Morozov Denis Yurievich Bank. Well-connected gentleman: ex-EBRD director Denis Morozov will work for bofa merrill lynch. The bank is gradually eating away at itself. Yes, in such a situation it was necessary to withdraw money from depositors’ accounts in order to neutralize the effect of

Former Chairman board of the bank "Moscow Lights" Denis Morozov, who was involved in the case of the theft of 7.5 billion rubles from this financial institution, died in custody at the age of 42. This was reported to RBC by three sources familiar with the progress of the criminal investigation, and was also confirmed by two acquaintances of top managers.

According to one of Morozov’s relatives, he died on May 12. According to RBC, on February 19, the person involved in the case was taken to the Botkin hospital from pre-trial detention center No. 4 with acute cerebrovascular accident. He soon fell into a coma and never regained consciousness. Morozov suffered from a hereditary disease associated with blood clotting - von Willebrand-Diana disease.

It is noted that this disease is not on the list of diagnoses that prevent detention. Patients suffering from von Willebrand-Diana disease periodically require plasma supplements. According to the source, during his detention in the pre-trial detention center, Morozov never received a blood transfusion.

The press service of the Moscow City Court reported that Morozov repeatedly asked to be released from the detention center and filed complaints to extend the arrest, but his satisfaction was denied. The Moscow Department of the Federal Penitentiary Service told RBC that they knew nothing about Morozov’s death. The department noted that the man could have been in the hospital without an escort and “not been assigned to the isolation ward.”

In May 2014, the Moscow Lights Bank was deprived of its license and was soon declared bankrupt. In 2015, at the request of the Deposit Insurance Agency, a criminal case was opened against the bank’s managers.

According to investigators, the accused falsified documents about the termination of contracts with clients, and transferred money from clients’ accounts to controlled companies. In April 2016, the Kommersant newspaper wrote that such a scheme for the accounting department was in effect in the bank long before Morozov came to management.

There are currently eight people involved in the case. Morozov was charged with two counts of fraud (Part 4 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code), one episode of embezzlement (Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code) and organization of a criminal community (Article 210 of the Criminal Code). He partially admitted his guilt.

In the case at the investigation stage, materials were separated into separate proceedings regarding the alleged organizer of the thefts - ex-president of the bank Maria Roslyak, daughter of the auditor of the Accounts Chamber, former senator of the Federation Council and Deputy Mayor of Moscow for Economics Yuri Roslyak. The accused fully admitted guilt.

In February 2016, the court specially sentenced Roslyak to four years in prison. However, the woman will go to the colony only after 14 years. The fact is that at the time of sentencing she was pregnant, and the court allowed her to be punished once her youngest child reached legal age.

The former chairman of the board of the Moscow Lights bank, Denis Morozov, who died in the hospital, was involved in the case of the theft of 7.5 billion rubles from credit organization, was transferred from the pre-trial detention center to house arrest in March, the press service of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in Moscow reported.

“On June 5, 2017, a number of media outlets published information regarding the death of the accused Denis Morozov on May 12, 2017. The Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the city of Moscow reports that based on Basmanny’s resolution district court Moscow dated March 9, 2017, the preventive measure for Denis Yuryevich Morozov was changed from detention to house arrest,” the department noted.

Earlier, RBC reported that Morozov died on May 12 in the intensive care unit of the city clinical hospital named after. S. P. Botkina. He was 42 years old and left three children, a relative of the top manager said on condition of anonymity. The former chairman of the bank's board was hospitalized on February 19 from pre-trial detention center No. 4 with acute cerebrovascular accident. He soon fell into a coma and never regained consciousness. Morozov suffered from a hereditary disease associated with blood clotting - von Willebrand disease - Diana; this disease is not on the list of diagnoses that prevent detention. Such patients periodically require the administration of plasma preparations; During the entire period of his detention in the pre-trial detention center, Morozov never received a blood transfusion, RBC’s interlocutor clarified. At the end of August, Morozov underwent abdominal surgery: “He was operated on in hospital No. 40 and from there he was returned back to the pre-trial detention center. Even the stitches were no longer removed in the hospital.”

Media: the ex-head of the Moscow Lights bank, accused of stealing 7.5 billion rubles, has died

The former chairman of the board of the Moscow Lights bank, Denis Morozov, a defendant in the case of the theft of 7.5 billion rubles from a credit institution, died under arrest. Morozov died in the Botkin hospital, where he was taken from the isolation ward. The ex-banker appealed the arrest many times, citing poor health, RBC reports.

