Russian Alexey Navalny is an economic criminal and his case is not political. On 10.12.2012 Director General of Russian branch of the French Company Yves Rocher (Russian Branch) Bruno Lepru asked the police to bring to responsibility Alexey and Oleg Navaly guilty of inflicting financial damage on Yves Rocher East in especially big amount (over 55 million RUB or by then €1,4 million or $1,8 million). In recent months Alexei Navalny and his associates have conducted an active publicity campaign aimed at manipulation of public opinion and persuading the audience that the politician was innocent. Leonid Volkov has encouraged the Europeans to sign a petition which practically blackmails Yves Rocher and demands them to renounce their claims against Navalny. Furthermore, the Europeans are introduced to this case only from the point of view of the defence, and that makes it difficult for them to form an objective opinion about the proceedings. On 10 December 2012 an application of Director General of Russian branch of Ives Rocher Bruno Lepru, asking to bring to responsibility the persons, guilty of inflicting financial damage on Yves Rocher East in especially big amount (over 55 million RUB), was registered in the name of the head of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Alexander Bastrykin. Based on the results of the inspection carried out by the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Alexey and Oleg Navalny, who, having betrayed the trust of employees of Yves Rocher, in 2008 convinced them to conclude a knowingly disadvantageous agreement for transportation and logistic services with company Main Subscription Agency, were filed an indictment. A criminal case is initiated in respect of Navalny brothers under Articles Fraud and Legalisation of criminally-obtained funds. At present the case is being heard at court. Detailed explanation of the subject of the case From 01.12.2007 to 13.02.2012 Oleg Navalny was chief of domestic postal services department of the FSUE Russian Post. In this capacity he had access to information on postal parcels of Yves Rocher, which were the basis for the business of this company in Russia. Yves Rocher East received most of its profit from distance sales of cosmetics with its further distribution to consumers. In December 2007, his brother, Alexei Navalny, came as founder of company Main Subscription Agency. But he did not register this company in his name. For this purposes there were attracted Cypriot company Alortag Management Limited and an acquaintance of Navalny, L.S. Zaprudsky, who came as formal founder and Director General. In Spring 2008, Oleg Navalny, using his official position, entered into negotiations with representatives of Yves Rocher East. He told the representatives of the company that for timely and prompt execution of postal parcels they need to conclude an agreement with mediator company of Alexei Navalny - Main Subscription Agency. Thus, instead of direct cooperation with the Russian Post, a mediator was imposed on Yves Rocher. Oleg Navalny, using his official position, entered into negotiations with representatives of Yves Rocher East. He told the representatives of the company that for timely and prompt execution of postal parcels they need to conclude an agreement with mediator company of Alexei Navalny. It should be taken into account that Oleg Navalny deceived the representatives of Ives Rocher East. The FSUE Russian Post, being a state enterprise, provides services on equal conditions for all consumers. It should be also noted that Main Subscription Agency had no real opportunity to provide services on forwarding of mail. For these purposes AutoSaga was attracted, whose Director General was an acquaintance of A. Navalny. On 5.8.2008 a shipping contract was concluded between Main Subscription Agency and Yves Rocher East. Furthermore, the contract was signed on behalf of Zaprudsky, Director General of Main Subscription Agency, who was not aware of the conclusion of this agreement. On 10.8.2008 an agreement for transportation and forwarding services was concluded betweenMain Subscription Agency and AutoSaga. Like the previous contract, it was signed on behalf of Zaprudsky, Director General of Main Subscription Agency, who was not aware of conclusion of this agreement. In December 2008, Navalny brothers initiated change of Director General of Main Subscription Agency. As new Director General came ZH.R.Chirkova, who was chief accountant of Kobiakovo Willow Weaving Factory. As founders of this enterprise came Oleg and Alexei Navalny, their father and mother. Furthermore, the contract between Tves Rocher East and Main Subscription Agency provided for overstated rates for transportation of goods. For instance, Moscow-Yaroslavl rate amounted to RUB 23,600. However, the contract between Main Subscription Agency and AutoSaga established the rate for the same direction amounting to RUB 14,000. Thus, about half of the cost of the rate came for economically unfounded markup of the mediator - Main Subscription Agency. From August 2008 to May 2011, Yves Rocher East transferred to Main Subscription Agency a sum amounting to RUB 55,184,767 for the services, in fact, provided by AutoSaga. Navalny brothers transferred RUB 31,598,750 from this sum to AutoSaga for the services provided, and legalised 19,880,660. These funds were transferred to the account of Kobiakovo Willow Weaving Factory, being a family enterprise of the Navalnys. As Director General of this company came father of Navalny brothers, as accountant - their mother and as founders - Navalny brothers and their mother. Funds were transferred for fictitious causes - delivery of goods, lease of property. For instance, over RUB 3,000,000 were transferred for lease of premises in Kobiakovo. Furthermore, lease price in an area outside Moscow was two times as high as the price of similar premises in a first-class Moscow business center. Funds were transferred for fictitious causes - delivery of goods, lease of property. For instance, over RUB 3,000,000 were transferred for lease of premises in Kobiakovo. Furthermore, lease price in an area outside Moscow was two times as high as the price of similar premises in a first-class Moscow business center. After funds came to account of Kobiakovo Willow Weaving Factory, they went through further legalisation as a result of which they became owned by Navalny brothers. For instance, the enterprise paid for the services of Navalnys lawyer, transferring money to his account in the bar association. Defence of Navalny In response to the initiation of the criminal case followers of Navalny started a publicity campaign in order to impose pressure on the affected company Yves Rocher. Great pressure was imposed on Director General of Yves Rocher East, Bruno Lepru, and the company in general to make them renounce their claims against Navalny. Ignoring the facts of the case, some media accused Lepru of a knowingly false denouncement andcalling