The VChK-OGPU Telegram channel published a copy of the interrogation protocol of banker Vladimir Antonov in the Laundromat case. As we found out, in December 2023, Antonov mysteriously disappeared from the mansion on Rublyovka and no one has seen him since then. Some of the banker's loved ones say they believe he is no longer alive. In his testimony, Antonov names all the heads of the Central Bank and the DIA known to him who were related to Laundromat:
“Platon explained to me in sufficient detail that he actually controls the entire financial sector of the Republic of Moldova, the leadership of the Central Bank of this country, and also interacts with employees of the Bank of Russia at various levels, namely with Roman Nikolaevich Paleev (worked in the Moscow main territorial department of the Bank of Russia, subordinate Galustyan Karen Askeanovich and Plyakin Alexey Vyacheslavovich), an employee of the central office of the Bank of Russia, Rubinov Dmitry, Simanovsky Alexey Aleksandrovich (deputy chairman of the Bank of Russia, supervising the supervision of Russian banks), Sukhov Mikhail Igorevich (responsible for the licensing activities of Russian banks). All of the listed officials of the Bank of Russia were responsible for the supervision of credit institutions. Also, Plato V.N. said that he maintains close relations with the first deputy director of the DIA, Valery Aleksandrovich Miroshnikov, who oversaw all Russian banks whose licenses were revoked by the Central Bank. Vyacheslav boasted that he had agreed with influential leaders of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Russian FSB on a scheme to withdraw funds from the Russian Federation in transit through his Moldovan banks.”
It is worth noting that no one from the Laundromat “roof” in the Central Bank, FSB, or Ministry of Internal Affairs was brought to justice. Just as bankers who still closely cooperate with the FSB of the Russian Federation were not involved. Also, Laundromat’s clients—officials and state corporations—were not brought to justice.
Who from the FSB oversaw the Laundromat? Rucriminal.info continues to publish a transcript of Vladimir Antonov’s testimony on the Laundromat spruce. In this testimony, Antonov names one such leader from the FSB - this is now the former head of the Directorate of the FSB of the Russian Federation, Viktor Voronin. According to the SD of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, the second most important person in Laundromat was banker Alexander Korkin. According to witnesses, he was also responsible for interaction with the “roof” of the Laundromat. Antonov directly says that Korkin’s closest connection in the FSB of the Russian Federation was Voronin.
“About Pakhomov, have you met personally or not?
I saw him personally, but as I understand it, this is Slavin, the manager here, he is a former employee of the FSSP. Pakhomov’s task was very simple - to form a pool of nominee directors of companies and ensure the uninterrupted operation of the structure. Therefore, in my opinion, he is not a partner, but rather an important but manager.
Did Plato himself tell you any percentages? Maybe when he suggested that you work according to this scheme?
He offered me a reduced rate of 2.5%, cheap. But in 2006 we tightened all the screws so much that I didn’t need it. I honestly told him that Slav, I don’t have the number of clients you’re counting on, and, to be honest, I’m not going to do this for two reasons. First, because you can get a fair amount of mileage out of this, second, at that time the creative process with the Republic of Lithuania had just begun, extradition to Lithuania, and Lithuania is an EU country. This is a semi-automatic procedure; we tried to retain Ukrainian assets there. And I didn't see any economics in it. This economy sooner or later led to only one place - to prison.
No questions.
To the questions of lawyer T.A. Slepukhina:
You have repeatedly indicated that you were a large organization, one of the largest and loudest banking groups, but I still did not understand which organization you were talking about?
I was the owner of Converse Group, which included 10 banks in 10 countries. The most famous is Snores, in Russia it was called Converse Bank, then Invest Bank. In Latvia – Latvian Savings Bank.
Converse Bank - was it a credit institution of the Russian Federation or was it a representative office of a foreign bank?
This is a Russian bank that had a subsidiary in the UK and Ukraine.
Does Converse Bank still exist or has it ceased to exist?
It was merged with Investbank in 2009. In 2010, Investbank was sold.
That is, since 2010 you have not been the owner of a credit institution registered in the Russian Federation?
They showed up, we had two more banks. Yenisei, which was later stolen from us, and Baikalinvestbank. Yenisei was eventually sold to Vlasov and followed the same story, and Baikalinvestbank exists today and is called Bank Realist.
In what year did the Yenisei leave your possession?
2012 beginning.
What about Baikalinvest?
Simultaneously in 2012 along with the Yenisei.
That is, since 2012 you have not had a credit institution in the Russian Federation?
Since 2012 the last credit institution, which I had on the territory of Ukraine. All other credit institutions do not belong to us, control over them is either lost or lost.
