How 47% of the company’s shares were confiscated from the family offshore of the chairman of the board of directors of Sovfrakht

In a couple of months, the Kaliningrad Sea Commercial Port passed from private to state ownership, the shares of the two main owners were seized at the suit of the Prosecutor General’s Office. The reasons for doing this are interesting.

52% stake in the Central District Court of Kaliningrad took July 11 at the State Duma deputy from United Russia Andrey Kolesnik – the court agreed that he, being a deputy, acquired the shares illegally, owned them secretly, operated the port illegally and illegally enriched himself.

On May 12, the Arbitration Court of the Kaliningrad Region took away 47% of the shares from the family of businessman Dmitry Purim, because most of this package, again secretly from the authorized bodies, was issued to a company from “unfriendly” Great Britain, which means that enemies could receive information about the Russian strategic enterprise.

The Kaliningrad Sea Trade Port is small. Cargo turnover in the crisis year (due to sanctions) in 2022 is just over a million tons. Revenue is a little over a billion rubles. But before our eyes, a new formula for the seizure of private property is being born in Russia: the fight against corruption, that is, against internal enemies of the state, plus the protection of state secrets from external enemies, equals nationalization. […]

History of Purim

A couple of months before Kolesnik, the second major shareholder, the Purim family, lost its stake in the Kaliningrad port, and also at the suit of the Prosecutor General’s Office.

The Purim family has long been engaged in the transport business, Dmitry Purim is the chairman of the board of directors of the Sovfracht company (revenue is about 6 billion rubles a year, under sanctions). Until recently, Purim had about 47% of the Kaliningrad port. But they re-registered most of this package in 2020 from a Russian company to Orneto Partners, registered in Scotland, its the beneficiary is the son of Purim, Kirill. It is not clear why this was necessary; Important Stories failed to contact Purim.

But the transfer of a share in the port to a company from an “unfriendly” country gave the Prosecutor General’s Office a reason to file a lawsuit. According to Russian law, foreign legal entities are required to coordinate the purchase of large stakes in strategic enterprises with the government of the Russian Federation, but this was not done (in principle, it is clear: the beneficiary remained Russian). But it’s military time. “Purchasing shares…allows them [бенефициарам] under the guise of legal participation in the activities of the company, to receive data on the dynamics of the cargo turnover of the Russian Federation, the range of goods transshipped through the port, which directly affects food, energy and military security,” the statement said. court decision.

As owners of 47% of the port, the Purims really wanted to not only “get the data”, but also participate in the management of the company. The authorities of the port opposed them – judicial bases keep traces of their battles. Orneto several times tried to obtain financial and economic documentation, nominate its members to the board of directors and challenge the results of the annual meeting of shareholders, which their representatives were not allowed to attend due to the lack of a pass to the port area. The Scottish company lost all legal proceedings. Including the last process, as a result of which 47% of the port was collected in state revenue.

Kolesnik believes that this was the beginning of his troubles: “I think it’s just some kind of human factor. An absolutely clear command that offshores are being checked, this is unacceptable when offshores are at such a time. They can request any information from the port as founders. And there may be completely different information – it is unacceptable! It so happens with us that the human factor has worked and they have begun to mow down. I know for sure that the country’s leadership did not mean it! The team was completely different – a man [прокурор] just an executive. The previous owner sold offshore, and I think that this is where all the problems started … I think that the one who [долю] transferred to an offshore, he himself regretted 20 times why he did it. He got himself in trouble, well, we are up to the heap there.

Find for the raider

In Russia, so far, property is not seized so often, referring to corruption or the “unfriendly” origin of the shareholder.

Until recently, a foreigner who entered the capital of a Russian company without the permission of a government commission could be deprived of the right to vote at a meeting of owners – now he is being deprived of his property, Sergey Ermolenko, partner at OrlovaErmolenko law firm, explained. “Important stories” found several such cases (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

There are not many cases when property is taken away because of the incompatibility of the status of a businessman and a deputy or senator. So, from the opposition ex-deputy and founder of the car dealer “Rolf” Sergei Petrov collected almost 20 billion rubles; with ex-senator Ziyavudina Magomedovaonce close to President Medvedev, were seized the shares of the Fesco transport group, and the ex-senator Leonid Lebedev — a block of shares in TGK-2.

The almost simultaneous seizure of shares from two shareholders of the Kaliningrad port under various pretexts cannot be a coincidence and most likely indicates the presence of some kind of interest or political team, says Ilya Shumanov, head of Transparency International – Russia. He recalls that claims against Andrei Kolesnik arose back in 2012: “Then Dmitry Gudkov, a State Duma deputy, released an investigation about deputies who violate anti-corruption laws and continue to engage in commercial activities. He brought to the State Duma the decision of the board of directors with Kolesnik’s signature on the decision. He participated in commercial activities and even put his signature! Kolesnik said: “Yes, indeed, it looks like my signature, but I did not sign this document.” And all of them said: “Ah, well, since I didn’t sign, there is no violation.” In principle, this port should have been taken away from him 10 years ago.”

In 2018, Transparency tried to draw the attention of prosecutors to the conflict of interest among deputies of various levels. But the prosecutor’s office then reasoned differently: the deputies make decisions collectively, and one deputy cannot do something in the interests of his business. “The general and regional prosecutor’s offices were not yet ready for this at that time. There were no provisions in the anti-corruption legislation that an asset could be seized for a conflict of interest or entrepreneurial activity,” recalls Shumanov. – Just dismiss a deputy who is engaged in entrepreneurial activities?.. If there is no political decision to withdraw his assets – well, why do this work? Who will benefit from this? Is it in the public interest to act? Well, this is ridiculous, ”he restores the prosecutor’s logic.

Deputy Kolesnik told Important Stories that he was going to file an appeal. “There are a lot of people here in Moscow and in the Duma somehow it’s not very good for this [решению суда] reacted. They are in shock. They say: “Stunned, or what?!””