kV Voskhod. It was of strategic importance - connected the power systems of the Urals and Siberia bypassing Kazakhstan. The main work on the project since 2011 is led by ISK SOYUZ-Seti (part of the SOYUZ Holding).

Goncharov was the curator of the project. According to the investigation, he knew that the contractor was using equipment that was not allowed to use FGC UES, but did not present official claims to the contractor. Moreover, Goncharov, violating the antimonopoly legislation, initiated further questionable transactions. In particular, it was with an easy hand Goncharov was announced a tender for the right to conclude an agreement for the supply of equipment for the needs of the branch of FGC UES - MES of Siberia. The list of equipment that was to be procured was in full agreement with the fact that the "Soyuz-Seti" was already acquired in 2011-2012. Documents for the tender were drawn up in such a way that no one else could win in principle. For example, a ten-day delivery period that was known to be impossible was established. It is clear that it was the Soyuz-Seti ISK that became the winner of the auctions. An agreement was signed in the amount of 1.353 billion rubles. According to the investigation, this is 414.5 million rubles. More real value.

The products were also taken with great disregard - neither cargo customs declarations, nor contracts with manufacturers or their official representatives, which would confirm the fact of import of equipment into the territory of the Russian Federation and its customs value - were not provided.

To the acceptance of the equipment, in fact, experts were not allowed - Goncharov virtually solely controlled the situation. The investigation believes that he knew about the fact that the equipment may be substandard, but closed his eyes to it.

The big question is how far the investigation will proceed in the investigation of fraud. In the media, there have been several publications that Goncharov was implicated not only in creating schemes for obtaining illegal profits, but also for withdrawing money to offshore companies. One of Goncharov's partners for such a profitable "hobby" was his colleague in the shop Alexander Muratkin - the head of OOO Lenelectromontazh. They go through life hand in hand, pocket to pocket since the early 2000s, when both worked in the tariff commission of St. Petersburg.

Muratkin has long been implementing "beautiful" schemes in the construction of power facilities. Their customer is always exclusively FGC UES. Together they repeatedly "turned" the machinations one into one similar to those for which now Valery Goncharov is in Lefortovo.

Numerous commercial organizations controlled by Muratkin - OJSC Energostroyinvestholding, OOO SetstroiServis, LLC Engineering Center Energo, OOO Lenelectromontazh, OOO Rubezh-RemSroy -, under special competitive conditions formed by Goncharov, Time after time received multi-billion contract work contracts. Moreover, commercial banks issued loans and guarantees for bank security. "FGC UES" on the instructions of Goncharova advances the firm Muratkin in the amount of 50 to 70 percent of the volume of construction even before the start of work. Subsequently, contractors Muratkin concluded numerous subcontracts with "their" intermediary firms. The cost of imported equipment for FGC UES soared by 2-3 times. At the same time, the VAT thus formed was presented to the tax authorities for reimbursement. In addition, criminal profits were also extracted through intentional bankruptcies. The funds withdrawn safely offshore. It is clear that without "cooperation" with the banking sphere such machinations could not take place.

The top managers of Zenit, Globex, Bank of Moscow and Vneshprombank participated in the frauds. Their interest was clear - Goncharov offered commercial schemes for concealing damage in exchange for refusing to apply to law enforcement agencies. FGC UES does not file claims against banks on bank guarantees, and banks do not demand from PJSC "FGC UES" the equipment they have pledged and seek repayment of loans only within the framework of the bankruptcy case through the register of creditors.

Goncharov so "legacy" for the years of his activity in FGC UES, which causes bewilderment that now in the case of "Soyuz-Network" he passes through the softer part of Art. 201 of the Criminal Code. After all, in fact, he formed a stable criminal group. And officials of the Ministry of Energy could not enter it except for the managers of energy companies and banks. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why regular inspections conducted by this department did not reveal flagrant systematic abuses?

