Earlier it became known that Rost Bank consolidated 87.5% of the shares of the Inteko company. Before this, the shares belonged to various structures of the Safmar group. Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation Vasily Pozdyshev said that the list of assets transferred by B&N Bank shareholders to its balance sheet as part of the reorganization included shares of Inteko, Russneft and A101 Development. In the future, the corresponding assets can be sold to cover obligations to creditors and the Central Bank. On September 21, the Bank of Russia decided to rehabilitate B&N Bank and Rost Bank through the Banking Sector Consolidation Fund.

“The management of Inteko Group of Companies is in constant contact with the temporary management administration credit institution“Rost Bank JSC,” noted a company representative, commenting on the information about the consolidation of 87.5% of the company’s shares. The agency's interlocutor also emphasized that Inteko continues to operate as usual and fulfills its obligations to clients and counterparties. At the same time, according to him, a new board of directors of the company is already being formed, which “will be engaged in updating the strategic goals and objectives of the group.”

Oleg Soloshchansky has been working in Inteko structures since 2001, from 2006 to 2011 he was vice president of the company - deputy of Elena Baturina, the sole owner of Inteko. In 2011, Inteko was acquired by Mikail Shishkhanov for $1.2 billion (according to expert estimates). During the period of Shishkanov’s ownership of the company, Oleg Soloshchansky is the President of Inteko, becomes the owner of up to 10% of the group’s shares, begins to be often mentioned in the media in connection with making strategic decisions on the activities of the Group of Companies, and is included in government development organizations housing construction. The personal condition of Oleg Soloshchansky and the amount of his earnings have never been announced.

“Soloshchansky knows the true state of the business, which he, as President, has been managing for 6 years, and its real price. All these years, Mikail Shishkhanov completely trusted his top manager and relied on his professionalism. But the question of where Oleg Moiseevich could get the funds for such a large purchase is still not very correct. In the end, it could also be borrowed money,” says a source from the capital’s construction complex.

After the sale of Inteko by Elena Baturina financial indicators According to official reports, companies have become worse. For comparison: Inteko’s revenue in 2009 amounted to 54 billion rubles, and in 2016 – already 8 billion rubles. Participants in the real estate market told RBC that the owners of Inteko have been trying to sell the company for about a year, but the price was unreasonably high for the current market conditions - $1 billion. Experts assess the Gutseriev clan’s entry into the real estate industry as “unsuccessful.”

Top manager of the famous Russian construction holding "Inteko" Oleg Soloshchansky is trying, through the Khoroshevsky District Court of Moscow, to recover more than 18 million rubles from the owner of the Denis watch salon chain. This is part of the money that the trading company owes to Igor Dunkin, one of its former co-owners and friend Soloshchansky. Dunkin himself is wanted by the police on fraud charges.

In court, Izvestia was confirmed that they had received a statement from Inteko President Oleg Soloshchansky for processing. The top manager demands to recover over 18 million from Evgeniy Limberger, the owner of the once large, and now debt-ridden network of Swiss watches “Denis”.

The owners of Denis explained to Izvestia that Soloshchansky speaks on behalf of his businessman friend Igor Dunkin, who is currently wanted by the metropolitan police on fraud charges and lives in New York.

“Dunkin was once a co-founder of Denis and my husband’s partner,” Yevgeny Limberger’s wife Elena told Izvestia. - The company has been operating successfully since 1992, and had 14 points of sale of watches, including five salons, and had an annual turnover of $14 million.

Evgeniy Limberger bought out Dunkin’s share in the company, but was unable to pay him off immediately and paid the money in shares, from dividends. However, the company soon began to have problems, which were aggravated by the crisis that began in 2008. The company had to take out large loans against high interest rates, and the owner Evgeny Limberger - to invest own funds. “Denis” never managed to get out of the debt hole.

