The former prefect of the Northern District of Moscow Yury Khardikov has been arrested in Italy for 15 days. The Italian court intends to find out why Khardikov hasn’t been excluded from the international investigation, if, according to his lawyers, in Russia he was acquitted of all the charges in fraudulent deception of the former head of Inteko Yelena Baturina.

Let's remind that, according to the wife of ex-mayor Yury Luzhkov, the former owner of Inteko Company Yelena Baturina, a criminal case under the article “Fraud” (Part 4 of Art. 159 of the Criminal Code) was initiated in respect of Khardikov and his mother Zinaida Sadovnikova in May 2009.

In 2005, Khardikov headed Kubanenergo JSC. According to the investigation, he got acquainted with Elena Baturina at one of business meetings in Sochi. At the time the owner of Inteko interested by a plot of 7.5 hectares on a gentle slope located near the Actor hotel in Sochi. Baturina intended to build there a residential complex cost about $ 250 million.

In April 2007, the wife of the former mayor of the capital acquired 90% of the share capital of Olympus-2014 Company; that share had previously owned by Zinaida Sadovnikova. The cost of the transaction amounted to 824.4 million rubles. According to Baturina, the deception was that Khardikov, acting as a representative of the Olympus-2014, had convinced her that there were five objects of incompleted construction in Sochi, as well as land and coastal areas in the Krasnodar region on the balance sheet of the company. But after completion of the transaction, as Baturina argued, it was revealed that the acquired company had no rights to either the construction sites or to the land. And Khardikov and Sadovnikova had deliberately misled her.

In December 2012, the Russian investigative authorities canceled the decision on bringing Khardikov to trial on charges of fraud as an accused defendant; his arrest in absentia was removed, although the case is still under investigation.

His lawyer Lyudmila Sidorova said that Khardikov had detained because of a “technical slip” and he would be released at any moment. Russian law enforcement agencies have failed to recall the reason why the former prefect still appears on Interpol wanted lists.

According to the Lithuanian lawyer of Khardikov, the case against his client was delayed through the fault of the employee of the Vilnius District Prosecutor's Office, who allegedly stated that the 1500 pages of the case about 1 billion rubles stolen from Ms. Baturina and appropriated by Khardikov, which the office had received from Russia, had to be translated into Lithuanian. But only 140 pages have been translated yet.


In July 1999 Baturina was appeared in a scandal center on the illegal export of capital abroad. According to FSB officers of Vladimir region, her firms «Inteko» and «Bistroplast» led by Viktor Baturin cooperated with structures engaged in money laundering. Those structures transferred abroad $ 230 million. FSB officers of Vladimir region drew their attention to the activities of “Aleksbank» registered in Alexandrov. It served the firms "Vigor" and "STELS-INFO", which turnover on the accounts grew unexpectedly quickly. It turned out that the funds had been transferred from the "Aleksbank" for conversation to Moscow banks, and then abroad.

In "Aleksbank" funds came from Moscow bank "Sunrise", to which they came from more than a thousand different companies including “Inteko" and "Bistroplast», which transferred the funds from their accounts to the Russian land bank. 
Source: "Kommersant" ? 126 (1770) on 20/07/1999

In the Russian Land Bank FSB officers seized numerous documents of «Inteko». However, later the official position changed: ostensibly, Baturina had nothing to do with the millions trafficked, and the documents returned to Inteko. 
"Kommersant" ? 218 (1862) on 25/11/1999)

In the late 90's the company Inteko also became general contractor in the construction of Chess City (City-Chess) in the republic of Kalmykia under agreement of Baturina and the President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. Some budgetary funds might have been used in a building, which actually meant a misappropriation of funds.

Years later Baturina argued that Ilyumzhinov had not paid her money for the construction. While Ilyumzhinov argued that she had received the money in full. 
Source: "News of the Week" on 23/05/2004

In 2003, Inteko acquired in the Belgorod area cement and plastics factories, a milk canning plant, several hog-raising and cattle-breeding farms. In May 2004, the Governor of the Belgorod region Yevgeny Savchenko accused Inteko of "using" gray schemes" in property acquisition and buying land at low prices for resale. There were several lawsuits initiated to recover the purchased by Inteko land to its previous property owners. In March 2005, Inteko-Agro - a subsidiary of Inteko - refused to transfer its land to the authorities which needed it for railway construction to the Yakovlevsky deposit iron ore.

In April, Inteko-Agro scaled back its activities in the region. In response, the deputies of the Regional Duma formed a commission to investigate activities of Inteko. Among the claims of the authorities were the following points: an illegal purchase of land, arrears of budgets, and closure of enterprises.

