link to tweet

I’m surprised people try to downplay the importance of Ashurkov’s affidavit.

Vladimir Ashurkov was the only witness who testified about alleged activities of Probusinessbank’s shareholders that supposedly could have led to “political persecution.”

Judging by the documents available at this point, none of the other defense witnesses had direct knowledge of the Life group before the license was revoked or cited specific actions by Zheleznyak/Leontiev that could have triggered political persecution. These were various people pulled in to recount how bad things were in Russia, or to argue that violating rules and siphoning funds was “normal,” or who produced an “analysis” showing Leontiev lending to himself and paying himself back. But none of them seem to have had any relation to the Life group nor described its alleged “opposition activity” in the past.

Ashurkov’s testimony alone proved sufficient for the court to refuse to consider the case on the merits, explicitly invoking that it was supposedly “political.”

The “political persecution” framing wasn’t accidental—the crooks feared a merits review because, as we can see from FBK’s text and video, their defense is weak. For example, they don’t rebut the illegality of asset stripping from the bank and don’t prove a lawful source for the initial funds in Wonderworks, from which money was then routed to companies of Leontiev and his parents at a bank in Liechtenstein.

In other words, Ashurkov—testifying as FBK’s executive director—may be one of the main reasons why depositors still can’t get their money back.

FBK, being directly entangled in this story, has not withdrawn the testimony of its executive director, nor issued a public statement that he could not give evidence on behalf of the foundation. Nor has it condemned the participation of its treasurer and sponsor in the theft of funds from the bank.

Instead, they published what they published and behave as they do.

Draw your own conclusions.