for boycott of Yves Rocher products. As a result, Lepru was forced to leave his post of director, and left Russia altogether. For the same purpose, Leonid Volkov created site askyvesrocher , where there was organised signatures collection demanding Yves Rocher to renounce their claims. However, there are not so many legally relevant considerations submitted, which could prove innocence of the accused. Namely, Alexei Navalny states that, having conducted analysis, Yves Rocher established the absence of any financial damage due to the actions of Main Subscription Agency, and reported to the Investigative Committee about it. In his opinion, this position is certified by the inter-office memorandum of Director of Finance and Administration and the corresponding letter of Yves Rocher East. delo.navalny.ru It immediately strikes the eye that the inter-office memorandum (which tells about the absence of damage) is signed not by Director General of Ives Rocher East, but by Director of Finance and Administration. And it is addressed not to the Investigative Committee, but to Director General of Yves Rocher East. Director General himself did not send any letters to the Investigative Committee. As for the letter to the Investigative Committee, it is signed by lawyer V.A. Kodol. This letter suggests, that Director General of Yves Rocher East, Bruno Lepru, gave an oral order to the Director of Finance and Administration, Mr. Christian Melnik, to conduct internal audit in order to prove Bruno Leprus assumption on possible losses of Yves Rocher East. However, instead of internal audit, there was conducted analysis based on the comparative method of expert examinations. Then, the letter says that authorised representatives of Yves Rocher East had doubts, whether cooperation with Main Subscription Agency really led to financial damage for Yves Rocher East. Thus, Yves Rocher East did not renounce their claims against Oleg And Alexei Navalny. In legal contemplation, doubts have no evidentiary value. Referring to authorised representatives also raises questions. If it was about renouncing claims on behalf of Yves Rocher East, it would be clearly stated that the Director General of this company renounced his claims. According to Article 53 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law On Joint-Stock Companies, the only authorised body in is Director General. Other persons are entitled to act as representatives before third persons only on the basis of a power of attorney. The Lawyer, who submitted the letter to the Investigative Committee, was not authorised to renounce claims against the Navalnys either. Thus, Alexei Navalny, using legal illiteracy of his audience, deliberately deceives the public about the fact that Ives Rocher has no claims against him. Thus, Alexei Navalny, using legal illiteracy of his audience, deliberately deceives the public about the fact that Yves Rocher has no claims against him. It should be also taken into account that even if Director General of Yves Rocher East writes a statement about renouncing all the claims, the criminal case will not be closed: according to the Russian Law, large scale fraud is one of the crimes, which can not be terminated by agreement between the affected party and the accused (Article 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). Thus, the only purpose of the actions of the accused is to bring Yves Rocher into discredit and thus influence the court and the public prosecution office in order to achieve a favorable outcome of the case. The questions to Alexei Navalny which he is afraid to answer: For what purpose was Main Subscription Agency registered in the name of a figurehead - your good acquaintance Zaprudsky? Why was Zaprudsky, being a Director General of Main Subscription Agency, unaware of the conclusion of contracts with Yves Rocher East and AutoSaga? How come the contracts are signed on behalf of Zaprudsky who was not aware of them - could it be that his signature was counterfeited? What services were, in fact, provided directly by Main Subscription Agency to Yves Rocher East? If, as you say, Yves Rocher suffered no damage due to your actions, where is the official letter of the companys Director General about the renouncement of claims to the Investigative Committee? What is the reason for overstated rates for transportation of goods for Ives Rocher (if compared to the practically incurred costs under the agreement with AutoSaga)? If the deal with Yves Rocher East was legitimate, then why were not the funds received from this deal used in accordance with the Law, but were transferred to the account of Jobiakovo Willow Weaving Factory controlled by your family? How can you explain the economic rationale of the contract with Kobiakovo Willow Weaving Factory for lease of property in Moscow-area Kobiakovo? What kind of entrepreneurial activity did Main Subscription Agency carry out there? What is the reason for such a high lease contract price (compared to similar offers in Moscow)? What products did Main Subscription Agency purchase from Kobiakovo Willow Weaving Factory and what happened to these products afterwards? For what advocation did Kobiakovo Willow Weaving Factory controlled by your family pay to you?FAQ -Everything you write is a lie, as the case is a political one. Navalny is persecuted by the Government for the truth. Answer: Let us separate dogs from fleas. Even assuming that the case is a political one, no one freed Navalny from responsibility for his actions. Especially, if we talk about a public politic claiming to be the major corruption-fighter in Russia. The public has the right to ask such a figure questions - and that is what we do. - Navalny said that Tves Rocher had no claims against him. Answer: That is not true. Read our materials carefully and see for yourselves that no one renounced their claims against Navalny. The Director General of Ives Rocher has never written such a letter to the Investigative Committee. - The deal with Main Subscription Agency is a legitimate one, as it is common practice to attract mediators. Answer: To this we may object the following. There is no evidence whatsoever that Main Subscription Agency executed any work under the agreement. Everything was executed by AutoSaga. Main Subscription Agency appropriated about RUB 20,000,000 for non-existing services. Such a deal is null and void. - What do you need it for? Answer: The site was created by people who do not like overweighted coverage of the Ives Rocher case in media. Legal material for the site has been prepared by lawyer and publicist Ilya Remeslo. It is needed for people to see several points of view and have the opportunity to see into the case instead of believing one of the parties straight away. Legal material for the site has been prepared by lawyer and publicist Ilya Remeslo facebook/iremeslo
Posted on: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:21:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015