Perhaps this is due to the fact that the clan of Murov is still in force. However, he lost immunity from persecution precisely. The resignation of the former commandant of the Kremlin and the head of the FSO Evgeni Murov is certainly connected with the events around the "Crimean bridge". Due to the management chaos in FGC UES, which arose with his son, the laying of the sea cable began with a delay of more than a year. For several months the Crimean people were held with "light according to the schedule", and the wife of Andrei Murov got four elite apartments worth half a billion and a Ferrari car, apart from a few other foreign cars a class slightly lower. publishes declassified documents on schemes of illegal activities and thefts in the construction of power facilities, the customer of which is exclusively PJSC "FGC UES". Murat



On April 11, 2012, CJSC "HYD Di Energo" represented by General Director AVERKINA Alexey Borisovich signed with "SetstroiKomplekt" LLC in the person of Executive Director ANDREEV Pavel Pavlovich a contract for the supply of electrical equipment - a complete switchgear SF6 110 kV SF6 insulated switchgear manufactured by Hyundai Heavy Industries ( Republic of Korea) in the amount of 1 set worth 147,650,286.98 rubles. And a complete switchgear SF6 gas insulated switchgear 220 kV 300 SR produced by Hyundai Heavy Industries (Republic of Korea) in the amount of 1 set worth 220,518,241.05 rubles. (Total 368 168 528 rubles).

On September 12, 2012, OOO "Setstroikomplekt" in the person of P.V. Andreev with OOO "Engineering Center Energo" signed a contract for the delivery of the equipment at a price of 415 191 237 rubles.

The sole founder of the NGO "Network construction complex" is the offshore company "Matias KO LIMITED" (Cyprus). Location: Moscow, Vereiskogo street, house 17. The management company is JSC Energostroyinvest-Holding.

The sole founder of LLC "IT Energo" is offshore company "Matias KO LIMITED" (Cyprus). Location: Moscow, Vereiskogo street, house 17. The management company is JSC "Energostroyinvest-Holding".

Thus, all decisions on behalf of the executive bodies of OOO "Setstroykomplekt" and LLC "Energo" were taken by one management company - JSC Energostroyinvest-Holding (ZINGAREVICH Anton Borisovich) in the interests of one owner - offshore company MATHAS CO LIMITED Cyprus).

This equipment delivery was carried out to fulfill the obligations of Energo IT LLC to PJSC FGC UES under the terms of the comprehensive contract dated October 3, 2011, IC-03 ​​/ 7-11-965.

On December 24, 2013, CJSC "HS Di-Energo" supplied the equipment to the construction site of PS Tommot, provided by PJSC "FGC UES" to LLC "Energo", and transferred it to OOO "Setstroykomplekt".

On December 24, 2013, OOO "Setstroykomplekt" on the same site transferred the equipment of LLC "Energo".

Thus, the equipment was immediately delivered to the site of JSC FGC UES, because OOO "Setstroykomplekt" did not have the necessary material and technical and human resources to fulfill the conditions for the acceptance of equipment and was used exclusively as an intermediary in order to increase the delivery price for further illegal operations In the return of VAT from the budget.

On December 26, 2013 and January 30, 2014, PJSC "FGC UES" transferred to Energo IT LLC cash funds in the amount of 352 million rubles. (85% prepayment) for the supplied equipment.

The funds of LLC "network construction complex" were transferred to ZAO "HS Di-Energo" 101 954 400 rubles.

April 11, 2014 in the Arbitration Court of Moscow filed an application for the recognition of insolvent (bankrupt) LLC "IT Energo" (case number A40-55694 / 2014).

May 28, 2014 in the Arbitration Court of Moscow filed an application for the recognition of insolvent (bankrupt) LLC "SetstroiKomplekt" (case number A40-81013 / 2014).

On September 19, 2014, PJSC FGC UES took over the equipment under commodity bill No. 315 from OOO Energo Information Center.

On October 16, 2014, PJSC "FGC UES" notified CJSC "HS Di-Energo" that the equipment was accepted into the ownership of PJSC "FGC UES" (letter No. PN-5299).

December 9, 2014 the sole founder of LLC IT Energo offshore company Matias KO LIMITED (Cyprus) decided to liquidate it.

On December 17, 2014, a monitoring procedure was introduced with respect to OOO "Setstroykomplekt" (case No. A40-81013 / 2014).

On January 23, 2015, CJSC "HS Di-Energo" filed a lawsuit against PJSC "FGC UES" about the reclamation of property (case No. A40-41022 / 2015), which is scheduled for June 30, 2015.