Morozov repeatedly asked to be released from the detention center and filed complaints against the decision to extend the arrest, but their satisfaction was denied, the press service of the Moscow City Court said. RBC has copies of the decisions: they indicate that the person involved in the case, among other things, referred to poor health and the fact that he requires regular blood transfusions.

Bank Lights of Moscow was deprived of its license in May 2014 and was soon declared bankrupt. In 2015, at the request of the Deposit Insurance Agency, a criminal case was initiated against the bank’s managers. According to investigators, the accused falsified documents about the termination of contracts with clients, and transferred money from clients’ accounts to controlled companies. Such “double-entry bookkeeping” operated at the bank long before Morozov headed it, Kommersant wrote.

Now this case against eight defendants is being considered by the Basmanny Court of Moscow. Morozov has been charged with two counts of fraud (Part 4 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code), one episode of misappropriation or embezzlement (Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code) and organizing a criminal community (Article 210 of the Criminal Code) ). He partially admitted his guilt.

On December 24, 2015, the Main Investigation Department (GID) of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for Moscow brought final charges against the former management of the Moscow Lights bank for theft of funds from credit institution in a total volume of more than 7 billion rubles.

Let me remind you that the State Investigative Directorate was investigating several criminal cases at once: illegal write-off of depositors’ funds, embezzlement in the issuance of fictitious loans, as well as theft of money from the deposit of the Cypriot company Proford Investments Limited of businessman Elchin Shakhbazov.

The initiation of these cases in 2014-2015 became possible thanks to our publications and appeals to the senior leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.

In the summer of 2015, GSU ​​investigator Irina Zineeva detained the bank’s former chairman of the board Denis Morozov, ex-member of the board Anna Velmakina, as well as managers Irina Ionkina and Grigory Zhdanov. Former deputy chairman of the bank's board Vadim Khalangot and financial director Alexander Bashmakov were arrested in absentia by decision of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow in December 2015.

In general, a strange story came out with Bashmakov. He was abroad for about two years, but at the end of last week he unexpectedly returned to Russia, and was detained right at Sheremetyevo airport, and then placed in the Butyrka pre-trial detention center.

Thus, two defendants remain at large - the daughter of Accounts Chamber auditor Yuri Roslyak Maria Roslyak, who entered into a pre-trial agreement and testified against other defendants, and her partner Vadim Khalangot.

Vadim KHALANGOT spoke about the reasons for the collapse of the bank, the participation in his life of the former vice-mayor of Moscow Yuri Roslyak, as well as the testimony of Maria Roslyak in an interview with Novaya Gazeta. (on the picture), currently located in Germany.

- When and why did you leave Russia?

I left the country in July 2015. For last year I regularly visited the investigator and participated in all investigative actions. And all this time, with the permission of the investigator, I left for Germany, where my two disabled minor children live. In mid-July 2015, in compliance with the agreements with the investigation, I submitted another request to travel to Germany for a few days, although I could not do this, since I was in the status of a witness. There I needed to resolve a number of urgent issues with the children and see a doctor, since I have had progressive kidney failure since March 2015. Having been refused, I still went to Germany. A few days after my arrival, I ended up in the hospital, where I was prescribed renal replacement therapy. Thus, since August 13, 2015, I have been on regular hemodialysis.

- Are you planning to return to Russia?

I realized that in this criminal case there had been a significant turnaround, the purpose of which was not to establish the truth, but to shield Maria Roslyak. After I notified the investigation about the impossibility of returning to Russia, it was as if they had forgotten about me. And they “remembered” shortly before the trial, at which the decision was made to arrest me in absentia. I do not intend to return to Russia, because I fear not just for freedom - for my life.

For me, returning is a death sentence, since no one will take care of my treatment either in the pre-trial detention center or in the correctional colony. But I am ready to help the investigation: there are a number of ways to obtain evidence, including conducting interrogations on the territory of another state.

- On May 16, 2014, the bank’s license from the Central Bank was revoked. By that time, you and Roslyak had been directing Lights of Moscow for about 6 years. During this time, did situations arise that could lead to the revocation of the bank’s license?

