Ilya Yurov Bank Trust biography. Why did the former owner of Trust Bank Ilya Yurov allow himself to be arrested at a Ukrainian airport?

Former co-owner of Trust Bank Ilya Yurov filed a lawsuit on December 30 in New York against Otkritie Holding, as well as its shareholders Vadim Belyaev and Ruben Aganbegyan. Information about this is contained in the court materials.

Otkrytie was chosen as Trust’s sanator in December 2014, and the Central Bank allocated 157 billion rubles for its financial recovery. (of which 30 billion were returned). Yurov himself now lives in Kent County and does not appear in Russia - a criminal case has been opened against him under Part 4 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code (misappropriation or embezzlement using official position on an especially large scale).

The lawsuit, filed in New York court, alleges that Belyaev and Aganbegyan agreed to pay Yurov and his partners $50 million for Otkrytie to become a sanator of Trust Bank. At the beginning of December 2014, Yurov and his partners met with Aganbegyan and Belyaev to discuss a friendly reorganization: “Trust” should apply to the Central Bank with a request for financial recovery so that Otkritie would become an investor - it would buy the bank’s shares, the lawsuit says.

The parties came to an oral agreement that Otkrytie would pay $10 million as soon as it became Trust’s sanatorium, and another $40 million within 12 months, but Yurov never received the money, it follows from the document. In addition, it says about “the initiation of a criminal case against Yurov, which has no basis,” Yurov also asks for compensation for the damage caused to him. He demands to recover at least $21 million, which is how much he valued his share of the failed $50 million deal.

“Trust’s catastrophic situation was the result of the theft of bank funds by Yurov and his partners using a scheme that Yurov himself described in the English court as “balance sheet management,” said a representative of Otkrytie. He denied that Otkritie or its shareholders allegedly promised Yurov and his partners a reward of $50 million (the same is stated in the testimony given by Belyaev - Vedomosti). And he adds that Otkritie was never interested in the possibility of acquiring Trust, which at the end of 2014 was on the verge of bankruptcy.

Recrimination

In the spring of 2016, Trust filed a lawsuit against Yurov, his partners and their wives in London demanding the recovery of $830 million; the defendants’ assets were frozen by court decision. The proceedings in London have not yet been completed and all Yurov’s efforts are an attempt to divert attention from the main process, a representative of Otkritie believes. This week, the Basmanny Court of Moscow sentenced two former Trust managers to seven and four years in prison, having found them guilty of stealing 14.6 billion rubles from the bank.

According to the plaintiff, the case should be heard in a New York court, since Otkritie operates globally, and Otkritie Capital has an office in New York.

The plaintiff has a chance to have the case considered in this jurisdiction only if he has a document confirming that Otkritie shareholders owe him money for the reorganization and that in the event of disputes they agreed to consider them in a New York court, notes the managing partner of the board lawyers "Starinsky, Korchago and partners" Vladimir Starinsky.

“The former owner of Trust has been in business for a long time, and shouldn’t he know that such agreements need to be sealed with documents,” Starinsky concluded. The parties decided not to put their agreements in writing “in accordance with industry practice in Russia,” the lawsuit said.

“I believe that Otkritie’s lawyers will challenge the jurisdiction of this case in the New York court, since almost all of the events mentioned took place abroad and have little connection with New York,” said Kirill Parinov, managing partner of Quinn Emanuel’s Moscow office.

Otkritie’s lawyers filed a motion to leave without consideration the claim brought by Yurov in a New York court, says a representative of Otkritie. Attached to the case materials is the defendants' petition that this case is not subject to consideration in the jurisdiction of New York, it follows from the court materials.

“When filing my lawsuit, the New York State Supreme Court agreed to the opportunity to consider the claim in its jurisdiction, moreover, Otkrytie, Belyaev and Aganbegyan received notice that a lawsuit had been filed against them on several grounds in New York,” - Yurov stated (information about this is in the court database).