On July 6, 2015, the Moscow Arbitration Court granted the claim of ZAO Hitch Di-Energo to PJSC FGC UES about the reclamation of property (case No. A40-41022 / 2015).

June 1, 2016 9 The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court and refused to CJSC "HH Di-Energo" in the suit.

According to the available information, the attempt to implement this scheme was aimed at obtaining cash funds from PJSC "FGC UES" in the amount of 368 million rubles in the form of repeated payment for the same equipment.

In order to achieve these goals, ABAverkin, CEO of ZAO HA Dienergom, Executive Director of OOO Setstroikomplekt, PVAndreev, with the participation of MURATKINA Alexander Mikhailovich, one of the leaders of Energo Energy LLC and Energostroiinvest-Holding, JSC, entered In cooperation with unidentified persons of PJSC "FGC UES".

During these meetings, these persons developed a scheme of actions to create conditions for the repayment of FGC UES to this equipment.

A.B. Averkin sends a letter to OOO "Setstroykomplekt" on recognizing as invalid the commodity waybill of December 24, 2013 on the transfer of equipment from CJSC "HS Di-Energo" to OOO "Setstroykomplekt" for the amount of 317 million rubles and sends another commodity waybill from December 24, 2013 To the amount of 368 million rubles., Which P.Andreev does not sign.

In a letter of February 14, 2014 No. 73 on the direction for the signing of the commodity waybill No. 93 of December 24, 2013, A. A. Averkin points out that "the documents sent to you with the cover letter" 1243 of December 25, 2013, I ask you to read Invalid "(court case, vol. 1, appendix 56 to the statement of claim).

Consequently, the commodity waybill of December 24, 2013, No. 93, which was the basis for the decision of the first instance court, was made only on February 14, 2014 (after the signing of the commodity bill No. 905 dated December 24, 2013, between OOO "SetstroiKomplekt" and LLC "IT Energo "And after payment on its basis of FGC UES funds on behalf of Energo IT LLC on December 26, 2013 and January 30, 2014), the fate of the original document of commodity invoice No. 93 of December 24, 2013 is unknown, or CJSC" HHD " Energo, or OOO Setstroikomplekt, is not represented in the case.

AM Muratkin ensures filing with the arbitration courts of affiliated persons with applications for the recognition of LLC "SetstroiKomplekt" and LLC "IT Energo" as insolvent (bankrupt) and conducts their bankruptcy.

The task of unidentified persons of PJSC "FGC UES" is to register the equipment without demanding from LLC "ITEnergo" documents confirming the transfer of ownership of this equipment from CJSC "HH Di-Energo" to LLC "Setstroykomplekt", and from it to LLC "Energo" "(In violation of the terms of the comprehensive contract), thereby forming grounds for recognizing the actions of PJSC" FGC UES "to take ownership of equipment inadvertently and unconscionably.

The fact of preliminary collusion in the concealment of evidence in the case is confirmed by the fact that PJSC "FGC UES" was not requested a contract of sale of equipment between OOO "SetstroiKomplekt" and LLC "Energo", in the future, even despite the request of the court, this document was not provided (Decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow, p. 3 paragraph 5).

Since October 16, 2014, when the equipment was registered in the ownership of PJSC "FGC UES" (which AB Averkin was informed in writing by the letter of PJSC "FNC of the EU"), Averkin does not take any action to demand it, since he is waiting for the bankruptcy procedure to be completed LLC "SetstroiComplekt" and LLC "IT Energo", and only after that on March 11, 2015, it sues PJSC "FGC UES" about demanding property for the amount of 368 million rubles.

The basis of the claim is the commodity waybill of December 24, 2013 for the amount of 368 million rubles, signed only by Averkin and not signed by PV Andreev. Representatives of PJSC FGC UES did not present evidence in the Moscow Arbitration Court's case, refuting this argument, as a result of which the court of first instance granted the claim of ZAO HK Di-Energo.