“My husband agreed with Dunkin that they would sell the company and divide the proceeds,” Elena Limberger explained to Izvestia. “However, due to the crisis, it was not possible to sell it, and Dunkin began to demand his money back.

At the same time, problems began for Dunkin himself. He was a co-founder of the Xelor trading company, but it soon closed. After that, he lost all his real estate in Moscow (four apartments). Now Dunkin is a defendant in a criminal case brought against him under the article “fraud.” According to the court decision, Dunkin was left free under his own recognizance, but he fled abroad and is now wanted.

Even while on the run, Dunkin continues to demand money from his former partner: he assigned 18 million rubles of debt to Soloshchansky, and he himself asks the management of Denis for about another 118 million rubles.

“At first he demanded money by phone, and then he involved his old friend, Oleg Soloshchansky,” Elena Limberger told Izvestia.

According to Limberger's wife, at first Soloshchansky demanded money verbally, citing an agreement with Dunkin, after which he filed a lawsuit.

“Even if all the property we have is assessed, it will be a modest amount,” assures Elena Limberger.

Oleg Soloshchansky himself refused to comment to Izvestia on the situation surrounding Dunkin’s debt.

The Inteko company belonged to the wife of former Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov, Elena Baturina. She founded the holding in 1989. At the end of 2011, she sold the company to businessman Mikail Shishkhanov and Sberbank structures, which now own 95% and 5% of the shares, respectively. Before the change of owner, Oleg Soloshchansky oversaw the holding’s construction business.

Soloshchansky’s name was heard in connection with the conflict between Elena Baturina and her brother Viktor Baturin. At the beginning of 2012, Baturin asked the court to declare the deal to sell 100% of Inteko shares to the owner of Binbank illegal Mikail Shishkhanov and Sberbank Investments LLC. He also asked to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction by restoring in the register of shareholders the entry indicating his 25% stake. However, the court refused to satisfy his demands.

Viktor Baturin, through his lawyer Igor Shabanov, accused Oleg Soloshchansky of slandering him in the situation with the attempt Baturin repay fake Inteko promissory notes. It's about about criminal prosecution brother of Elena Baturina after he tried to cash out bills allegedly issued to him by Inteko, totaling over 171 million rubles.

Ekaterina Fadeeva
Mark Pantyuk
Dmitry Evstifeev

Shadow Builder

The king is played by his retinue. It seems that the “gray cardinals” among managers are acting as guides for the uncrowned rulers of domestic business. Probably a famous entrepreneur Elena Baturina I was very surprised to find my name on the list of raiders most often mentioned by the press. The wife of the Moscow mayor is easy to understand. Shifting the burden of corporate leadership "INTECO" on the shoulders of her subordinates, she could not imagine that soon her enterprise would turn into a real “pirate republic”, the young manager of which would become the absolute ruler Oleg Soloshchansky .

The position of the current Moscow leadership can be called critical. Until recently, the Kremlin turned a blind eye to the frolicking officials of the capital's mayor's office, who manage the fattest piece Russian property. Then Moscow realities came into sharp conflict with the course of the head of state. At first, the campaign against the so-called raiders, announced by the president, faltered in the capital's market. Then the rise in prices for Moscow real estate torpedoed the presidential “affordable housing” program. And in every scandal that shook the Moscow construction market, the interests of the giant Inteko company, owned by Mayor Luzhkov’s wife Elena Baturina, were visible. The entrepreneur could only shrug guiltily. It got to the point that many experts doubted Baturina’s ability to effectively lead Inteko. They were partly right. In fact, the construction division of this company has long turned into a kind of master key for hacking the real estate market. Moreover, this master key is operated by a person who is quite distant from the family of the Moscow mayor.

Wild Market Developer

According to the list of the “Building Business” magazine, he is one of the ten best specialists in the capital. At one time, Oleg Soloshchansky, a graduate of the All-Union Correspondence Institute of Civil Engineering, was called one of the most successful managers in the capital’s construction market. True, at the same time, informed people could not help but smile knowingly. The talents of the young engineer with a diploma in heating engineering belonged to a rather specific area. Oleg Moiseevich was a born developer. Moreover, in our domestic understanding of this word.