Anna Eremina

On September 28, Westminster Magistrates' Court rejected Russia's request to extradite the former co-owner of Trust from England. Ilya Yurov. A link to the decision was published on the court's Twitter page.

Russia accuses Yurov of misappropriation or embezzlement on an especially large scale. After transfer "Trust" in December 2014, the banker left for England for rehabilitation. He was arrested in London on January 19 this year and released on bail, according to court materials.

The reorganization of Trust became one of the most expensive - 127 billion rubles were allocated for it. By the spring of 2015, the Deposit Insurance Agency and the Otkrytie sanatorium, which took over the bank’s affairs, discovered a multibillion-dollar hole in its assets. The money was withdrawn through loans from a network of offshore companies associated with the bank and its shareholders. In April 2015, the Ministry of Internal Affairs opened a criminal case. In addition, the new management of the Trust filed a claim in the High Court of London on the recovery of missing funds - $830 million from Yurov and other co-owners of Trust: Nikolai Fetisov, Sergei Belyaev (they also left Russia) and their wives. London High Court seized the defendants' assets, the case is being considered.

In Russia, Yurov is accused of three counts, according to the decision of the Westminster court. Firstly, Yurov and his partners, being beneficiaries of the Cypriot companies Erinskaya and Baymor, took advantage of their position in the Trust credit committee, which approved a loan to these companies for 9 billion rubles. The money was not returned. Secondly, Eurobonds purchased with Trust funds were transferred to the Cyprus company Black Coast, as a result of which the bank lost about 1 billion rubles. Thirdly, 11 million Eurobonds were withdrawn to the Edenbury company registered in Bermuda, also owned by Yurov and partners, again purchased with Trust funds.

The court refused to extradite because it considered that Yurov’s extradition would contradict the Extradition Act, explains Georgy Baganov, adviser to the Slovo i Delo law office, who, at the request of Vedomosti, studied the text of the decision. The court pointed out two circumstances: extradition is not allowed if it is aimed at punishment for political reasons, and also if extradition jeopardizes human rights.

Yurov told Vedomosti that he avoided extradition because the court found his prosecution “politically motivated” due to his connection with Mikhail Khodorkovsky And Yukos case. In addition, the English court decided that Yurov would not be guaranteed justice in Russia, the businessman added. Baganov confirms this. One of the defense witnesses, as written in the court decision, indicated that Russia has a weak legal system, which is influenced by politics and allows influence on judicial procedures.

The court did not dispute that “Yurov was the main banker for Yukos in the 1990s,” says Baganov. Since 1994, the businessman worked at Khodorkovsky’s Menatep Bank. Yurov was repeatedly interrogated in the Yukos case; the court was presented with a document relating to the criminal prosecution of Yurov, dated March 29, 2008, Baganov notes. In particular, the document contains the phrase that “Yurov joined a criminal group led by Khodorkovsky and [Platon] Lebedev to participate in the legalization of funds received from the sale of stolen oil.” Yurov was a witness in the Khodorkovsky case, while the Russian representative noted that the criminal case against Yurov was not sent to court. Yurov was among those named in the indictment against Khodorkovsky, and this was presented to the court as a possible element of political bias, Baganov points out.

With regard to respect for human rights, the court considered that if Yurov were extradited, a fair trial would not be guaranteed due to the special circumstances of his case, the decision said.

Vedomosti on Sunday, September 30, contacted Khodorkovsky’s representative Maxim Dbar with a question whether he considered the case against Yurov to be politically motivated. “We can confirm that Trust Bank served YUKOS,” he replied. - Yurov headed the bank. Everything else goes to Yurov.” Dbar indicated that he could not provide more complete comments due to limited time.

Russia can appeal the magistrate's court decision to the High Court, Baganov says. A representative of the Prosecutor General’s Office did not respond to Vedomosti’s request sent on Saturday, September 29.