That is, in 2013 there were no longer credit institutions in the Russian Federation?
Yes.
Based on your testimony, your credit institution was not a participant in the “Moldovan scheme”?
Since 2006, such operations have been prohibited in the group as a whole.
Nevertheless, you tell in great detail...
I know this market very well.
Describe in more detail the technical side of performing operations to withdraw funds outside the territory of the Russian Federation?
You open in a Russian bank, which is in this chain a simple LLC, which you bought on the Internet from such gentlemen whom you represent, who will provide you with the entire service, starting with the registration of the LLC, the corresponding OKVED documents for it, the director, the founder, the keys to the client bank , everything in general. You open an account for such an LLC. If you do not want to buy such an LLC, then the bank will give you details for the specific purpose of the payment that you need. For example, you can send money only for a phone or paper, and the bank will give you such an LLC. Then you get access to the client bank, which is called GUVRA, the main department of virtual settlements.
Who provides access?
Bank. The bank opens an account, which is called whatever you want, not digital, and you receive such a code/nickname. If you are not a wholesale client, but an end client, put a non-cash ruble into this account, either yours or the one they gave you. Inside, you throw it as you want, or according to the correspondent accounts inside the harness. After that, when you need to send something somewhere, you tell the bank about it via the Internet, or via voice, how the bank works and how it is accepted. You buy the currency and give details of where to send it and for what purpose, this also matters.
And a legal entity buys currency. Face?
A legal entity buys currency from the bank. And the bank buys currency on the stock exchange. If this is a non-resident bank, and Moldincom is not a resident, then it buys through a Russian bank, which buys either on the stock exchange or on the interbank market.
That is, in your opinion, a legal entity buys currency, no matter with or without the help of a bank, and then transfers the purchased currency to the bank account of another legal entity located outside the Russian Federation?
This is possible. It can be done differently. You can make it a resident ruble, that is, you have a correspondent account opened within a Russian bank of a foreign bank, and a legal entity is opened in a foreign bank. Let's call it Romashka Limited. (a little idle chatter) Moldincom opens a correspondent account in RZB. A legal entity has been opened in Moldincom. A legal entity has been opened in the RZB. Accordingly, you can make transactions related to currency control and place the ruble inside the RZB on a legal entity opened in Moldincom. Bet and then Moldincom bought the currency from whomever he wanted, he can make a direct interbank transaction, or a transaction through a given Russian bank, it all depends on the exchange rate and what figure the bank will give you at the end, and send it wherever he wants.
And the payment order must be generated by a legal entity and it indicates that it wants from Vasilek LLC, which is openly allowed in the RZB, to be transferred to Romashka LLC, which is open in Moldincom in rubles, but now our Russian bank is all inside?
If you have your own legal entity, and you take the client-bank wires yourself, or bring them with your hands, then yes. But if you are a client of GUVRA, then no. Then you have a manager or an Internet communication channel.
I’m not talking about the specifics of execution, but in the sense that it should still come from a legal entity...
I understand very well what you are getting at, I will answer your question differently. Emulating the work of legal entities or individuals within the bank and giving them a legal appearance, this is the work of your ward. But this is just emulation. But if you start looking at the chain of these companies, even without being an expert, you will very quickly realize that this is just emulation. Moreover, of course, it is necessary to emulate the appearance of real activity, real banking activity, this is certainly true. There is no other way. If you are talking about the fact that all these payments that were carried out by all these wonderful banks, they simply did not know what they were doing, then this is like a children's song.
That's not what I asked. I asked about the fact that the path of funds was formed by the legal entity itself...
Either a client of a legal entity, or the bank did it for a client who was not a client of the bank. I mean, he was a client of a white bank, but he was a client of GUVRA.
But in any case, it was initially necessary to indicate a legal entity in Moldova as the recipient when creating a payment order?
It can be in Moldova, it can be abroad. Possible in Russia. There is a non-resident ruble - not repulsed, there is a resident ruble - not repulsed. There are different dollar, there are different euro.
To questions from the court (woman):
Can you explain to the uninitiated what is repulsed and not repulsed? Recaptured – which one is already legal?
Kicked means it has already passed exchange control and is ready for shipment.
Is it clean?
It's not clean. ABOUT If you have passed currency control, the bank, having carried out currency control, allows you to buy currency and send you this ruble to your destination in the form of any other currency.
And not repulsed?
And this is a ruble that did not pass exchange control, that is, the money arrived in the current account.
Was there no further movement?
