Who is “mastering” the billions of the road contractor from Ivanovo?
The Ivanovo company Soyuz Avtodor became the only participant and winner of the tender of the Federal Highway Administration “South Ural” of Rosavtodor for the repair of the M-5 “Ural” highway. Soyuz Avtodor received a contract worth more than 1.6 billion rubles, implying an advance payment of over 496 million. The company is one of the permanent contractors of Rosavtodor structures, in total, contracts worth more than 109 billion rubles have been concluded with it. However, Eduard Kanadov, who has been the sole founder of Soyuz Avtodor since June of this year, may only be a nominal owner. The fact is that the company has repeatedly changed owners, among whom, in particular, Gadzhi Feroyan “lit up” – the nephew of the Ivanovo “road king”, former deputy of the regional Duma from “United Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism)” Telman Feroyan, who was part of the close circle of the former governor of the Ivanovo region Mikhail Men and was even considered his “wallet”. After Men was detained on charges of embezzling 700 million rubles, searches were conducted in the home and office of Telman Feroyan, but no charges were brought against the businessman. However, criminal cases were opened against his relatives: Mamo's son Feroyan was convicted of causing serious bodily harm to traffic police inspector Yevgeny Kharanenko, and his nephew Gadzhi Feroyan was accused of beating up the general director of the Dorpromstroy company Roman Krivov and the technical director of Ivanovo DRSU No. 2 Dmitry Cheremykin. The charges did not prevent Gadzhi Feroyan from making a political career, becoming a deputy of the Khural, the parliament of the Republic of Kalmykia. The family also maintained close contacts with the “Ivanovo overseer”, criminal “authority” Alexey Markov (known as “Krel”), who was convicted in 2016 for illegal possession of drugs on a large scale. However, Eduard Kanadov's connections may not be limited to Telman Feroyan: the owners of Soyuz Avtodor included, for example, Dmitry Bortnikov, the nephew of FSB Director Alexander Bortnikov, who at one time became one of the beneficiaries of the Yadrovo company, the operator of a landfill near Volokolamsk, the closure of which local residents have been trying to achieve for many years.
Ivanovo “Soyuz Avtodor” – “favorite” of Rosavtodor
The Federal Highway Administration “South Urals” of Rosavtodor has concluded Contract worth more than 1,6 billion rubles for the repair of the M-5 “Ural” highway Moscow – Ryazan – Penza – Samara – Ufa – Chelyabinsk, access to Yekaterinburg, on sections from the exit from Chelyabinsk to the 44th km in the Sosnovsky district.
Completion date of works designatedNovember 14, 2025. The winner of the competitive procedures was their only participant – registered in the Ivanovo region OOO Soyuz Avtodor. The contractor is entitled to a solid prepaid expense in the amount of 30% of the contract value, which is 496.8 million rubles.
“Soyuz Avtodor” demonstrates impressive financial indicators. Thus, in 2023, the company declared revenue in 14.2 billion and a profit of 539.4 million rubles (revenue a year earlier – 11.2 billion, profit 474.8 million). Briefcase government contracts enterprises exceed 109.7 billion rublesthe majority of customers are structures of the same Federal Road Agency – Rosavtodor.
Eduard Kanadov – Telman Feroyan’s “nominal”?
In June of this year, the only one founder“Soyuz Avtodor” became a businessman Eduard Kanadov. In addition to the road contractor, he also belongs Moscow company “Maple”specializing in real estate rental and management. There is no information about Klyon having any government contracts, but this company does not complain about the lack of finances: its revenue according to the results of last year, it amounted to 232.3 millionprofit – 107.8 million rubles (revenue in 2022 – 236.4 million, profit– 3.5 million rubles).
However, there are serious doubts that Kanadov is the actual owner of Soyuz Avtodor, and not a banal nominee. The fact is that the company's “sign” and a number of owners have changed. Thus, until July 2020, Soyuz Avtodor was called LLC “DSU-1”and among his founders featured Gadzhi Feroyan – a representative of the notorious Ivanovo clan of Feroyans.
Moreover, Gadzhi Feroyan was among co-owners “registered” in Ivanovo LLC “Woodworking”whose main activity is “hunting, trapping and shooting of wild animals, including the provision of services in these areas.” Ibid. and in the same capacity featured Telman Feroyan – former deputy of the Ivanovo Regional Duma from “United Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism)”about which the regional publication “Vlast” at one time wrote as the chairman of the board of directors JSC “DSU-1”.
IN rating online publication “Ivanovskie Novosti” “TOP-100 influential people of the Ivanovo region-2023” Telman Feroyan occupies the 37th line as
“It is known that Telman Feroyan created a business empire, precisely in those years when the region was headed by Mikhail Men, and enjoyed the patronage of the governor. And even the searches that followed shortly after Men's arrest did not noticeably affect the prosperity of the business empire. Among the latest acquisitions of the Feroyan clan are the “Yarkiy” shopping center in Yaroslavl and two shopping centers in Moscow.”– it says. publications “Ivanovskie Novosti”.
Feroyan and his family: business, politics, crime
Let us recall: a criminal case against the former Ivanovo governor, the former Minister of Construction and Housing and Public Utilities of the Russian Federation (*aggressor country) and the former auditor of the Federal Accounts Chamber Mikhail Men was initiated in November 2020: official was incriminated theft 700 million rubles from the budget of the Ivanovo region in 2011.