Clarity of definition is key here. The fact is that in the West “developer” is an established term. In Russia, the scope of this profession is perceived somewhat vaguely, being considered synonymous with the concept of “developer”. In theory, developers coordinate and develop projects, attract investments and come up with financing schemes. In fact, domestic specialists in this field most often “follow up” construction projects started by others. And how they gain access to other people’s properties becomes a personal matter for each individual developer. In its worst manifestations, this area of ​​business has much in common with the notorious seizure of enterprises, otherwise known as raiding. And it’s painfully reminiscent of ordinary extortion.

Unlike the same “hostile takeover”, cases of criminal development usually do not reach the court. The role of administrative resources and the social weight of the opposing sides is too great here. That is why there are practically no “free shooters” of development left in the capital’s market. Each construction raider belongs to one or another influential group. And the most powerful metropolitan “party activist”, as is known, is directly related to the mayor’s immediate circle. Head of Strategic Direction, Vice President for Construction and Industry building materials Inteko CJSC Oleg Soloshchansky fell into this category five years ago, taking the chair of vice president for construction and building materials industry of Inteko CJSC. Around the same time, the company began to have a bad reputation as an invader, and its owner began to have problems with its image.

Cardinal Gray

The essence of the claims against the wife of the all-powerful mayor was perfectly consistent with the work skills of her subordinate Soloshchansky. To put it simply, in numerous publications Baturina was accused of greed, abuse of administrative resources and a desire for corporate raiding. One of the first to denounce her was Eduard Olevinsky. A year ago, on his website, an angry lawyer expressed everything he thought about the activities of the Moscow mayor’s inner circle. Most of the accusations against Luzhkova concerned his manner of influencing the Moscow construction market: according to Olevinsky, in Moscow everything related to the business sector is done on the call of his wife Elena Baturina. “If you are not protected by one of Luzhkov’s structures in the capital, urgently sell your business before it is taken away,” wrote the author of the site, and cited specific examples. As a rule, a division of the successful developer Soloshchansky was involved in one way or another in almost every “case.”

As one would expect, Olevinsky’s accusations gave rise to a wave of gossip about the source of the billion-dollar fortune of the modest wife of the capital’s mayor. According to Forbes magazine, the first lady of Moscow's fortune has long exceeded a billion dollars, and her company Inteko controls a fifth of the capital's construction market. It’s hard to imagine that a former employee of the Frezer plant could create such an empire. In the actions of the leading capital company one can feel a tough male grip. Moreover, judging by the nature of the actions, the true leader of Inteko has nothing to do with politics: every time, crushing another piece of Moscow property, the company seriously “framed” Mayor Luzhkov and his wife.

As we remember, Soloshchansky is considered a prominent specialist in the field of development. The usual scheme for making a profit here is simple: an entrepreneur invests money in the reconstruction or completion of a property, optimizes work and financial flows, and then puts the finished property up for sale. In the case of Mr. Soloshchansky’s business, everything looked a little different. As the authors of the sensational study “Moscow Baturinskaya” once wrote, “... the real estate market in the capital is one of the most closed, the distribution of sites attractive for development even today often takes place “under the carpet”, despite the openness of the process declared by the Moscow authorities. It is not easy for an investor who does not have administrative levers to get into the market and it is difficult to work in it.” And even if a “foreign” developer received a plot of land, he was almost guaranteed to lose it at the final phase of construction. In fact, for a “relatively fair seizure” of property there is no need to resort to the intervention of the mayor. In most cases, threats alone are enough. To pacify the particularly dull, you can involve officials from the mayor's office.

