I’m dismayed by speakers discussing the FBK and PBB story

I’ll try to explain why I’m deeply dismayed by many statements from public speakers I respect about the story involving FBK and the shareholders of PBB.

First, Leontyev and Zheleznyak are real criminals, and their actions have concrete victims. FBK’s actions have caused, and continue to cause, real harm to people. When we discuss FBK’s conduct, this is not about political disagreements; it’s about an attempt to justify or hush up a crime — which remains a crime regardless of one’s political views. It doesn’t matter what values the organization claims to uphold, what political program it has, or whom it befriends or fights against. This simply must not happen; it’s a more fundamental level of ethical values than any political differences.

Second, this is not a mistake, but deliberate and targeted actions to shield thieves. Mistakes, even bad-faith ones, happen to everyone; that can be understood and forgiven. The refusal to correct them cannot — and tolerance for that should be much lower. FBK had enough information to fix the situation back in the spring, when they received Zayakin’s materials and when discussions began about Zheleznyak’s role in FBK and the stories of Probusinessbank’s clients. In six months, they didn’t even try to do it.

Third, we’re talking about actions that were not only harmful in the past, but are still causing harm right now. Stopping them is very important. The problem is not only unresolved — it is getting deeper. FBK’s text and video that whitewash the bankers, built on Leontyev’s defense documents; Navalnaya’s thanks to Zheleznyak in her interview with Dozhd; and attempts to “turn the page” — all of this is happening right now, before our eyes.

Fourth, tolerance for such cases is precisely what brings them about in the first place. The problem lies primarily with those who help cover for crooks — in institutions like political organizations and a number of media outlets willing to participate in laundering the reputation of those who stole other people’s money. As long as such accomplices exist, new Zheleznyaks will keep appearing; the flow is inexhaustible, there will always be people inclined to crime and risk. The accomplices exist because such behavior by politicians and media has long been tolerated by society and public speakers. The fact that attitudes are finally starting to change now — and that justifying cheating is becoming a major factor affecting the reputation of people and organizations involved — is very good. But there needs to be more of this.

Taken together, points 1–4 mean the discussion has long gone beyond simple “political squabbles,” where one could justify supporting FBK by friendships in certain circles or political preferences. If our goal is not a “Mad Max” world with various semi-gang political groups and tame fugitive bankers embedded within them, fighting each other, then the approach to public discourse needs to change radically.