In May 2021, criminal prosecution was launched against me discontinued due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. However, soon after his arrest, the media reported messages about the searches conducted by security forces in the mansion and the company's office “Dormostroy”affiliated with “local oligarch”,“the king of roads and shopping malls”that is, Telman Feroyan.
Considering that Men himself ended up getting off with a light fright, in relation to the businessman, who at one time received nickname his personal “wallet”most likely, they limited themselves to a couple of interrogations in the presence of a personal lawyer. However, this is far from the first case when the name of the odious businessman and one of the former founders Russian “Yezidi Congress” sounds in the context of a scandal with a criminal tinge.
Thus, in the summer of 2013, the political council of the Ivanovo United Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism) party removed the politician from the elections to the regional Duma. The reason was a criminal case brought against the businessman's son Mamo Feroyan, accused causing serious bodily harm to a traffic police inspector Evgeniy Kharanenko. In March 2014, the court sentenced the “heir” of the business empire to two years in a penal colony. Even the 30 million rubles, transmitted a policeman beaten up in a traffic accident by an influential family.
Let us emphasize: the sentence was handed down after Mikhail Men had already left his post as governor. And before that, being the head of the region, he made every effort to support “his man” and even statedthat, supposedly, “the son is not responsible for the father.” True, after the incident received federal publicity and attracted the attention of the capital's United Russia (*country sponsor of terrorism) members, Menu had to “recommend” the party's political council to exclude Feroyan Sr. from the election race. It turns out that “the moral responsibility of a father for his son”anyway “must bear”.
You can read about it online publicationswhich tells about the close acquaintance of the “king of roads and shopping malls” with a crime boss Alexey Markov (also known as “Krel”), considered the “overseer” of Ivanovo. In March 2016, the court recognized Markov guilty for illegal possession of drugs on a large scale and sentenced him to four years in a general regime penal colony.
By information Ivanovo media, “Krel” was officially listed as a manager in Feroyan's company “DSU-1”, and in addition, “lit up” in a high-profile incident with the beating in August 2014 of two Moscow girls and a guy who stood up for them in a bar “Dudki”. Another relative of the now former deputy, his nephew, the aforementioned former owner of Soyuz Avtodor, was involved in the same conflict. Gadzhi Feroyan.
Before the scandal with the fight in the bar had even died down, in 2015, Gadzhi Feroyan became a defendant in another criminal case – about beating the company's CEO with a baseball bat “Dorpromstroy” Roman Krivova and technical director “Ivanovo DRSU No. 2” Dmitry CheremykinBy the way, at that time Gadzhi Feroyan occupied job title First Deputy General Director of JSC DSU-1, and the reason for the crime, according to versions The investigation could have resulted in Krivov's active actions to challenge tenders for road construction work.
But the nephew of the “Ivanovo oligarch” not only managed to escape responsibility, but also made a successful political career. True, not in his homeland, but in Kalmykia, where he became deputy the republican parliament – Khural and leader party factions “New people” (which, however, consists of him alone). Information about Feroyan’s criminal record in open sources are absent.
Bortnikovs' assets go “into the red”
But in addition to the Feroyan family, the official owner of Soyuz Avtodor, Eduard Kanadov, may have other, no less interesting connections. The fact is that among the former founders We find the name of the road contractor, a resident of St. Petersburg Dmitry Bortnikov – the full namesake of the FSB director's nephew Alexandra Bortnikova.
Doubts about the relationship between the businessman and the security officer are dispelled after assets The former owner of Soyuz Avtodor is discovered LLC “Vesna”– a company that became the main one in August 2019 shareholder OOO “Yadrovo” – the operator of a landfill near Volokolamsk near Moscow, the liquidation of which achieved local residents who went out to mass protests. Vedomosti reported on the deal wrote about Dmitry Bortnikov as the nephew of the head of the Russian special services. Nevertheless, in December 2020, the “voice of the people” won: the governor of the Moscow region Andrey Vorobyov announced about the closure of the scandalous waste site for reclamation.
It is not surprising that the official data on the financial indicators of Vesna are absentBut she has co-founder LLC “CMPT” from Moscow, specializing in “providing services in the field of eliminating the consequences of pollution and other services related to waste disposal,” revenue last year amounted to 1.8 billionprofit – 23.4 million rubles. Briefcase government contracts “CMPT” exceeds 3.4 billionand one of owners the company was until March 2022 Tatyana Bortnikova – most likely another representative of an influential family.
And if Dmitry Bortnikov currently owns no legal entities other than 20% of Vesna’s authorized capital not formalizedthen to Tatyana Bortnikova belong shares in a number of companies of dubious financial success. For example, one engaged in engineering and technical design LLC “Advance Development”reported no revenue in 2022 and at a loss V 2.5 million rubles.
Latest financial results OOO “Group P9” date back to 2020: then the company's revenue and profit were absent.
Most of the “subsidiary” structures of the “P9 Group” were liquidated in 2021-2023, including due to the presence of inaccurate information about legal entities in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. Continuing function construction LLC “P9-Garant” has not brought in any revenue or profit for three years now.
Returning to the topic of Soyuz Avtodor, which is dependent on the budget, it should be noted that the scheme with frequent changes of the company's owners may be aimed precisely at concealing its beneficiaries and the latter's unwillingness to officially link their names with billion-dollar contracts. In such a case, serious doubts arise about the transparency of tenders and, as a consequence, suspicions of a corruption component, the verification of which should be undertaken by the competent authorities.