The final stage of such “development” is very similar to the plot of a film about the Sicilian mafia. Of course, the process of removing the object takes place without shooting. The developer is “broken” during negotiations by making the classic “offer you can’t refuse.” In our case, it is formulated extremely simply: in exchange for the construction project, the owner is offered compensation for all costs and a small percentage of the invested amount “for trouble.” They promise to introduce intractable clients to Deputy Mayor Vladimir Resin, the most experienced builder in Moscow. Particularly stubborn developers then face problems in negotiations with Moscow government officials. And they instantly lose the trust of licensing authorities. As a rule, there are no misfires in such a scheme. The only victim, whose loss far exceeds the cost of the selected construction projects, remains Elena Baturina. And also thousands of Moscow people on the waiting list, literally crushed by rising real estate prices.

Construction site of dubious business

It is characteristic that in the case of Elena Baturina’s direct participation in “development” transactions, their circumstances would hardly have become public. And Luzhkov himself, an extremely experienced and cautious politician, would never have allowed his wife to use such a method of enrichment. The version that is in circulation in the capital’s construction circles looks much more logical. Almost all market participants are confident that Soloshchansky acts at his own peril and risk. Mayors, as we know, come and go. But the market, captured by their name, remains.

A successful businessman, Soloshchansky cannot be called a poor man. Suffice it to say that his official income at Inteko in 2004 alone amounted to more than 39 million rubles. In addition to his main job, Oleg Moiseevich manages three companies operating in the Moscow construction market, and is also listed as the founder of five more enterprises of the same profile. But the true rich operate with amounts of a different scale. Control of the Moscow construction market could bring billions. And you can arrange an extraordinary redistribution of property through the hands of your patrons, crushing your competitors with their “political weight.”

Probably ten years ago such a scheme would have worked. In the case of Oleg Soloshchansky, “working from behind” may be part of a detailed, well-thought-out “set-up” plan. It will be our own political future that will have to pay for the current commercial damage. And the main guarantor of peace, the notorious “administrative resource,” may not work in this case. The stormy and extremely dubious activities of the subordinates of the wife of the capital's mayor clearly go beyond the scope of a family scandal. Brazen raiding directly threatens the country’s strategic plans, but also tactical ones, again driving it into the whirlpool of “wild capitalism.” It is not for nothing that in one of his speeches, Russian President Vladimir Putin called the fight against hostile takeovers of enterprises one of the most important tasks of law enforcement agencies. This means that the central government has an excellent opportunity to intervene in the specific “development” of Oleg Soloshchansky. And it’s better if the current owner of the “best developer” gets ahead of her in this. Having tamed a professional invader of other people's enterprises, you should think about the safety of your own.

NINTH ARBITRATION COURT OF APPEALS

127994, Moscow, GSP -4, Solomennoy Storozhki passage, 12

website address: http://9aas.arbitr.ru

P O S T A N O V L E N I E

No. 09AP-16335/2016-GK

No. 09AP-19030/2016-GK

Moscow Case No. A40-166186/14

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal composed of:

Presiding judge V.I. Tetyuka

Judges: B.V. Steshana, E.V. Bodrova

while keeping the minutes of the court session T.M. Sidorova

Having considered in open court the appeals of Oleg Moiseevich Soloshchansky, AMORIS LLC

accepted by judge Yu.L. Matyushenkova (judge code 117-1218) in case No. A40-166186/14

according to the claim of AMORIS LLC

to Oleg Moiseevich Soloshchansky

third party: SK Strategy LLC

about the recovery of 1,438,206 rubles.

when participating in a court hearing:

from the plaintiff: Podgorny A.A. – Dov. dated January 20, 2016, Kudryavtseva A.V. – Dov. from 01/20/2016

from the defendant: Safonov A.I. – Dov. dated 07.11.2014, Savelyev S.L. – Dov. dated 07.11.2014, Galin K.A. – Dov. from 07.11.2014

from a third party: Konovalov S.S. – Dov. dated November 23, 2015, Bazhenov A.Yu. – Dov. from 11/23/2015

INSTALLED:

AMORIS LLC appealed to the arbitration court with statement of claim to Oleg Moiseevich Soloshchansky for the recovery of 1,438,206,299 rubles. 00 kop. losses. According to the plaintiff, the defendant improperly performed the duties of the head of the Company, as a result of which the Company suffered losses in the form of the difference between the actual costs incurred in connection with the construction of the Facility and the estimated cost of construction (its market value).