In December 2015, A. Averkin sent a letter to PJSC "FGC UES", in which he proposed, in exchange for refusing to demand equipment, to pay to CJSC "HS Di-Energo" cash in the amount of 1.2 billion rubles for 15 contracts of PJSC "FSK UES "with OOO" Rusinzhiniring ", the right of claim for which CJSC" HH Di-Energo "was transferred under cession agreements from June 2015 (until June 2015, A. Averkin was the founder of LLC" Rusinzhiniring "subsequently re-forming his stake in an offshore company ).

On the instructions of the Chairman of the Management Board of PJSC "FGC UES", the protection of interests in the appellate instance was accepted for direct escort to the executive office of PJSC "FGC UES", whose employees provided evidence that allowed the appellate court to refuse CJSC "HJ Energy" in the suit.

Thus, during the hearing at the 9th Appeals Arbitration Court on November 16, 2015, the witness statements of the director of OOO "SetstroiKomplekt" PVAndreva were received:

On the fact that the owner of the property voluntarily transferred ownership of the equipment (CJSC "HD Di-Energo") to the ownership of "SetstroiKomplekt" LLC, and then - signed by authorized representatives of CJSC "HS Di-Energo", LLC "SetstroiComplekt" (Genuldinov) and LLC "IT Energo" On understanding by the claimant of the designation and further use of equipment for the needs of PJSC "FGC UES";

In accordance with clause 7.2 of the agreement between OOO "Setstroykomplekt" and CJSC "Hitch Di-Energo", LLC "SetstroiComplekt" authorized Energo LLC to receive equipment from ZAO HK Di-Energo;

On partial payment of equipment in the amount of 30% (101,954,400 rubles) from OOO "SetstroiComplekt" to ZAO "HS Di-Energo,

On the absence of the requirements of ZAO HH Energy for the return of property from OOO SetstroiKomplekt and on the absence of a return of funds transferred by OOO SetstroiComplekt to CJSC HA Di-Energo;

Presence in the book of purchases and the sales book of OOO "Setstroykomplekt" records on the acceptance of equipment and its further sale on the same day on December 24, 2013 in OOO Energo Information Center.

At the same time, P.V. Andreev did not deny the authenticity of his signature in the commodity waybill No. 905 of December 24, 2013 on the transfer of equipment from OOO "Setstroykomplekt" to the ownership of LLC "IT Energo".

In addition, the court presented an analysis of the entire scheme of interaction between OOO "Setstroikomplekt", LLC "Energo", and CJSC "HH Di-Energo", which allowed to conclude that there are stable links and direct affiliation of these individuals, on the consistency of their actions , Including the creation of conditions for intentional bankruptcy, which have a very obvious goal - to take advantage of interdependent persons and to try to avoid fulfilling obligations to PJSC "FGC UES".

In order to prevent representatives of the executive office of PJSC "FGC UES" from protecting interests in the appellate instance by unidentified persons, Energo Information Technologies Ltd. was sent to present to the court a deliberately fraudulent document - the original of the commodity invoice dated December 24, 2013 between CJSC " OOO "Setstroikomplekt", including signed by PVAndreev. Subsequently, P.V. Andreev, who spoke in court not only as a former director of OOO "Setstroykomplekt", but also as a representative of ZAO "Hidi Di Energo" (power of attorney in the case), stated about the falsification of the signature executed on his behalf, that also Confirmed the handwriting examination, appointed by the court.

However, this attempt to find evidence of fraud in the court, organized with the direct participation of the plaintiff, did not lead to the desired result, since in order to properly resolve the case within the scope of a vindication claim, in principle, even the absence of a commodity invoice (or the existence of a unilaterally signed consignment note) waybill confirms only the cost of goods delivered, and in the framework of the dispute is the cost of equipment is not the subject of the claim.

These circumstances and all subsequent behavior of the representatives of ZAO Hitch Energy, LLC Setstroikomplekt and Energo IT LLC AB Averkin, PV Andreev and other unidentified persons do not allow applying the presumption of good faith to them, since their requirements Have exclusive aspirations to compel PJSC "FGC UES" to meet the unreasonable benefit of a certain narrow group of interrelated and interdependent persons united for the purpose of causing property damage to PJSC "FGC UES" and avoiding liability, ying obligations and for possible violations of legislation in the sphere of economic activity.

Source: Rucrimina