Because an export/import contract or grounds for payment abroad have not been provided. You have to have a reason. But in our country, payments abroad are allowed up to 50 thousand dollars without any reason (study, treatment). And in this case, the bank must carry out control.
That is, money has been deposited into the account of a legal entity that is opened in a bank, without rubles being recaptured, they will be recaptured when there is a legal basis for this amount, which gives the legality of all transactions, and they have already passed control, checking contracts, become recaptured and they can already be listed wherever you please?
Yes.
To the questions of lawyer T.A. Slepukhina:
But we only need currency control for foreign economic transactions, right?
Yes.
Those. If we have a transfer from resident to resident, is exchange control necessary?
When transferring within the country, no.
There are no concepts of a broken and unbroken ruble here?
It's just a ruble.
From your answers, I didn’t quite understand, to which bank and in which country were the writs of execution provided? Were the writs of execution issued by Moldova or Russia?
No, well, ultimately, the Moldovan writ of execution cannot be paid in our country without validation by a Russian court. If you bring me a foreign writ of execution to the bank, I will not pay for it and will not execute it.
Which bank received the writ of execution from which country?
In my understanding, a Russian writ of execution is submitted to a Russian bank in order for the decision of a foreign court to be applied on the territory of the Russian Federation.
According to the described Moldovan scheme, an executive order issued by a court of general jurisdiction or an arbitration court of the Russian Federation was brought to our Russian bank?
Yes.
Judge (female):
Comrade lawyer, after all, these were decisions of the Moldovan courts, but which were accordingly recognized for execution, yes.
Antonov: there is a reverse side to this scheme, when Russian money, not recovered, located in a correspondent account in a Moldovan bank is written off by decision of a Moldovan court in a Moldovan bank and, accordingly, you bring to the Moldovan bank a writ of execution or a decision of a Moldovan court in Chisinau, you money in the RZB correspondent account, belonging to the company that is opened in the RZB and you simply write it off by court decision. That is, it can be this way, or it can be that way.
To questions from the court (woman):
Could it be both?
Yes.
How was it?
Well, faster if there was money in Moldova. Just look, if you keep a balance in a correspondent account in Moldova, then why don’t your risk assessment departments scream like victims that you have such balances in a territory in which all banks, to put it mildly, raise questions. This is not logical. Why don’t you keep your money in Raiffeisen, but in Moldova? And when you take the balance sheet and look at the turnover on correspondent accounts in normal banks in your Russian bank and in Moldova. No, well, you can, of course, say that the tariffs are lower there.
To the questions of lawyer T.A. Slepukhina:
If you have not participated in the “Moldovan scheme” since 2006, then how can you explain such close communication with Plato and other names that you voiced? And during what period of time this communication took place.
We have known Plato since the mid-2000s. I say again, he was our correspondent in the Baltic states and in Panama, and in England, Ukraine. We communicated constantly, we had friendly relations. His banks were not only black businesses, it was a big bank, they worked a lot through us. Moreover, they did not have correspondent accounts like ours, and in the Baltic states after 2005 it was very difficult with American accounts. We had 5 correspondent accounts in America. They paid simply cheap, regular payments.
During what period of time did you communicate in great detail according to the “Moldovan scheme”?
We communicated with Slava until my return here and after my return here. I have known him for more than 10 years and we keep in touch constantly. We definitely communicated until 2015.
No questions.
To the questions of lawyer R.S. Zakalyuzhny:
You said you were back? Do you mean the Russian Federation?
Yes.
How long were you away?
From 2009 from March to February 2015.
Have you not been to the Russian Federation?
No.
That is, you weren’t there in ’12, ’13, ’14?
No.
Please tell me, you mentioned that you saw Pakhomov, in what year?
In 2015, I think, in St. Petersburg. I don't remember exactly. Either St. Petersburg or Moscow.
Was this the first time you saw him?
When I arrived, unfortunately, I had a desire to return to the world in which I initially developed as an entrepreneur, and I have already said that this desire was wrong, I began to interact with the entire banking and banking community. Therefore, under what circumstances and where exactly I don’t remember, however, when Slava and I discussed in 2012, later in 2013, our potential ideal opportunity to participate in these types of transactions, since no one really thought that this was bad, he repeatedly explained to me who is responsible for what on the territory of the Russian Federation.
Why did he explain this?
So that I understand, if suddenly we want to do something, with whom to interact, and who these people are. You take other people's money and send it somewhere, that is, you should know.
So you didn’t have a bank in the Russian Federation?
In order to engage in this type of business, a bank is not required.
And what did Plato tell you about Pakhomov? As I understand it, at the time when he spoke, you did not know Pakhomov?