By court decision dated 02/04/2016. The claim was denied.

Oleg Moiseevich Soloshchansky, disagreeing with the reasoning part of the court's decision, filed an appeal.

In his complaint, the applicant points out that the plaintiff missed the deadline limitation period, the court did not evaluate this argument of the defendant.

Based on the arguments presented in the complaint, the applicant asks to change the court's decision in part, supplementing the reasoning part of the decision with an assessment of the argument that the plaintiff missed the statute of limitations.

AMORIS LLC, disagreeing with the court’s decision, also filed an appeal, in which it considers it illegal and unfounded.

In his complaint, the applicant points out that the inclusion of the plaintiff and the general contractor in the same group of persons does not indicate the absence of losses.

The applicant also points out the illegality of the court’s conclusion that the construction of the Facility was carried out under the control of the sole participant of the plaintiff and the president of Inteko CJSC E.N. Baturina.

In addition, the complainant points out that the control of the sole participant of the Company over the conclusion and execution of contracts is not a basis for releasing the defendant from liability for losses caused to the plaintiff.

In addition, the applicant points out that O.M. Soloshchansky caused losses to the Company through his actions.

The applicant also points out that when answering questions from the forensic examination, the experts determined the estimated (contractual) cost of construction of the Facility instead of the market value, in addition, the experts made significant errors during the examination.

Based on the arguments presented in the complaint, the applicant asks to cancel the court decision in part, and to adopt a new judicial act in the case to satisfy the claim of AMORIS LLC.

At the hearing of the appellate court, the applicants fully support the arguments of their complaints.

A third party supports the defendant's position.

The case was considered by the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal in accordance with Art. Art. , .

No grounds have been established for canceling or changing the court decision.

As follows from the case materials, Oleg Moiseevich Soloshchansky in the period from 06/06/2005 to 12/24/2012 was the general director of the Limited Liability Company "AMORIS".

Agreements were concluded between the Company and SK DSK-3 LLC (later SK Strategy LLC (General Contractor) construction contract No. G-001/04 dated July 29, 2004 and No. G-074/09 dated February 2, 2009 (hereinafter these agreements, together with additional annexes to them, are referred to by the plaintiff as Contract Agreements) for construction work residential complex"Gorki-2" in the village. Gorki Odintsovo district, Moscow region (Object).

After the termination of the powers of O.M. Soloshchansky as general director The Company, by order of the Company, an independent appraiser - LLC "AKTS Department of Professional Appraisal" - organized an internal audit of the cost of construction of the Facility, as a result of which an artificially inflated cost of work, basic construction materials and inappropriate expenses were identified. According to Report No. 01/006/1601/2 dated May 14, 2013, compiled by AKC Department of Professional Assessment LLC during an internal audit, the cost of construction of the Facility was overestimated by more than 1.4 billion rubles. (Construction Cost Report).

According to the plaintiff, the actions of O.M. Soloshchansky to enter into Contracts are not in good faith, since he knew or should have known that he was entering into a transaction on conditions that were obviously unfavorable for the Company, and did not take actions aimed at obtaining the information necessary and sufficient for its acceptance. The plaintiff believes that the actions of O.M. Soloshchansky, aimed at causing losses to the Company in the form of actual damage, were committed intentionally, and the Contracts were concluded at deliberately inflated prices.