Sleeping place and 3 sq. m living space

An important feature of the English court is that it takes into account the guarantees of the conditions of detention of the extradited person, Baganov emphasizes; this issue is not at all formal for the English courts. A representative of the Prosecutor General's Office gave guarantees to the court that Yurov would be kept in pre-trial detention center No. 1 (also known as “Matrosskaya Silence”), he was guaranteed “a sleeping place, 3 square meters. m of living space, as well as a place on the floor free from furniture, where he could move freely.” If Yurov were sentenced, he would be kept in correctional colony No. 2 in Tula, the court decision says. In general, the court accepted the guarantees, but noted that it would be difficult to verify the conditions of detention.

Top managers are already behind bars

In February 2017, the Basmanny Court of Moscow sentenced the former deputy chairman of the board of Trust to seven years in a general regime colony. Oleg Dikusar and four years - for the former financial director of Trust Evgeny Romakov. According to investigators, in 2012–2014. they issued loans to fictitious organizations registered in Cyprus, in the interests of the bank's shareholders. As a result, the bank suffered damage of 9.9 billion rubles. In addition, in 2013–2014. Dikusar, in the interests of the bank’s owners, alienated Trust securities worth 4.6 billion rubles, the investigation believes. Dikusar and Romakov did not admit guilt. The criminal case against the former owners of Trust has been separated into separate proceedings.

[RBC News Agency, 10/01/2018, “The British court refused to extradite the ex-co-owner of Trust Bank to Russia: Ilya Yurov was present on February 3 at a meeting with business ombudsman Boris Titov in London, at which the possibility of returning a number of entrepreneurs to Russia was discussed who left the country due to criminal prosecution. Based on the results of the meeting, the so-called “Titov list” was compiled and handed over to Vladimir Putin - Insert K.ru]

As Our Version previously reported, Ilya Yurov was arrested at the Kiev Boryspil airport. The former chairman of the board of directors of OJSC National Bank Trust flew to the capital of Ukraine on November 20 on personal matters. At the border control, Ilya Yurov presented his passport as a citizen of the Republic of Cyprus. After which he was arrested as being on the international wanted list through Interpol at the request of Russian law enforcement agencies.

Now the ex-banker is facing extradition proceedings, which could drag on for months, or even years. In connection with which, of course, everyone who has followed the history of “Trust” in recent years has vague suspicions about the real reasons for the appearance Ilya Yurov in Ukraine with a Cypriot passport.

The fact is that such an experienced person, especially since he has been waging a fierce judicial war for several years, could not help but calculate all the risks. There are two traditional options left. The first – Ilya Yurov was simply “framed” - lured to Ukraine and guaranteed security. This scenario involves milking the client in exchange for freedom. But there is another, more “calm”, but advanced version. It is very difficult to fight Interpol's wanted list. At the global level. But locally it’s quite possible. The scheme has been worked out. The client surrenders to justice in the jurisdiction where he is provided with guarantees of successfully challenging this arrest in court. After which the client receives not just freedom, but immunity from other attempts at arrest. It is clear that freedom of movement in this case is very limited. But this is still freedom, which, moreover, makes it possible to fight for “complete liberation.” Ukraine is a good option for resolving such issues. And not only in court. And it certainly looks much better than the prospects that have recently emerged for Ilya Yurov in jurisdictions more familiar to “business emigration.” Everything is very, very bad there.

Siege of "Trust"

Since December 22, 2014, Trust Bank has been undergoing a financial rehabilitation procedure. From the very beginning, it began to resemble a real military operation against the former owners, which was conducted according to all the rules of military strategy on different fronts and according to different rules. The scale of the campaign is impressive. In the first half of 2015 alone, more than 20 lawsuits were filed on behalf of the new Trust managers against companies registered in offshore jurisdictions. The total volume of claims amounted to more than 32 billion rubles and 94 million dollars.

But this is a mere trifle compared to the scale of the financial holes that were discovered by the Trust sanators from the Otkritie FC bank. To carry out the rehabilitation, Otkritie received a loan from the DIA for 129 billion rubles at a preferential rate. This amount was used to close the hole in the balance sheet.