No. I’m not saying that I knew him, and I never said that I knew him and communicated with him. I’m only talking about what I found out through conversations with Vyacheslav that the power block is designed this way and that, and the operating block is designed this way and that.
In addition to the “Moldavian scheme,” did Platon have a legal business in the Russian Federation?
As far as I know, he had a good set of real estate in the Russian Federation, and his business was mainly concentrated in Moldova and Ukraine. In Ukraine he had quite a lot of non-banking assets.
And in the Russian Federation?
In the Russian Federation, I only know about real estate and financial transactions.
Was this property residential or non-residential?
As a rule, when people tell me that they have a Federation Tower business center, I don’t ask questions myself, it’s somehow not very polite, and it wasn’t very interesting to me.
That is, you have never seen Pakhomov in any of the banks?
Personally, I don’t.
And you also don’t know which directors of which companies he communicated with?
Personally, I don’t.
No questions.
To the questions of lawyer Golyshev:
According to your testimony, you met Sobolev in 2015, can you remember the month?
I can say for sure that it was the summer of 2015, because in August 2015 we started working on Sovetsky, and questions about its financial condition arose quite quickly, after which Stanislav Metrushin said that this part of the issues was beyond his competence.
How many times have you personally met Sobolev?
Repeatedly. I can’t answer for sure, definitely more than 3, maybe 4-5.
Were all your meetings with Sobolev in one way or another connected with the Sovetsky Bank and your interests?
One meeting was not related to Sovetsky Bank, when Sobolev invited us to talk with Energomash Bank in St. Petersburg. The remaining meetings were related only to the Soviet. Because there was no topic, Soviet was already in rehabilitation and there was nothing to talk about.
In your understanding, when did the “Moldovan scheme” stop working?
I think that when the banking system exploded in Moldova, 2015, probably. While Baltika Bank was operating, you need to understand when its license was revoked, this was clearly after 2015, probably 2016, the scheme worked.
Do you know any facts about Sobolev’s participation in the “Moldavian scheme” in the period 2013-2014?
Apart from the information I just told you, I don’t know anything else.
The lawyer repeated the question again. The question has been removed.
In your understanding, did Sobolev participate in the “Moldavian scheme” in the period from 2013 to 2014 inclusive?
Since the scheme worked longer, in my understanding, I participated.
Where did this information come from, who told it to you?
I have already answered the question of how I know Sobolev and the information about what participation Sobolev took in this scheme, I also know from the same Grigoriev, when I met him in 2012-2103 in London.
From whom specifically, besides Grigoriev, do you have information about Sobolev’s participation in the “Moldavian scheme”?
From Grigoriev and Mitrushin. From Plato.
When did you receive this information?
The first time I received this information was from Grigoriev in early-mid 2013, from Mitrushin I received information in the summer of 2015, from Plato I received information after I discovered Moldovan passports and a lot of interesting transactions with Sovetsky shares inside Sovetsky’s balance sheet, and I called myself Glory in 2015 in early September.
Personally, have you encountered any facts that indicate Sobolev’s involvement in the Moldavian scheme?
No.
Do you confirm the existence of a conflict between you and Sobolev related to Sovetsky Bank?
No.
No questions.
To the questions of lawyer Gravin:
Please tell me, have you met Korkin in person?
No business.
Have you seen Korkina in person before today?
Yes.
When and under what circumstances?
I saw, probably, in the year 2010 at events, when we still maintained a relationship with Gorbuntsov, we were still communicating. It was one of the events in some party places or restaurants in Moscow.
You say that since 2009...
I came. We worked here, our parents are here.
Under what circumstances?
Household.
Under what circumstances did you meet Korkin in 2010?
We communicated quite closely with Gorbuntsov, Mendeleev, and attended joint events, since there was only one party, nothing bad. Korkin came into our field of view, the field of view of the security service, because the security service made a rather negative opinion regarding the life ity of this person. We didn't communicate further. Moreover, Chuvilin told me about Korkin that I would need to talk with Korkin and settle my issues with Mr. Voronin. This is the head of the department for the SEB of the FSB of Russia. These are exactly the people who oversee the banking and financial sector of the Russian Federation and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
At parties, when you talked with Korkin, he told you...
Did I say that I communicated with him, I said that I saw him.
Seen each other, but didn’t communicate on business?
No.
Why did Korkin come to the attention of your security service?
The security service was required to keep track of everyone around me. Since there were different situations in life, any counterparty was checked completely and from all sides.”
To be continued
Timofey Grishin
Source: www.rucriminal.info