The amount of damages is calculated by the plaintiff as the difference between the actual costs incurred in connection with the construction of the Facility and the estimated cost of construction (its market value). Total costs for construction of the Facility (without land plot) amounted to 4,719,520,144 rubles. 00 kop. The estimated cost of construction (without land) is RUB 3,281,313,845. 00 kop. The amount of damages, according to the plaintiff, is 4,719,520,144 rubles. - RUB 3,281,313,845 = 1,438,206,299 rub. 00 kop.

The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation in paragraph 10 of the Plenum Resolution No. 62 dated July 30, 2013 “On some issues of compensation for losses by persons included in the bodies of a legal entity” indicated, in cases where a claim for compensation for losses by the director was made by the legal entity itself, the limitation period is calculated not from the moment of violation, but from the moment when legal entity, for example, in the person of a new director, received a real opportunity to learn about a violation, or when a controlling participant learned or should have known about a violation, who had the opportunity to terminate the powers of the director, except for the case when he was affiliated with the specified director.

Taking into account the above circumstances, the appellate court believes that in this case, the limitation period for the claim of AMORIS LLC to recover damages should be calculated no earlier than from December 24, 2012 - the date of termination of the powers of O.M. Soloshchansky and the appointment of a new General Director of the Company.

At the same time, as the plaintiff indicated, the Company learned of the violation of its rights based on the results of an audit of the results of O.M.’s activities. Soloshchansky as General Director.

After the termination of powers of O.M. Soloshchansky (December 24, 2012), the new General Director of the Company conducted an audit of the effectiveness of the Company’s activities during the construction of the Facility, as a result of which the Report of LLC “ACC Department of Professional Assessment” No. 01/006/1601/2 dated May 14, 2013 was compiled.

Consequently, as the plaintiff indicated, it was on May 14, 2013 that he learned that by the dishonest and unreasonable actions of O.M. Soloshchansky, while exercising his powers as General Director, caused harm to the Company.

In addition, the appellate court takes into account the following.

When appointing O.M. Soloschansky General Director The participant was guided, in particular, by the fact that the defendant is highly qualified and is a recognized professional in the field of construction, with many years of experience in the construction market of Moscow and the Moscow region, awarded the title “Honorary Builder of Russia.”

Under such circumstances, the Participant could not have doubts about the reasonableness and integrity of O.M.’s actions. Soloshchansky when exercising the powers of the General Director during the organization of construction of the Facility.

In addition, in the materials of this case there are no documents indicating the financial control of the Participant over the construction process of the Facility. At the same time, the Participant joined the Board of Directors of the General Contractor on April 30, 2009. The last of the disputed construction contracts was concluded on 02/02/2009, that is, before the specified date.

In addition, the defendant did not adequately substantiate that the moment of completion construction work is associated with the fact that the Participant is aware of the overestimation of the cost of construction of the Facility.

Considering the above, and taking into account that AMORIS LLC filed a claim on October 13, 2014, the appellate court does not see any grounds for concluding that the plaintiff missed the statute of limitations.

Under these circumstances, the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the arguments of the complaint of Oleg Moiseevich Soloshchansky, AMORIS LLC cannot be the basis for canceling or changing a lawful and reasonable court decision.

Guided by Art. Art. , Arbitration Procedure Code Russian Federation, Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal

DECIDED:

The decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court dated February 4, 2016 in case No. A40-166186/14 is left unchanged, the appeals of Oleg Moiseevich Soloshchansky, AMORIS LLC are not satisfied.

The decision of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal comes into force from the date of its adoption and can be appealed within two months from the date of the decision in full. Arbitration Court Moscow district.
(more details)

The king is played by his retinue. It seems that the “gray eminences” among managers are acting as guides for the uncrowned rulers of domestic business. Probably, the famous entrepreneur Elena Baturina was very surprised to find her name on the list of raiders most often mentioned by the press. The wife of the Moscow mayor is easy to understand. Having shifted the burden of managing the INTECO corporation onto the shoulders of her subordinates, she could not imagine that her enterprise would soon turn into a real “pirate republic,” the young manager Oleg Soloshchansky becoming the absolute ruler of.