In the summer of 2005 the conflict turned from economic sphere to a political one: Inteko supported in the elections to the provincial authorities the current Duma opposition Liberal Democratic Party. However, the Regional Election Committee refused to register the party list because of the delay in the documents filing.

The conflict had criminal consequences also: in the same year executive director of «Inteko-Agro» Alexander Annenkov was attacked in Belgorod. «Inteko» associated it with disagreements between the company and Belgorod authorities. Viktor Baturin called the attack on Annenkov an attack on the entire company «Inteko». 
Source: Kommersant (Voronezh) ? 191 dated 11.10.2005

The next day in Moscow a lawyer of “Inteko» Dmitry Steinberg was killed.

However, investigators did not rule out the possibility of an accident. 
Source: Kommersant (Voronezh) ? 193 (3227) on 13/10/2005

After a partial roof collapse of the Moscow water park "Transvaal-park" on February 15, 2004 which killed 28 people, it became known that the water park business had been indirectly funded by Baturina and her brother Victor. "Terra Oil» company controlled the business, while Baturina financed the deal on its purchase from the company "European technology and service». It became known from the documents found by the newspaper «Kommersant». Although legally «Inteko» was not one of the company promoters which had been managing the water park. 
Source: "Kommersant" ? 40 (2879) on 05/03/2004

At the end of December 2007 conflict flared between Baturina and her brother Victor. Being co-owner of the «Inteko” shares he filed a lawsuit against the company as soon as he learnt from the media that he had been dismissed. The businessman accounted on obtaining compensation in case his dismissal was legal. 
Source: "Your Day" on 17/01/2007

Originally Baturina and her brother each owned 50% stake of “Inteko». Victor had 51%, but then he sold 1% , and 25% left to his wife after divorce. In 2002, his share fell to 1%. After her brother dismissal Baturina became the sole owner of “Inteko». 
Source: "The Case of the Week" on 06/12/2007

In February 2007, the Tver Court of Moscow dismissed the claim of Baturin for his reinstatement in the company «Inteko» and denied him any compensation. In response to that Baturina filed four complaints against her brother and his companies. The first one challenged the right of Viktor Baturin to own the company «Ivan Kalita». Another three cases contained proprietary claims to «Inteko-Agro-Service" and "Inteko-Agro».

But soon after that brother and sister entered into a settlement agreement and refused of the mutual claims. In media interviews Viktor Baturin said that nevertheless he was going to receive compensation from his sister. It remained unknown who had been the initiator of the arrangement, but litigation was clearly disadvantageous to both parties. 
Source: "Kommersant" ? 25 (3601) from 16.02.2007

At the end of June 2009 the Main Investigation Department at the Moscow police opened a criminal case on tax evasion against the company of businessman Shalva Chigirinsky «Sibir Energy».

And in early July, London's High Court began to adjust a claim of Chigirinskiy for an oil businessman Ruslan Baisarov, with whom he contested for the actions of “Sibir energy». In July 2009, Shalva Chigirinsky unveiled documents showing that company «Inteko» along with Baturina were co-owners of that company. This could make Baturina defendant in the criminal case.

Documents showed that Chigirinsky and Baturina were co-owners of an offshore company «Rossini», whiche main asset was a controlling stake in «Sibir Energy». Later the nominal owner of the company became the oil businessman Ruslan Baisarov, but Baturina participated in the business in 2003-2006. Chigirinsky asserted that behind Baisarov was Baturina, who according to a secret agreement owned shares in exchange for a promise of victories by Chigirinskiy companies in the government contests. Baturina denied any connections with Chigirinsky, however she asserted Chigirinsky owned her 42 million dollars. 
Source: "Parity-media" on 29/07/2009

They believe that the partnership between Chigirinskiy and Baturina made Chigirinsky win the contests of the Moscow government; the most famous of them was for the reconstruction of hotel "Russia" (won by the firm of Chigirinskiy and Baturina, "ST Development"). In January 2007, the Arbitration Court declared the contest null and void. Despite this decision, Luzhkov still allowed to demolish the old hotel building. Construction implementation did not succeed. 
Source: from 09.2009

Generally, it is believed that the majority of "Inteko» activities flourished because of the patronage of Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov. This is evidenced by numerous facts, including a contract for the manufacture of utensils for Youth Olympic Games in Moscow, seats for the Luzhniki Stadium, saying nothing of the numerous construction projects, which compliance with the current legislation is often questionable.