In Voronezh, the former general director of the Experimental Design Bureau of Engine Building (OKBM), which manufactures parts of military aircraft and helicopters, was sentenced to four years in prison. Valery Dergilev was found guilty of abuse of power, fraud and embezzlement. The company filed a civil claim against him for 294 million rubles. The ex-head of the bureau pleaded not guilty and plans to appeal the verdict.
The Sovetsky District Court of Voronezh has completed an almost three-year review of the criminal case of the 59-year-old former head and co-owner of Experimental Design Bureau of Motor Building LLC Valery Dergilev. He was sentenced to four years in a penal colony. The man was taken into custody in the courtroom.
Valery Dergilev was found guilty by the court of committing five crimes while managing the enterprise in 2009-2017. OKBM is engaged in the development, production and testing of piston engines, gear mechanisms and transmission systems for various, including military, aviation equipment. The bureau was created as part of the Voronezh Mechanical Plant in 1959, and in 1960 it was separated into an independent enterprise.
In the mid-2000s, after being transformed into a closed joint-stock company, it went through bankruptcy proceedings and changed owners. According to the company, OKMB produced parts for the Ka-126, Ka-226, Ka-60 and Ka-62 helicopters, the Tu-160 strategic bomber, and the Yak-130 trainer.
Almost six years ago, Valery Dergilev left the post of head and ceased to own a 25% stake in the enterprise against the backdrop of a conflict with the co-founder, OOO UK Volga-City, Tver, which owned 75% of OKBM. The ex-head accused the partners of the raider seizure of the enterprise. Opponents insisted that the CEO hid the full financial statements, and his actions led to a decrease in the company’s income.
In 2018, the Voronezh Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, based on the materials of colleagues from the FSB, initiated a case against Valery Dergilev for abuse of power (Part 1, Article 201 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Two years later, two more episodes of abuse appeared in the case, as well as episodes of fraud and embezzlement (part 4 of article 159 and part 4 of article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
Judging by the materials of the case, Valery Dergilev was charged with “an unreasonable increase in accounts payable” of OKBM by issuing promissory notes, as well as “a decrease in the total value of assets”, illegal issuance of bonuses to himself and dubious transactions with the company’s shares.
One of the episodes described transactions with the wife and stepson of the defendant, Elena Andriyanova and Sergey Okhrimenko, who were listed in the OKBM as a deputy and assistant to the head. Valery Dergilev was accused of handing over to his relatives promissory notes, which are debt obligations of the enterprise, for a total of 78 million rubles, as well as real estate – industrial buildings and plots in Voronezh and the Ramonsky district.
The total amount of damage caused by the director’s crimes, according to the investigation, exceeded 180 million rubles. Meanwhile, OKBM filed a civil lawsuit against the former head for almost 294 million rubles.
The court released Valery Dergilev from execution of punishment for one of the episodes of abuse in connection with the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution. Also, as mitigating circumstances in sentencing, his awards in the field of invention and a partial admission of guilt in misappropriation were counted.
When appointing the term, Valery Dergilev was counted for six months spent under house arrest during the preliminary investigation. The claim has been submitted to civil proceedings. The court retained the seizure of property and funds of Valery Dergilev, including almost 24 million rubles, which are due to him for leaving the founders of OKBM.
Valery Dergilev’s lawyer, Pavel Maltsev, told Kommersant that the unfounded, in his opinion, criminal case was the result of a dispute between business entities. He called the verdict absurd, noting that the arguments of the defense were not refuted in it, and there were also factual errors.
In particular, the defendant partially agreed with the violations in the awarding of bonuses, but not in the misappropriation.
According to the defender, the two episodes of the accusation completely duplicated each other, and transactions with real estate and bills of exchange did not bring real damage, as they were formal and required to obtain a loan for the production of an engine. The lawyer promised to appeal the verdict.