To be fair, it should be noted that during the last 9 months before the license was revoked, the bank was predominantly managed by other people, to whom 51% of the shares in the bank’s authorized capital were transferred in August 2013. And so the bank has repeatedly faced liquidity problems throughout its history. For example, in the fall of 2008, when Maria Roslyak was the chairman of the board of Lights of Moscow, and her father, Yuri Vitalievich Roslyak, - Deputy Mayor of the capital. At that time we served second- or third-hand clients<подконтрольные мэрии>and only one large one - Mosvodokanal - placed deposits. The situation in the fall of 2008 was aggravated by the fact that the country's economy entered another crisis, and panic among the client environment increased. And this is always associated with an increase in the volume of funds written off from clients’ current accounts, the closing of limits on the interbank borrowing market and, as a result, problems with liquidity. But in our country, thanks to the presence of a certain number of subordinates<правительству Москвы>enterprises that did not panic and did not become en masse write off funds from their accounts or terminate deposits, the situation leveled out within two to three weeks, liquidity problems were resolved. All these events took place against the backdrop of an escalating conflict between the bank’s participants, as a result of which the shares of one of the old participants were bought out by Maria Roslyak. I took the side of Maria Roslyak in that conflict, which I deeply regret in light of recent events.

- Fine. Did you overcome the 2008 crisis and work normally for 6 years?

No. In the spring of 2011, liquidity problems arose again. The bank was on the verge of stopping. Negotiations were held with various groups of investors about the injection of additional funds. Certain agreements were reached with one of these investors, banker Mikhail Levitsky. A team of its managers was sent to the bank. It was also assumed that all shares controlled by us (slightly more than 90%) would be transferred to companies controlled by Levitsky. But the transactions did not take place, and after some time the bank, thanks to the hard work of new managers led by Chairman of the Board Alexei Nikolaenko, managed to return the funds provided to investors in the form of interbank loans and equalize the standards. It was at that time that the course was set to attract funds to the bank individuals. Everything would have been fine, but by the fall of 2012, another problem had arisen in the bank related to the concentration of credit risk.

One of the “golden rules” was violated banking business, which reads: “It is better to have 100 loans of 1 million rubles each than one of 100 million.” Concentration has occurred loan portfolio at certain group borrowers.

- What kind of group is this?

This is a group of companies controlled by an entrepreneur Sergei Degtyarev (currently in custody on charges of theft during the construction of the road to the Vostochny cosmodrome - A.S.) . This is a client whose service Maria Roslyak personally supervised. By the fall of 2013, his companies had practically stopped servicing their loans, the volume of which at that time exceeded 4 billion rubles. It was these non-performing loans, I think, that primarily caused the collapse of the bank.

- Why did you lend to this borrower if he was late?

Because it was Maria Roslyak’s client. Back in the fall of 2012, she was very carefully told over lunch: “Maria Yuryevna, the volume of loans to Degtyarev’s companies has reached 2 billion rubles. Given that the loans are unsecured, is it time for us to stop lending to this borrower?” Roslyak waved it off: “Find me another such client, and we will lend to him.” Thus, “priorities” were set, and the bank continued lending to Degtyarev’s companies. These and other loans to Roslyak’s clients were not discussed for much time.

- In her testimony, Roslyak stated that “the bank issued unsecured loans in the amount of about 9 billion rubles,” which she learned about shortly before the license was revoked. That is, she knew that these loans were essentially fictitious?

Listen, Maria Roslyak was the main person in the bank. Roslyak knew about all the loans, since not a single loan was issued without her consent, and sometimes even urgent instructions.

Pre-approval of loans very often took place over lunch, voting by members of the credit committee was carried out according to e-mail. Sometimes the meetings were held in person, sometimes one call from Roslyak was enough to issue a loan to her client.

- According to Roslyak’s testimony, she was also not aware of the bank’s scheme to illegally write off depositors’ funds, which allowed her to retain her witness status in this episode.

She knew everything perfectly well. All this was discussed several times at meetings and over lunch. I repeat once again: her word in the bank was the last. And the write-off of customer money was tested back in 2012, after the bank received the first strict order from the Central Bank, which limited the volume of deposits of individuals and the number of their accounts. At first, this problem was mitigated by converting to bank bills funds of individual clients with whom a corresponding agreement has been reached. Soon the Central Bank saw this - and a ban on conducting transactions with bills immediately followed. And then it was necessary to withdraw investors’ money from their accounts.

But as soon as the opportunity arose, the funds were restored to the clients’ accounts according to receipts. cash orders. The same thing happened if the “withdrawn” deposit was closed due to the end of its term or if the depositor terminated the deposit ahead of schedule. In 2013, when the story with restrictions continued, withdrawals resumed. But no one imagined that this would last for a long time, much less become widespread.

Along with this, as I already noted, problems arose with the servicing and repayment of many loans, including those issued to Maria Roslyak’s clients. In turn, the deadlines for payments on deposits of individuals have arrived. The bank needed additional funds, which it attracted through new deposits from individuals. Due to the increase in the number of operations, it was not possible to maintain the base “on the knee”. And now the division information technologies received instructions to develop an additional automated banking system.