The position of the current Moscow leadership can be called critical. Until recently, the Kremlin turned a blind eye to the frolicking officials of the capital's mayor's office, who manage the fattest piece of Russian property. Then Moscow realities came into sharp conflict with the course of the head of state. At first, the campaign against the so-called raiders, announced by the president, faltered in the capital's market. Then the rise in prices for Moscow real estate torpedoed the presidential “affordable housing” program. And in every scandal that shook the Moscow construction market, the interests of the giant Inteko company, owned by Mayor Luzhkov’s wife Elena Baturina, were visible. The entrepreneur could only shrug guiltily. It got to the point that many experts doubted Baturina’s ability to effectively lead Inteko. They were partly right. In fact, the construction division of this company has long turned into a kind of master key for hacking the real estate market. Moreover, this master key is operated by a person who is quite distant from the family of the Moscow mayor.

Wild Market Developer

According to the list of the “Building Business” magazine, he is one of the ten best specialists in the capital. At one time, Oleg Soloshchansky, a graduate of the All-Union Correspondence Institute of Civil Engineering, was called one of the most successful managers in the capital’s construction market. True, at the same time, informed people could not help but smile knowingly. The talents of the young engineer with a diploma in heating engineering belonged to a rather specific area. Oleg Moiseevich was a born developer. Moreover, in our domestic understanding of this word.

Clarity of definition is key here. The fact is that in the West “developer” is an established term. In Russia, the scope of this profession is perceived somewhat vaguely, being considered synonymous with the concept of “developer”. In theory, developers coordinate and develop projects, attract investments and come up with financing schemes. In fact, domestic specialists in this field most often “follow up” construction projects started by others. And how they gain access to other people’s properties becomes a personal matter for each individual developer. In its worst manifestations, this area of ​​business has much in common with the notorious seizure of enterprises, otherwise known as raiding. And it’s painfully reminiscent of ordinary extortion.

Unlike the same “hostile takeover”, cases of criminal development usually do not reach the court. The role of administrative resources and the social weight of the opposing sides is too great here. That is why there are practically no “free shooters” of development left in the capital’s market. Each construction raider belongs to one or another influential group. And the most powerful metropolitan “party activist”, as is known, is directly related to the mayor’s immediate circle. The head of the strategic direction, vice-president for construction and building materials industry of Inteko CJSC Oleg Soloshchansky fell into this category five years ago, taking the chair of vice-president for construction and building materials industry of Inteko CJSC. Around the same time, the company began to have a bad reputation as an invader, and its owner began to have problems with its image.

Cardinal Gray

The essence of the claims against the wife of the all-powerful mayor was perfectly consistent with the work skills of her subordinate Soloshchansky. To put it simply, in numerous publications Baturina was accused of greed, abuse of administrative resources and a desire for corporate raiding. One of the first to denounce her was Eduard Olevinsky. A year ago, on his website, an angry lawyer expressed everything he thought about the activities of the Moscow mayor’s inner circle. Most of the accusations against Luzhkov concerned his manner of influencing the Moscow construction market: according to Olevinsky, in Moscow everything related to the business sector is done on the call of his wife Elena Baturina. “If you are not protected by one of Luzhkov’s structures in the capital, urgently sell your business before it is taken away,” wrote the author of the site, and gave specific examples. As a rule, a division of the successful developer Soloshchansky was involved in one way or another in almost every “case.”

As one would expect, Olevinsky’s accusations gave rise to a wave of gossip about the source of the billion-dollar fortune of the modest wife of the capital’s mayor. According to Forbes magazine, the first lady of Moscow's fortune has long exceeded a billion dollars, and her company Inteko controls a fifth of the capital's construction market. It’s hard to imagine that a former employee of the Frezer plant could create such an empire. In the actions of the leading capital company one can feel a tough male grip. Moreover, judging by the nature of the actions, the true leader of Inteko has nothing to do with politics: every time, crushing another piece of Moscow property, the company seriously “framed” Mayor Luzhkov and his wife.

