Moscow: +7 495 234 4959 Saint Petersburg: +7 812 740 5823 London: +44 (0) 7384 418877

Aleksey Dobrynin: why row about "Troyka Dialog" is fiction. Snob, 7 March 2019

The news about the result of a journalist investigation (OCCRP) into "laundering" billions of dollars through "Troyka Dialog's" offshores from 2006 to 2013 appeared in all mass media this week. However, on closer examination, it becomes clear that this news is not a novelty. And here's why.

Undoubtedly, the results of the journalist investigation are curious and sensational. But that is all. Information issued by the OCCRP, from the Russian criminal-procedural legislative point of view, does not prove that any crimes have been committed. The OCCRP journalists themselves underline that their information is not enough to lodge official claims to the persons mentioned in the investigation. Therefore, such an investigation has an informational value only.

Such a "scheme" revealed by the journalists supposes the use of offshore companies registered in jurisdictions known to everyone, and used legally by business structures the world over. In terms of the criminal-procedural law, the existence of such companies is only an indirect sign of the possible  abuse. Indeed, the investigative bodies find reputation of such companies dubious due to non-obligatoriness of accounting statements, assets non-transparency, and anonymity of owners. But no more.

The bulk of the events attracting journalists' attention happened more than ten years ago. But standards in the anti-money laundering sphere have changed considerably since the first decade of the century. For example, the FATF – Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (a profile non-governmental organization which works out rules for legalization of criminal incomes) updates corresponding standards roughly once in ten years. In comparison with its requirements formulated in the 2003 rules, updated 2012 standards are more detailed in measures for establishing beneficial ownership for juridical persons. Besides, today's requirements for revelation, and application of sanctions against non-licensed operators of money transfer services, are more explicit. They also include additional requirements in order to increase transborder transfer transparency. In other words, the system of control undergoes permanent improvement. Today banks and business structures face requirements that were not yet topical ten-fifteen years ago. This circumstance cannot be ignored in the assessment of the events of the second half of the first decade of this century. Probably money transfers which are being discussed now did not attract attention not only of Russian companies, but authoritative European financial organizations lparticipating in their realization, ten years ago.

There is little probability that the OCCRP statement on the alleged money laundering will cause initiation of a criminal case under clause 140 CPC RF. In other words, publication of such a statement by mass media can be regarded as information about a committed crime. It entails direct duty of the investigative bodies and prosecutorial authorities to carry out a check-up, and, depending on the results, open a criminal case, or deny it. But, we shouldn't forget that "laundering", or, using a legal term, legalization of money received by criminal ways, means that investigative bodies should establish and prove committing another crime which enabled to get criminal money and then legalize it. And, most importantly, involvement of certain persons in these actions and their guilt should also be established. Until that is not done, there is no "laundering".

A small piece of advice for the OCCRP journalists: statements of that kind in mass media may be interpreted by the investigatory bodies as a charge of a person of a serious crime under p.2, c.306 CC RF. Those who initiate such statements risk facing criminal prosecution and experiencing all delights of the Russian legal proceedings.

Therefore, it's important to use proper terms and facts when investigating something in order to avoid, among other things, one's own criminal-legal risks.

Aleksey Dobrynin, advocate, partner, head of attorneys at law Pen and Paper criminal-legal practice