- But for a long time it was, in fact, a pyramid: the bank wrote off clients’ money, and attracted new deposits to replace those who “left”. As a member of the bank's board, did you approve of this?

In general, any bank is a pyramid. The only question is how competently it is managed. Attracting new deposits, due to which the old ones are returned - such a pyramid can exist for some time. But in conditions when most of the loan portfolio is non-repayable and there are restrictions on attracting deposits from individuals, it is doomed.

The bank is gradually eating away at itself. Yes, in such a situation it was necessary to withdraw money from depositors’ accounts in order to neutralize the effect of the restrictions imposed by the Bank of Russia. And unlike Maria Roslyak, I am ready to admit that I did not interfere with this.

But only because these measures were aimed at keeping the bank afloat. There was never any intention to steal money.

- However, according to Roslyak, as a result, this money was “sold” in the fall of 2013 by the last chairman of the board of Lights of Moscow, Denis Morozov.

This is true. Morozov sold them on a “platform” that specialized in cash handling in cash. I guess seeing so much money in safe deposit boxes (more than 1 billion rubles of depositors were withdrawn from the balance sheet. -A.S.) , Denis Yurievich succumbed to the temptation to earn commissions on their sale. Ultimately, the depositors' money returned to the bank into the accounts of "near-banking companies" that purchased bills of exchange from the bank. This was great stupidity. I don’t understand what Morozov was counting on.

- How did Morozov even appear at the bank? The case file states that he represented a group of Iranian investors who were ready to place about $500 million in the bank.

As far as I know, Morozov never held a position higher than the head of a branch, but was recommended to us by someone from the Central Bank. Maria Roslyak introduced Morozov to us and asked to interview him. So, first he became deputy chairman of the board, and then headed "Lights of Moscow". This appointment was one of the conditions of the deal to transfer the bank to the Iranians, led by businessman Ahmad Abedi, the frontman of the large ruling clan of the Republic of Iran. During negotiations with Abedi, Morozov and the latter’s confidant Khakimova, Roslyak and I became convinced of the sincerity of the Iranians’ intentions. They really hoped that Lights of Moscow would become one of the main settlement banks in the ruble zone for Iranian companies. We, in turn, also had high hopes for the bank’s reorientation towards Iran. And therefore, in the summer of 2013, we entered into a conceptual agreement with Abedi and Morozov, according to which a controlling stake in the bank was transferred to them free of charge.

- Roslyak said in her testimony that the shares in the bank’s capital acquired by the Iranians “were to be distributed as follows: 20% to Iranian partners, 20% to FSB employees who allegedly supervised Morozov’s work, and 11% allegedly remained to Morozov and Khakimova.” This is true?

Not certainly in that way. This is not about how shares should be distributed among the new participants in the bank, but how income from transactions with Iranian counterparties should be distributed. Since working with Iran, and even under international sanctions, required the “permission” of many competent authorities, the share of new participants had to be divided in a certain proportion between all interested persons and departments. Of course, this distribution was not formalized by any official document.

- Roslyak reported in her testimony that the management of Lights of Moscow repeatedly negotiated to retain the bank’s license. In particular, according to her, “Morozov claimed that through the FSB he was supervised by a certain Marat, who also supervised through the FSB the work of the presidential apparatus... and allegedly Marat helped Morozov in conducting an audit and obtaining a “good” act from the Central Bank in the winter of 2013-2014 " You, according to Roslyak, met with this Marat and discussed the cost of maintaining the license of Lights of Moscow.

Yes. Marat, according to Denis Morozov, is his “roof” through the FSB. I don't remember his last name. If I'm not mistaken, he was a seconded employee to one of the authorities. With this man, on behalf of Maria Roslyak, I went to a meeting with some lawyers who promised to save banking license for 3 million dollars. But then Marat himself said that they were scammers, and contacts with them stopped. I never saw Marat again.

- Also, according to Roslyak’s testimony, in March 2014 you had a meeting with certain Gennady, Anna and Aslan in the Vremena Goda shopping center: “At this meeting I, Khalangot, Gennady, Anna and two more Chechens who had security in number of 20 Chechens of athletic appearance. One of the Chechens introduced himself as Aslan and said that he owns two banks in Chechnya and Dagestan. Aslan said that he vouches for Anna, and if we pay her 7 million dollars, they will save the bank. During the meeting, Anna called some head of the Central Bank and said that the bank’s license would soon be revoked, but if we contributed at least $2 million as the first tranche, the revocation process could still be stopped. I told Halangot that they were some kind of scammers. But despite this, Halangot cashed out 70 million rubles using “technical companies” and pawned it in safe deposit box some small bank...