Naturally, the reasons for these losses were very quickly transferred to the genre of criminal acts. On the Russian front, a criminal case is currently being investigated against a group of former owners and top managers of Trust, who are accused of fraudulent transactions with companies registered in Cyprus. The original purpose of these operations was to conceal the financial losses of the credit institution. But at some point, according to investigators, these operations began to show characteristic features of withdrawal of funds, when the money ultimately ended up in the accounts of the former owners.

On December 17, 2015, three of them - Ilya Yurov, Nikolay Fetisov And Sergey Belyaev were arrested in absentia by decision of the Tverskoy Court of Moscow. After which the main front predictably moved to London, following the main characters of the story.

Here, no criminal charges were brought against them, nor were there any attempts to extradite the ex-bankers. The hostilities began when in January 2016, legal representatives of Trust (which is controlled by the sanatorium) obtained a decision in an English court to sell a portfolio of Moscow real estate, which formally belongs to third parties, but in fact is controlled by the old owners of the bank.

This was done by convincing the judge that the transaction was concluded on non-market conditions and involved the cashing out of real estate assets and the withdrawal of funds received. In February 2016, an English court decided to seize property controlled by the families of the bank's former owners. After which, on April 11, 2016, a lawsuit in the amount of $830 million was filed in the High Court of London against the former owners of the bank - Ilya Yurov, Nikolai Fetisov and Sergei Belyaev, as well as their wives. The first, according to the lawsuit, issued loans to companies controlled by them. And the latter helped launder these funds.

The Talented Mr. Worsley

By the time virtual arrests of people were made in Moscow, and real arrests of assets in London, the new shareholders of Trust found themselves in the hands of a terrible weapon. It was Mister Benedict Worsley(Worsley), also known as simply Ben. This English gentleman lived in Cyprus and specialized in creating financial backrooms. At first, Alfa-Bank was among his clients, and then he was “picked up” by Yurov and Co., who instructed him to organize a network of offshore companies that were used as technical tools for lending to their projects and cash transactions of Trust funds. In other words, this was the dark side of the bank. And Ben Worlsey served as the prince of darkness. In November 2015, Mr. Waxley decided to come out. He reached an agreement with representatives of Otkritie Bank and moved to southern France, where, according to some information, he currently lives in a fortified house, which is guarded by professional British mercenaries from among former special forces.

From the materials of the lawsuit, which was considered in London, it became known that the current owners of Trust Bank agreed with Mr. Worsley in November 2015 to switch to their side, providing him not only with French housing and security, but also a monthly salary of $32,500 , as well as guarantees of protection in the event of legal claims being filed against him by a third party. In response to such touching concern, Worsley agreed to give testimony in which he spoke in detail about the transactions that he carried out on behalf of and on behalf of the former shareholders of the Trust. And judging by the speech of the judge himself, he believes the testimony of Benedict Worsley. As a result, all the financial schemes of Ilya Yurov and his company were at the disposal of the judicial authorities (not to mention the representatives of Trust). Accordingly, it became almost impossible for them to protect their rights. What may explain the appearance of Yurov in Ukraine.

Friends in high places

Exposing the old owners of the Trust could be a Pyrrhic victory. According to representatives of the financial community, the real owners of assets that were registered as belonging to the bank (or pledged to it) are not eager to return them to the new bank. And there is every reason to believe that the social and political rank of these owners allows them to retain these assets. Despite the decisions of the Moscow and London courts.

However, the new “Trust” is also not a simple organization. The bank is completely controlled by the Otkritie financial corporation, which is a “complex” financial entity. It is based on the Nomos Bank, to which the Khanty-Mansiysk Bank, Petrocommerce Bank and Otkritie Bank itself were merged. After which (in 2014) “Nomos” was renamed “Otkritie”, completely confusing the public. But on the other hand, a private superbank has appeared in Russia - the largest private credit institution, the composition of whose owners reads like “Who is who” and includes Alekperov, Fedun, Mamut, Belyaev and other not the least captains of Russian business. “Opening”, despite its gigantic size, is a potential target for absorption.

