The Prosecutor’s office asked state-owned companies to report abuse Bulk


The Prosecutor General’s office sent a request to the company “Aeroflot” with a request to provide information about “any wrongdoing committed by Alexey Navalny”. The appeal, which is in the possession , signed on 28 April 2016 Deputy Prosecutor General Alexander Buksman.

“In addition, please indicate whether these persons from the complaints, grievances, including law enforcement, the actions of joint-stock companies, including challenging corporate procedures, and also appealed against the decisions whether in a judicial or other procedure?” says the inquiry. As noted Buksman, the Prosecutor General interest information should be provided as soon as possible, because the test is conducted in a limited timeframe.

A similar document was sent to Rosneft, said a source close to law enforcement agencies.

The representative of the Prosecutor General Aleksandr Kurennoy did not answer the call . In a press-service of the Department are unable to respond to the request made in the afternoon of 11 may. Press Secretary of “Rosneft” Mikhail Leontyev refused to comment, Lee came to the company request from the Prosecutor General about the activities of Alexei Navalny. also awaiting response from the representatives of “Aeroflot”.

The source in the Prosecutor General’s office confirmed the authenticity of the requests and said that the same communications were sent to “many other companies”. Another source in the Supervisory Agency said that prosecutors are interested in, for example, not trying to Bulk capture all of the shares of “Aeroflot” and become the controlling shareholder of the company.

Alexei Navalny in a conversation with suggested that now the state office of public Prosecutor has addressed in all company, where he has ever been a minority shareholder “Rosneft”, VTB, “Transneft”, “Gazprom”, “Surgutneftegas” and all the structures that were previously part of the Russian joint stock company of power and electrification “UES of Russia”.

In the second half of the 2000s Bulk engaged in invest-activism”: he bought small stakes in large companies and then for the rights of minority shareholders demanded from the leadership to disclose information on activities of management, which could depend on the income of shareholders. From February 2012 to February 2013, Navalny joined the Board of Directors of “Aeroflot”.

Navalny said that he expected such a development due to the fact that his complaint of criminal sentences “Yves Rocher” and “Kirovles” successfully assessed by the European court: the ECtHR awarded compensation on the “Kirovles” and communicated the present case “Yves Rocher”.

“They need me to be convicted on criminal charges, because only this prevents me to participate in the elections, including the presidential in 2018. If the decision on the “Kirovles” and “Yves Rocher” will be cancelled because of the position of the Strasbourg court, the authorities will require a new criminal case against me,” said Navalny. He recalled that even before the investigation of the “case of Kirovec” TFR sent out requests to the regions, and also asked to provide information on possible illegal actions of opposition.

Lawyer Alexander Dobrovinsky in conversation with noted that violations, which hopes to find the General Prosecutor’s office, can be weight: from rigging the results of voting on various issues before the improper acquisition of the shares.

In 2008-2009, the Bulk lost claims with the requirement to disclose information submitted to the “Rosneft” and “Surgutneftegaz” and “Transneft”. Statement on the Navalny case was brought against managers of “Mezhregiongaz” in connection with the damage to the company in the sale of gas intermediaries. Then it was revealed the details of unprofitable purchase of drilling rigs by VTB leasing.

In February 2011 the Moscow Arbitration court upheld the claim Navalny to “Transneft” and ordered the company to provide him with the minutes of the Board of Directors for 2009-2010. In the same year the court has obliged “Rosneft” to provide the Bulk of its interesting material. In this case, the court has determined that the company has the right not to provide the minority shareholder of sensitive data. The degree of secrecy of “Rosneft” was to define itself.

In “Rosneft” then has declared that Bulk— defaulting shareholder and abusing his position to solicit materials of the Board of Directors of the company.