As in many of his other testimonies, Roslyak mentions a certain fact that actually happened, but then turns everything upside down.

Well, first of all, fear has big eyes: there were not 20 guards there, but 5-7 people. Secondly - and most importantly - Aslan and his comrades conducted negotiations with Roslyak. You see, the surname, like size, matters, and the bank was associated with one surname - Roslyak. One of the interlocutors told her: “The Central Bank has a draft order to revoke your license. The asking price is $7 million.”

Maria said that she would not collect the entire amount, but she literally begged these comrades to take part of the money - $2 million. Then Aslan demanded that a receipt be written, according to which Roslyak agreed to pay in three tranches according to the formula 2 - 3 - 2 million dollars. Moreover, which is typical, the receipt did not contain any demands on the opposing party - Roslyak simply assumed unconditional obligations. So if a group of comrades in Moscow is looking for someone to present a receipt, then it’s definitely not me. After this meeting, several more meetings took place with our participation. Maria Yurievna “forgot” how the $2 million was actually transferred.

- You are one of the defendants in the episode involving the sale of a bank-related company (IC "Moscow Lights") own bills Cypriot Proford Investments Limited, with the help of which the beneficiary’s deposit was stolenProford Elchin Shakhbazov worth $10 million. According to Roslyak’s testimony, you prepared and signed those bills...

I'll start from a little further.

May 15, 2014 to Chairman of the Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina, according to Maria Roslyak and Denis Morozov, their trusted representatives went. As Roslyak and Morozov later informed me, the Central Bank told these people: “Sleep well. There will be no revocation of the license." The morning after this visit, Roslyak called me: “Vadim, we have a review.”

At that time there was already a temporary administration in the bank. A little later we met with Roslyak, who had a list of clients whose funds were to be used to purchase bills from the Moscow Lights IC. It turned out that the funds of the majority of these clients, the day before, without their payment orders, had already been written off from their accounts in payment of promissory notes from the Moscow Lights investment company, which, in turn, bought from the bank the rights to claim the loans from Degtyarev’s structures. I can say that two of my clients were on this list.

As for Shakhbazov, this man’s money was placed by Maria Roslyak. I did not sign the bill documents. I am very sad to hear that in the episode with the Proford bill, Maria Roslyak decided to blame me, Bashmakov and Morozov. Moreover, later, in front of me, she actively discussed with her lawyers possible options not to pay Shakhbazov if he files a civil suit. I believe that the result of these consultations was a fictitious divorce from the husband, who took part of the property, as well as the transfer of part of the assets to minor children.

For a long time, the criminal case, which combined episodes with investors and a bill of exchange, was openly dragged through the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Central Administrative District of Moscow. Was this sabotage of the investigators somehow stimulated by you or Roslyak?

It seems to me that the Central Administrative District Internal Affairs Directorate, in principle, could not quickly investigate this case. There was no investigative team there. The investigation was handled by one investigator, who had several other cases in progress. At first, Maria Roslyak and I had a common defense strategy. By mutual agreement, we both paid for lawyers for ourselves and other bank employees. Everyone gave consistent, “neutral” testimony, and this seemed to suit the ATC Administration for the Central Administrative District.

I don’t know for certain who ensured this loyalty to the investigation and whether they did so at all. When the criminal case was transferred to the State Investigative Directorate<ГУ МВД РФ по Москве>, people began to “break away”.

It started with cashiers and cashiers. It ended with Maria Roslyak slandering her colleagues and comrades, including me.

- But before this, the new investigation summoned the lawyer of the injured party for questioning and even threatened to question me, since the publication of Novaya Gazeta mentioned the name of the head of the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, Alexander Savenkov.

Yes. Maria Roslyak told me after that article that Savenkov was outraged by your conclusions that he allegedly provides protection for her family. According to her, it was Savenkov who made the decision to transfer the case to a higher authority and even demanded weekly reports to him on the progress of the investigation. In addition, according to her, the elder Roslyak was several times at a reception with the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where he was made to understand: the case would be investigated objectively, regardless of “ranks and surnames.” Now, when Maria Roslyak was allowed to conclude a pre-trial agreement and slander many people, when she is completely absent from the depositors’ case, when they are trying to present me as one of the organizers of crimes in the bank, I am already critical of what she said.