In other words, regardless of the fate of the Trust lawsuit, the current war may turn out to be an easy warm-up for the real battle. In this situation, the prison in the city of Belaya Tserkov for Ilya Yurov may not be such a bad place.

The ex-co-owner of Trust Bank, Ilya Yurov, filed a lawsuit in the High Court of London against the former manager of his assets, Benedict Worsley, Trust, Otkritie Holding and his former board member Dmitry Popkov(“Vedomosti” got acquainted with the claim, Yurov confirmed its authenticity).

Starting around 2011, Worsley managed the companies of the Trust beneficiaries, and already in 2012, Yurov appointed him as manager of his personal fortune. The lawsuit states that Worsley received remuneration in the amount of 5% profit from investments. In December 2014, the Central Bank decided to rehabilitate Trust, and Otkritie Holding took over the bank’s financial recovery. Criminal cases were opened against the former owners of Trust, Yurov and his partners Sergei Belyaev and Nikolai Fetisov, under the article “Misappropriation or embezzlement using official position on an especially large scale.”

After this, the new owners "Trust" began to recover assets. In November 2015, the Trust entered into a settlement agreement with Worsley, under which he was obliged to hand over all information about offshore companies in exchange for non-prosecution and remuneration. The agreement was signed on behalf of the bank by Popkov, Yurov’s lawsuit says.

Among the data Worsley was required to hand over were copies of documents relating to the assets of Yurov and his partners, information about how offshore companies were managed, as well as all communications he received from the former owners of the Trust. The settlement also included a "secret benefit" for Worsley, or bribery, Yurov alleges in the suit. From December 1, 2015, Worsley received $32,500 per month for his services, in addition, the Trust undertook to pay him from 1.5 to 4% of the value of the assets that could be returned to the Trust. The bank was also ready to compensate Worsley for travel expenses (business class flights and accommodation in 4-star hotels). And for disclosing financial documents of certain companies, Worsley could receive another $125 thousand.

In the lawsuit, Yurov demands that the High Court of London stop the use of confidential information about his assets. He also wants to recover damages that were caused to him due to the disclosure of this information, and the amount of the “bribe.”

According to English law, it is possible to demand from all participants (who paid, who received, and all “dishonest assistants”) the amount of the bribe itself and the amount of losses caused as a result of the bribe, says Yurov. “In my case, we are talking about a bribe amount from $500 thousand to $2 million and damage in excess of $50 million,” he says. And he adds that Worsley was personally served with the claim in the UK at the end of February, and at the beginning of March, Trust and Otkritie Holding received the claim. The claim was also transferred to Popkov, who is now an adviser to the board of Trust.

The Trust representative declined to comment; Popkov said he did not know what they were talking about. “As far as we know, Mr. Yurov’s claim was previously rejected by New York court. Now he is trying to sue in London. Mr. Yurov can one by one file claims in all countries of the world - we have no doubt that the result will be the same, since his legal position is completely untenable,” said a representative of Otkritie Holding. In the New York state court, Yurov filed a lawsuit against Otkritie Holding, as well as its shareholders Vadim Belyaev and Ruben Aganbegyan, where he claimed that they agreed to pay Yurov and partners $50 million for Otkritie to become the sanator of Trust Bank, the agreement was oral. Last December, the court refused to consider the claim.

Worsley could not be reached for comment. In his testimony (Trust in April 2016 filed a lawsuit in a London court against the former owners of Trust and their wives for the recovery of $830 million), Worsley said that, although until December 2014 he was considered “a person acting on behalf of the bank ", many structures were intended personally for Yurov, Belyaev and Fetisov. “Since Yurov, Belyaev, Fetisov owned Trust Bank, I viewed these gentlemen and the bank as one thing... Now I understand that at that time some initial losses were incurred by Trust due to the instability of the situation in the Russian markets. The mismanagement of the bank by Yurov, Belyaev, Fetisov to the detriment of Trust’s creditors led to an increase in losses, and I am cooperating with the new management of Trust Bank in order to reduce at least part of them,” Worsley said then.