As we remember, Soloshchansky is considered a prominent specialist in the field of development. The usual scheme for making a profit here is simple: an entrepreneur invests money in the reconstruction or completion of a property, optimizes work and financial flows, and then puts the finished property up for sale. In the case of Mr. Soloshchansky’s business, everything looked a little different. As the authors of a sensational study once wrote: "Moscow Baturinskaya", “...the real estate market in the capital is one of the most closed; the distribution of sites attractive for development today often takes place “under the carpet”, despite the openness of the process declared by the Moscow authorities. It is not easy for an investor who does not have administrative levers to get into the market and it is difficult to work in it.” And even if a “foreign” developer received a plot of land, he was almost guaranteed to lose it at the final phase of construction. In fact, for a “relatively fair seizure” of property there is no need to resort to the intervention of the mayor. In most cases, threats alone are enough. To pacify the particularly dull, you can involve officials from the mayor's office.

The final stage of such “development” is very similar to the plot of a film about the Sicilian mafia. Of course, the process of removing the object takes place without shooting. The developer is “broken” during negotiations by making the classic “offer you can’t refuse.” In our case, it is formulated extremely simply: in exchange for the construction project, the owner is offered compensation for all costs and a small percentage of the invested amount “for trouble.” They promise to introduce intractable clients to Deputy Mayor Vladimir Resin, the most experienced builder in Moscow. Particularly stubborn developers then face problems in negotiations with Moscow government officials. And they instantly lose the trust of licensing authorities. As a rule, there are no misfires in such a scheme. The only victim, whose loss far exceeds the cost of the selected construction projects, remains Elena Baturina. And also thousands of Moscow people on the waiting list, literally crushed by rising real estate prices.

Construction site of dubious business

It is characteristic that in the case of Elena Baturina’s direct participation in “development” transactions, their circumstances would hardly have become public. And Luzhkov himself, an extremely experienced and cautious politician, would never have allowed his wife to use such a method of enrichment. The version that is in circulation in the capital’s construction circles looks much more logical. Almost all market participants are confident that Soloshchansky acts at his own peril and risk. Mayors, as we know, come and go. But the market, captured by their name, remains.

A successful businessman, Soloshchansky cannot be called a poor man. Suffice it to say that his official income at Inteko in 2004 alone amounted to more than 39 million rubles. In addition to his main job, Oleg Moiseevich manages three companies operating in the Moscow construction market, and is also listed as the founder of five more enterprises of the same profile. But the true rich operate with amounts of a different scale. Control of the Moscow construction market could bring billions. And you can arrange an extraordinary redistribution of property through the hands of your patrons, crushing your competitors with their “political weight.”

Probably ten years ago such a scheme would have worked. In the case of Oleg Soloshchansky, “working from behind” may be part of a detailed, well-thought-out “set-up” plan. It will be our own political future that will have to pay for the current commercial damage. And the main guarantor of peace, the notorious “administrative resource,” may not work in this case. The stormy and extremely dubious activities of the subordinates of the wife of the capital's mayor clearly go beyond the scope of a family scandal. Brazen raiding directly threatens the country’s strategic plans, but also tactical ones, again driving it into the whirlpool of “wild capitalism.” It is not for nothing that in one of his speeches, Russian President Vladimir Putin called the fight against hostile takeovers of enterprises one of the most important tasks of law enforcement agencies. This means that the central government has an excellent opportunity to intervene in the specific “development” of Oleg Soloshchansky. And it’s better if the current owner of the “best developer” gets ahead of her in this. Having tamed a professional invader of other people's enterprises, you should think about the safety of your own.