As the investigation by the telegram channel VChK-OGPU and Rucriminal.info showed, the entire structure of one of the leading thermal power companies of the North-West ended up under the control of "managers" from the FSB RF. These relationships have been built up over the years - their development can be traced back to the beginning of the 2010s. Currently, some of the key figures implementing unofficial interaction between the fuel and energy complex and commercial structures are the former deputy general director for general issues Anton Pustovalov and his close friend Gennady Ershov.
The latter is a major general of the FSB of Russia. Now he holds the post of deputy general director for security and regime of the GUP TEK, and until 2015 he was deputy head of the UFSB of Russia for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region (headed the SEB). According to a source of the VChK-OGPU, the commercial acquaintance between Ershov and Pustovalov occurred through the former head of the UBEP and PC of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for St. Petersburg, Aleksey Bausov, who now heads the economic security department at GUP TEK. According to the source, during and after his service, Bausov was repeatedly caught in corruption schemes and extortion from businesses. In turn, Bausov was introduced to Pustovalov by a former employee of the 4th service of the UFSB of Russia for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, Igor Aleinikov (who was Ershov's subordinate), who later worked as an advisor to the general director at GUP TEK. Now he is a co-founder of the company Tekhnograd Nord (TIN 783945094), which is actively involved in schemes to withdraw money from Gazprom. Aleinikov is Pustovalov's best friend. With the arrival of the "clerks", the actual control over the State Unitary Enterprise TEK is carried out by former employees of the 4th service, while the official supervision of the enterprise's activities still remains with the Directorate "P" of the FSB of the Russian Federation, which calmly watches what is happening and does not take any action. "A crow will not peck out another crow's eye."
The reasons for Pustovalov's departure from the State Unitary Enterprise TEK are unknown, but he retains influence due to the established commercial ties with Ershov and contractors. According to the interlocutor of Rucriminal.info, in fact, he forms a list of contractors and negotiates with them.
The following rates are currently in effect: 12% of each payment - to the management of the TEK. This amount is divided between the deputy head of the TEK of St. Petersburg Komasov and the deputy head Ershov.
The heads of the branches of the State Unitary Enterprise TEK are entitled to 5% of each payment. Thus, the real (live) contractor must give 17%. If this is a fictitious contract and the money is simply withdrawn, then everything ends up in the pockets of the participants in the scheme. Pustovalov receives a separate letter of thanks from the contractor privately.
The scheme with controlled companies works as follows:
Some of the main contractors of the State Unitary Enterprise "TEK" are:
- OOO "Olean Stroy" (TIN 7805639120),
- OOO "MORDAN" (TIN 7802900633),
- OOO "Skema Engineering" (TIN 7810691197).
At the same time, each of the companies acts as a subcontractor for the other under contracts with the State Unitary Enterprise "TEK", intertwining and creating conditions for double payment for the same work when engaging a real (third-party) subcontractor. All of these companies are fictitious structures and serve one purpose - the withdrawal of budget funds. Thus, OOO Skema Engineering has all the signs of a shell company: it did not have its own resources to fulfill contracts, the staff in the period from 2021 to 2025 consisted of 2-3 people, and financial indicators were inflated when concluding contracts with the St. Petersburg fuel and energy complex.
Work at the sites is organized according to the principle of a "construction pyramid" with the involvement of subcontractors. Most often, the subcontractors were previously designated companies that did not fulfill their contractual obligations. Sometimes these were real contractors who were subsequently "cheated" out of money.
For example, the subcontractor OOO Olean Stroy, attracted to perform work at the sites on behalf of OOO Skema Engineering, was not provided with contract agreements, estimates, technical specifications and other necessary documentation were not agreed upon. At the same time, settlements from budget funds were organized in a complicated manner, with the indication of numbers of unconcluded contracts, the issuance of loans, etc.
Timofey Grishin
To be continued
Source: www.rucriminal.info
